Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Altrec]

You want a medal?

Because you have a hell of way to go to reach the level of civilized countries



Those are homicides rate, not just guns related, but all weapons or means to kill, all homicide. I'm sorry but you are way way too high compared to other rich countries (3 to 5 times higher than Germany, France, United Kingdom, basically everyone from G8 except Russia)

Again, it is not that the US has more crime than Europe, that's not true. It's just that crime in the US is a lot more lethal.

Maybe just maybe a big part of that is because we share a border with number one on the list? There is a lot of gang on gang violence in cities, and it seems more and more prevalent the closer you get to the border.

[Ghostpanther]

Keep in mind also there are law in place in the US that are unconstitutional, but no one comes around to repeal them. For example, in 7 states (Maryland, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), people who do not believe in God are ineligible to hold office. This is an infraction on the first amendment, freedom of religion.

That is a good point. Like there are some Gun Control laws in California and New York, if they were challenged and made it to SCOTUS to rule on, would be Unconstitutional also I think. Like in the case with D.C. recently.

[Vankrys]

That is a good point. Like there are some Gun Control laws in California and New York, if they were challenged and made it to SCOTUS to rule on, would be Unconstitutional also I think. Like in the case with D.C. recently.

For instance, explain this to me. Why is it ok in certain state to open carry, in other only conceal carry, and in other no carry at all. Why is it lawful, right and just, and become illegal, wrong and unjust if you cross a state line.

Why can't you have the same law regarding guns in all states. I understand states have powers, and thus implement different law, but for some area, it makes sense and other it doesn't. The economic realities of Alabama and California are totally different, so you may expect states to adapt. But i am not sure gun laws should be different from state to state.

[petej0]

Keep in mind also there are law in place in the US that are unconstitutional, but no one comes around to repeal them. For example, in 7 states (Maryland, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), people who do not believe in God are ineligible to hold office. This is an infraction on the 1st and 14th amendments, freedom of religion and basic rights.

While those provisions are on the books in those states they are not enforceable. The Supreme Court already ruled on that Torcaso v. Watkins 1961.

- - - Updated - - -

For instance, explain this to me. Why is it ok in certain state to open carry, in other only conceal carry, and in other no carry at all. Why is it lawful, right and just, and become illegal, wrong and unjust if you cross a state line.

Why can't you have the same law regarding guns in all states. I understand states have powers, and thus implement different law, but for some area, it makes sense and other it doesn't. The economic realities of Alabama and California are totally different, so you may expect states to adapt. But i am not sure gun laws should be different from state to state.

Because of States Rights. Some States deem it to be ok, while others dont.

[Vankrys]

Because of States Rights. Some States deem it to be ok, while others dont.

States do not have rights, they have powers. Sorry, i am being a bit of a smartass, i'm arguing semantics. But still, an important distinction.

10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The right to bear arms is established by the constitution, should then the government dictate its interpretation of the constitution to the states. In particular, what "well regulated" implies.

Beside, on a pure common sense view, wouldn't it be better to have uniform laws across states.

[petej0]

Beside, on a pure common sense view, wouldn't it be better to have uniform laws across states.

NO. Not all States have the same "Needs" or "Wants". Take a national speed limit for example. Some states are very rural and a 65mph max limit would be unreasonable, so Midwest states like Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming etc...would want a higher max limit like 80, 85mph for their interstates where NJ, CA would want a lower limit.

[AlphaOut]

And look at those stats when you remove the four biggest cities in the USA that contribute the most crime . Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans , DC

Ironically those states are on the higher spectrum of gun control laws.

[alturic]

Ill retract my statement when Trump retracts his statement on 'shithole countries'.

TBCH, they are shithole countries.

That said, the PEOPLE aren't shitty, it's the country by means of the piss poor government/conditions.

[Vankrys]

NO. Not all States have the same "Needs" or "Wants". Take a national speed limit for example. Some states are very rural and a 65mph max limit would be unreasonable, so Midwest states like Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming etc...would want a higher max limit like 80, 85mph for their interstates where NJ, CA would want a lower limit.

1. we're discussing guns here, not speed limit. I ask if a global set of law for all set wouldn't make more sense.
2. Why do the states even matter for speed limit, shouldn't that be dependent on the infrastructure, road quality, traffic, number of lanes, etc...
3. the constitution said nothing about speed limits, hence reserved to the states to set theirs. The constitution does say something about guns, hence delegated to the United States.

[AlphaOut]

I'm all for sensible gun control. But it has to make sense. We look at school shootings as an example without really identifying why it's so easy to shoot up a school. Schools and the safety standards are extremely reactive to situations. Now in Florida, for example, they are increasing safety in their schools through various areas of approach. Why hasn't this been a standard set in already? We need to be proactive to violence and safety, not reactive.

For me, I collect guns. I may not ever fire most of them, but it's a hobby. I've been around guns my entire life and have never seen any violence domestically involving a firearm. Most people havent.

The point of owning a firearm is each individual as the inherent right to defend themselves if needed. Some people aren't strong or well trained and couldn't overpower an intruder. It's good to have that safety net. The sight of a firearm is enough to deter most intruders. Depending on what control measures a government would take, you would be giving them and law enforcement the sole responsibility to protect you from any potential life threatening violent crime. Unfortunately, I don't trust any government enough for that type of responsibility. As much as I love our boys in blue, I also don't expect them to be at a house in 15 seconds to respond to an intruder.

