Time to discuss gun regulation in the US?

[Pengalor]

No wonder you need that howitzer for 'self defense'!

---------- Post added 2013-01-11 at 05:49 AM ----------



How do pharmacies 'enforce' prescriptions?

They very with the licensed doctor that it is real and then fill it? Amazing!

...You mean the system that is taken advantage of all the time? And that's not enforcement. What happens if someone doesn't show up for their check? How do people know when they need to get their check? What is the system to connect the doctors whoever is enforcing this system? There is a lot that would go into a system like this, it's not as simple as you seem to want to make it sound.

[PizzaSHARK]

I wonder if we can convince Kalyyn to try to mount a bayonet on a howitzer for a little 'close work'?

Accelerate to ramming speed!

Maybe we can get sporespore to actually get back to freaking work that way.

---------- Post added 2013-01-11 at 04:53 AM ----------

So PizzaShark is unreasonable?

Wait, someone actually thought otherwise?

[obdigore]

...You mean the system that is taken advantage of all the time? And that's not enforcement. What happens if someone doesn't show up for their check? How do people know when they need to get their check? What is the system to connect the doctors whoever is enforcing this system? There is a lot that would go into a system like this, it's not as simple as you seem to want to make it sound.

What are you talking about? You go see a mental health professional a couple times, they verify you are not clinically depressed and can separate reality from fantasy, then they give you an official form and record it in the firearms database that you are cleared, mentally, to purchase firearms for 10 years.

You bring that form in when you want to purchase a gun, and while doing the federal background check, they also verify that you are listed as having seen a mental health professional and 'on teh list' or whatever you want to call it to be ok with purchasing a firearm from that angle. Then they finish the background check, and then if you have done both you can pay for and take possession of your firearm.

[Pengalor]

You can be clear if you are more effective at communicating your meaning.



You did not substantiated your claims beyond "but I said so".


So you're not saying my arguments are weak, you're saying they are - what, ineffective at convincing irrational people in the public? What a load of meaningless drivel. I'm not making a public campaign here. This is a conversation between some people on the internet, my argument only has to be valid; bickering about it's ineffectiveness is completely retarded.


So PizzaShark is unreasonable?

I find it odd that you say I'm the one picking the fight when you are the one getting so offended and aggressive about it...

First, I didn't change anything. If you misunderstood me or I was unclear then show me where and I'll correct it but I haven't changed my mind at any point during this whole things.

Second, substantiate what claims? That unreasonable people are unreasonable to argue with? Does that really need to be substantiated?

Third, how is it 'drivel' exactly? You are presenting arguments, do you just do that for fun? Maybe I'm wrong but it would seem to me that when most people take part in these kinds of discussions they intend to convince others of their beliefs. Doesn't really make sense to come into a thread and spend all this time arguing with someone if all you really cared about was saying "This is what I believe" and going on your way. Besides, isn't that the whole point of discussion? To expand our minds and either gain new ideas and perspective or spread our perspective? Kind of nullifies the point if you are just there to do whatever and don't care what the end result is, but maybe that's just me.

Finally, no, I didn't say they were unreasonable but, to be fair, I don't know them. It would seem like they perhaps don't know enough about the debate if they didn't know about the gunshow loophole though. It's a major section of the issue and (in my opinion) missing things like that maybe indicates a lack of proper knowledge on the subject is all. Not really a judgement but perhaps it's something they discuss in passing.

[semaphore]

I find it odd that you say I'm the one picking the fight when you are the one getting so offended and aggressive about it...

Because you're the one who came in arguing such an asinine point (ineffective at convincing people? ugh, first day on these forums?) that I wasn't even sure what you're trying to say.

Third, how is it 'drivel' exactly? You are presenting arguments, do you just do that for fun?

Yes.

Finally, no, I didn't say they were unreasonable but, to be fair, I don't know them.

See, I do, and I was talking to him, which makes you complaining about me being ineffective very much just meaningless drivel.

[Pengalor]

What are you talking about? You go see a mental health professional a couple times, they verify you are not clinically depressed and can separate reality from fantasy, then they give you an official form and record it in the firearms database that you are cleared, mentally, to purchase firearms for 10 years.

You bring that form in when you want to purchase a gun, and while doing the federal background check, they also verify that you are listed as having seen a mental health professional and 'on teh list' or whatever you want to call it to be ok with purchasing a firearm from that angle. Then they finish the background check, and then if you have done both you can pay for and take possession of your firearm.

Then we'd need criteria for specialists. They would need to be criminal psychologists as your typical psychiatrist is not necessarily trained to detect things like sociopathy or criminal insanity. This also heavily limits the choices for people in the area and some areas may not have any at all. Then you have the issues of the forms and the database, after all, they have to be manned and maintained including mail clerks, IT people, managers and whatnot (it would likely be a section of an already existent department but still, that's more manpower required). Then there's the issue of faked forms, they'd need some way to verify the validity of it that can't be replicated easily, also a way to verify that it was actually signed by a licensed professional. And are there going to be 'check-ins' once they have their firearms? If so, how would that be handled?