[szechuan]

I'm all for sensible gun control. But it has to make sense.

Agreed, I'm all about Common Sense Gun Control Laws.

We look at school shootings as an example without really identifying why it's so easy to shoot up a school. Schools and the safety standards are extremely reactive to situations. Now in Florida, for example, they are increasing safety in their schools through various areas of approach. Why hasn't this been a standard set in already? We need to be proactive to violence and safety, not reactive.

For me, I collect guns. I may not ever fire most of them, but it's a hobby. I've been around guns my entire life and have never seen any violence domestically involving a firearm. Most people havent.

The point of owning a firearm is each individual as the inherent right to defend themselves if needed. Some people aren't strong or well trained and couldn't overpower an intruder. It's good to have that safety net. The sight of a firearm is enough to deter most intruders. Depending on what control measures a government would take, you would be giving them and law enforcement the sole responsibility to protect you from any potential life threatening violent crime. Unfortunately, I don't trust any government enough for that type of responsibility. As much as I love our boys in blue, I also don't expect them to be at a house in 15 seconds to respond to an intruder.

I'm curious do you think there should be more or less accessibility to Certain weapons and Firearms?

[petej0]

1. we're discussing guns here, not speed limit. I ask if a global set of law for all set wouldn't make more sense.

No, and I told you for the same reasons why states have different laws for things like speed limit

2. Why do the states even matter for speed limit, shouldn't that be dependent on the infrastructure, road quality, traffic, number of lanes, etc...

Even if it was, states have different traffic patterns and congestion which means it should be left to their control not some Federal Bureaucrat thousands of miles away.

3. the constitution said nothing about speed limits, hence reserved to the states to set theirs. The constitution does say something about guns, hence delegated to the United States.

The Constitution says we have freedom of speech and press yet we have laws against Libel and Slander. My point is, there is nothing to stop limits from being placed on some of our Rights. Plus there is the whole "regulated" portion. Plus if you want to go that route, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment saying we cant have any type of "arms" we want, yet we clearly stop at firearms.

Does it matter if every State had their own laws for carry? If youre a responsible firearm owner you know the laws in your State and States you travel to so its kinda moot.

[szechuan]

Does it matter if every State had their own laws for carry?

of course it does.

No, and I told you for the same reasons why states have different laws for things like speed limit

Gun Control laws are entirely different from Speed Limits due to how each state has different roads.

[petej0]

of course it does.

Why does it matter?

[szechuan]

Why does it matter?

Because a person can easily buy a gun in a less gun controlled state and bring it to a more gun controlled state. The police talk about it all the time.

[petej0]

Because a person can easily buy a gun in a less gun controlled state and bring it to a more gun controlled state. The police talk about it all the time.

I am not talking about purchases, I am talking about Conceal Carry vs Open Carry.

[Vankrys]

Ironically those states are on the higher spectrum of gun control laws.

are you familiar with non sequitur arguments? it means that the conclusion you draw is not inferred from the argument made.
In this case, you're saying

Big city have the highest humicides
Big city have strictest gun control rules
Therefore the more strict the gun laws are, the more homicides. Checkmate lefty liberal gun haters.

This is a fallacy. You have to demonstrate at least a reasonable mechanism by which to go from one set of arguments to the other. There are also plenty of counter example of large city with strict gun law and low homicides. Plus there is a tons of factors to take into account, socio-economic factor, population density, segregation etc...

At the end of the day, it really depends if you admit there is a violence problem in the US or won't admit it. It really depends on how seriously and scientifically you want to look at the problem, or start with the conclusion like guns aren't the problem and fabricate your reasoning to there.

[AlphaOut]

Agreed, I'm all about Common Sense Gun Control Laws.


I'm curious do you think there should be more or less accessibility to Certain weapons and Firearms?

My personal opinion is it should be looked at case by case. There are already certain firearms that require special licenses, state by state for some and federal for others. The accessibility at gun shows should be looked into. I feel a lot of them don't follow proper procedure, but that's just speculation on my part, simply from the transactions I've seen. The look of a firearm doesn't necessarily change the functionality of the weapon itself. Which is why we see the "assault" word thrown around a lot.

You can limit magazine size, but that really doesn't matter when a decently trained or practiced individual can change a magazine in under 3 seconds. And while it's a 3 second window, most people would still be shitting themselves during those 3 seconds if it were an active shooter.

The individual state laws are out of control in my opinion. While each state can govern themselves to an extent, there really just needs to be a federal standard across the board. I can bring my handgun to Cali but not Minnesota, for example. Simply because Kimber doesn't supply a manufacturer fired casing with their product.

[szechuan]

I am not talking about purchases, I am talking about Conceal Carry vs Open Carry.

Fair enough.

[petej0]

At the end of the day, it really depends if you admit there is a violence problem in the US or won't admit it. It really depends on how seriously and scientifically you want to look at the problem, or start with the conclusion like guns aren't the problem and fabricate your reasoning to there.

I will readily admit we have a violence problem. Not just from guns, but everything. When someone would rather punch you in the face then accept your apology for stepping on his shoes in a nightclub then you can draw no other conclusion then we are too violent.