---------- Post added 2013-01-11 at 03:11 AM ----------

Because you're the one who came in arguing such an asinine point (ineffective at convincing people? ugh, first day on these forums?) that I wasn't even sure what you're trying to say.


Yes.


See, I do, and I was talking to him, which makes you complaining about me being ineffective very much just meaningless drivel.

So you're allowed to present arguments for fun..but I can't come in to make an argument in an attempt to be helpful without you somehow victimizing yourself and making me out to be some hard-hearted assailant?

And no, it's not my first day on these forums. In fact, I try to talk some sense into these forums relatively often because there is a lot of stupidity here from many of the posters to even some of the moderators.

[Deleted]

Remove Guns/Stronger control laws = lower gun crimes.
It really is that simple.

If however to the people thinking they need them to protect there home in an burglary, which lets be honest dont actually happen to much and if it did that would be a problem with your police force. If you get 100 or more so robberys on your street (which is what people are making it sound like) enough to have the need to take it upon yourself to arm up..yes you need to sort your police service out and get patrols going, a visible cop means less crime.

But as we know this is not the case and they just like to have a gun lying around i have a great suggestion for ya. Bean fucking Bag shot gun.

• Packs a punch
• Hella noise to scare the shit outa said robber
• Non lethal (unless you choose to aim for a vital spot you crazy gun lovers you)
• Will not be able to cause a mass shooting
• Looks mean as fuck

There are probaly some more pros i can list, but lets face it the majority of people want a gun to protect their home and family (or so im told). This would be one ideal solution and to be frank its still excessive for a civi.

[Pengalor]

Remove Guns/Stronger control laws = lower gun crimes.
It really is that simple.

If however to the people thinking they need them to protect there home in an burglary, which lets be honest dont actually happen to much and if it did that would be a problem with your police force. If you get 100 or more so robberys on your street (which is what people are making it sound like) enough to have the need to take it upon yourself to arm up..yes you need to sort your police service out and get patrols going, a visible cop means less crime.

But as we know this is not the case and they just like to have a gun lying around i have a great suggestion for ya. Bean fucking Bag shot gun.

• Packs a punch
• Hella noise to scare the shit outa said robber
• Non lethal (unless you choose to aim for a vital spot you crazy gun lovers you)
• Will not be able to cause a mass shooting
• Looks mean as fuck

There are probaly some more pros i can list, but lets face it the majority of people want a gun to protect their home and family (or so im told). This would be one ideal solution and to be frank its still excessive for a civi.

You do realize that the 'bean bag shotgun' you're talking about is a type of round and not an actual 'gun', right? People could make their own shotgun shells if they still allowed said 'bean bag shotguns'.

[Deleted]

You do realize that the 'bean bag shotgun' you're talking about is a type of round and not an actual 'gun', right? People could make their own shotgun shells if they still allowed said 'bean bag shotguns'.

indeed they could, but it would be hella hard if guns/ammo were illegal. It would be like building a bomb you cant buy the materials easily because alot of the componets are strictly watched

[semaphore]

So you're allowed to present arguments for fun..but I can't come in to make an argument in an attempt to be helpful without you somehow victimizing yourself and making me out to be some hard-hearted assailant?

I didn't say you can't now, did I? I'm saying what you said is pretty useless. But you did not come across as helpful at all. In fact you were downright accusatory. I mentioned the gunshow loop whole a couple of times in different contexts, and suddenly it's "keep bringing it up" and "over and over again". You were basically attacking me because I'm not "changing anything". I don't know how you think you were "helpful" with your complaints when I'm talking to a friend.

Why do you keep bringing that up? I haven't met a single reasonable person who supports gun ownership who doesn't think the gunshow loophole is silly and unncessary. If you really think reasonable gun owners think people should be able to get ANY weapons without background checks then you have never talked to one.

So how it pointing out that they are unreasonable going to change anything? By bringing up the same point over and over again you are changing nothing really. The unreasonable will continue to deny it, the reasonable will continue to agree, nothing changes.

But this derail has gone on long enough.

[Pengalor]

I didn't say you can't now, did I? I'm saying what you said is pretty useless. But you did not come across as helpful at all. In fact you were downright accusatory. I mentioned the gunshow loop whole a couple of times in different contexts, and suddenly it's "keep bringing it up" and "over and over again". You were basically attacking me because I'm not "changing anything". I don't know how you think you were "helpful" with your complaints when I'm talking to a friend.




But this derail has gone on long enough.

Think what you like, I see at least three situations where at the very least you alluded to it but I don't see why you're taking so much offense over semantics.

---------- Post added 2013-01-11 at 03:25 AM ----------

indeed they could, but it would be hella hard if guns/ammo were illegal. It would be like building a bomb you cant buy the materials easily because alot of the componets are strictly watched

Well, the guns would already be there. Like I said, if you allow bean bag rounds then you need to allow the weapons that can use those rounds which are your typical 12 gauge shotgun. As for the ammo, that's where the criminal element takes over. People will want ammunition if they have guns, if they can't get it legally than I wouldn't be surprised if they went to illegal sources and it could become a very profitable market for organized crime (not to mention homemade ammo is muuuch harder to track than illegally sold guns).

[PizzaSHARK]

But this derail has gone on long enough.

That's a hell of a thing to say, coming out of you!

[semaphore]

That's a hell of a thing to say, coming out of you!

It's a 300 page train, I don't wanna be responsible when it derails

[Deleted]

Remove Guns/Stronger control laws = lower gun crimes.
It really is that simple.

It's not that simple. Compared to most of Europe, the US is already awash with guns. It will take years, if not decades for the guns that the criminals currently posses to get washed out of the system. And while waiting for the these guns to gradually disappear from the criminals, the civilian population will be defenseless.

The options available to you are completely different when your starting point is that of the US than when it's that of Sweden for example.

[GhostShaman]

You are aware that the tougher gun controls that people are working towards apply to assault rifles and such weapons which have no place in civil society.

Please give me a single valid reason to allow people to buy assault weapons over the counter without any form of control or checks.

Im fine with background checks. Im not fine with banning them completely. Especially as broad of a term used as assault rifles. Some Americans choose not to live off the hand outs of the government. I for one, do not want to have to call 911 and pray someone comes to help me. A good friend of mine was victim of a multiple assailant home invasion that left his son dead, even after his wife called 911.

---------- Post added 2013-01-11 at 12:55 PM ----------

It's not that simple. Compared to most of Europe, the US is already awash with guns. It will take years, if not decades for the guns that the criminals currently posses to get washed out of the system. And while waiting for the these guns to gradually disappear from the criminals, the civilian population will be defenseless.

The options available to you are completely different when your starting point is that of the US than when it's that of Sweden for example.

Also the fact that Europe as a whole has about a 1/4th the population of the US yet three times the violent crime rate. Taking their guns away was not the solution.

[Deleted]

Also the fact that Europe as a whole has about a 1/4th the population of the US yet three times the violent crime rate. Taking their guns away was not the solution.

Oh it's absolutely true that much of what is currently gun crime in the US will simply become violent crimes once the firearms start to disappear.

Gun control doesn't solve crime.

[Deleted]

Also the fact that Europe as a whole has about a 1/4th the population of the US yet three times the violent crime rate. Taking their guns away was not the solution.

Europe (as a whole) population: 739,165,030
USA population: 311,591,917

Not quite sure where you got the 1/4 figure from, as it appears to be the otherway around?

In a previous thread, people actually went to great lengths to compare the USA's homicide figures with Europe, including land mass and distribution of people. All pointed to the USA having up to four times the homicide rate of Europe. Homicide > violent crime incase you were wondering, as violent crime becomes homicide if the person effected dies.

[Deleted]

It's funny how (near) every time you ask someone who's pro-gun about the reason behind their views, they respond "well, it's in the constitution".
Which is, of course, faulty reasoning (such an argument can't stand on its own). Sad thing is, there really aren't any other arguments (that can be concidered more valid) than that; it's pretty much the only thing weighing in the favor of gun rights (it being tradition).

[Deleted]

It's not that simple. Compared to most of Europe, the US is already awash with guns. It will take years, if not decades for the guns that the criminals currently posses to get washed out of the system. And while waiting for the these guns to gradually disappear from the criminals, the civilian population will be defenseless.

The options available to you are completely different when your starting point is that of the US than when it's that of Sweden for example.

Ah I LOVE this argument. It would probably take decades to see a positive effect so let's just keep a clearly bad and outdated system.

NO you have to make the first step at one point. And even if the going gets a little tougher for a few years that is something you have to endure for the betterment of a society.

Racism, sexism or environmental pollution are still around today. Decades and centuries after people realized that those things were wrong. Should we just have accepted the status quo because change is hard and takes a long time?

Oh and on starting points. I guess we should accept sexism in India because compared to the western world they are decades behind. Tough luck.

[Wells]

It's not that simple. Compared to most of Europe, the US is already awash with guns. It will take years, if not decades for the guns that the criminals currently posses to get washed out of the system. And while waiting for the these guns to gradually disappear from the criminals, the civilian population will be defenseless.

The options available to you are completely different when your starting point is that of the US than when it's that of Sweden for example.

Actually we confiscate a lot of guns from criminals. If you dry up the supply they have available you can flush out their stock pretty quickly.

---------- Post added 2013-01-11 at 04:41 PM ----------

Oh it's absolutely true that much of what is currently gun crime in the US will simply become violent crimes once the firearms start to disappear.

Gun control doesn't solve crime.

I'd rather take my chances with a guy with a knife or a club than a guy with a gun.