Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TwoNineMarine]

I have yet to hear one bit of solid evidence or sound reasoning for those that want a mag size limit or a gun registry. Not once.

[Wells]

I have yet to hear one bit of solid evidence or sound reasoning for those that want a mag size limit or a gun registry. Not once.

A registry would make it far easier to see who owned a gun that was found at the scene of a crime.

[TwoNineMarine]

A registry would make it far easier to see who owned a gun that was found at the scene of a crime.

Maybe. But what right does anyone have to know what weapons I have? I haven't done anything wrong. Am I guilty until proven innocent now?

What weapons and ammo I have are my own personal business. Not anyone elses.

[Wells]

Maybe. But what right does anyone have to know what weapons I have? I haven't done anything wrong. Am I guilty until proven innocent now?

What weapons and ammo I have are my own personal business. Not anyone elses.

What right does a registry infringe on? Its not stopping you from getting a gun, its not controlling your property. If the data is kept secure its not even a serious infringement of your privacy. I think the ability to easily figure out who owns a gun when that gun is used in a crime is a sufficient gain to justify a database.

[TwoNineMarine]

What right does a registry infringe on? Its not stopping you from getting a gun, its not controlling your property. If the data is kept secure its not even a serious infringement of your privacy. I think the ability to easily figure out who owns a gun when that gun is used in a crime is a sufficient gain to justify a database.

And I disagree. The government has no right to know what weapons I have. They are the ones that would own this 'secure' database. I consider it a very serious infringement of my privacy. Just as I do the NSA spying on us.

And fact is that more times then not a gun used in a shooting is often stolen or not registered. So what purpose would this database serve then?

[Spectral]

What right does a registry infringe on? Its not stopping you from getting a gun, its not controlling your property. If the data is kept secure its not even a serious infringement of your privacy. I think the ability to easily figure out who owns a gun when that gun is used in a crime is a sufficient gain to justify a database.

Kind of hinges on how broad one believes a right to privacy should be. My general inclination is to prefer privacy to safety unless I'm pretty confident that there's a substantial safety gain without losing privacy. I acknowledge that this is not the prevailing public sentiment and is generally on shaky legal ground though. My personal preferences, unfortunately, are not a valid basis for law.

[Wells]

And I disagree. The government has no right to know what weapons I have. They are the ones that would own this 'secure' database. I consider it a very serious infringement of my privacy. Just as I do the NSA spying on us.

And fact is that more times then not a gun used in a shooting is often stolen or not registered. So what purpose would this database serve then?

The government does have a right to take reasonable action to protect civilians and seek out criminals. Being able to tie a serial number to a person is pretty reasonable, and hardly a violation of your rights.

And fact is that more times then not a gun used in a shooting is often stolen or not registered. So what purpose would this database serve then?

I've not seen any data to indicate that most guns used in a crime are illegally obtained.

- - - Updated - - -

Kind of hinges on how broad one believes a right to privacy should be. My general inclination is to prefer privacy to safety unless I'm pretty confident that there's a substantial safety gain without losing privacy. I acknowledge that this is not the prevailing public sentiment and is generally on shaky legal ground though. My personal preferences, unfortunately, are not a valid basis for law.

Generally? Absolutely. However this loss of privacy does not entail for instance, active surveillance. All it is is a name/number/whatever attached to a serial number. We have little to no problem giving private companies that kind of data all the time with little to no prospect of societal gain.

[TwoNineMarine]

The government does have a right to take reasonable action to protect civilians and seek out criminals. Being able to tie a serial number to a person is pretty reasonable, and hardly a violation of your rights.


I've not seen any data to indicate that most guns used in a crime are illegally obtained.

Well do the research and you will find that they are either stolen or not registered. And the government is not here to provide and protect us against internal threats. That is what is wrong with today's people. They think the government should give us everything, including safety. The only safety that the government should provide is that against foreign threats. And even then it is the people who provide the soldiers and supplies for that to happen.

The government does not have the right, EVER, to sacrifice my privacy for some sense of 'safety'. Let me repeat that: EVER.

[Spectral]

Generally? Absolutely. However this loss of privacy does not entail for instance, active surveillance. All it is is a name/number/whatever attached to a serial number. We have little to no problem giving private companies that kind of data all the time with little to no prospect of societal gain.

I'm fine with that proposal. I can't see a great reason to view gun registration as essentially different than car registration.

- - - Updated - - -

The government does not have the right, EVER, to sacrifice my privacy for some sense of 'safety'. Let me repeat that: EVER.

That's plainly false. If it were true, there'd be no such thing as search warrants.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Well do the research and you will find that they are even stolen or not registered. And the government is not here to provide and protect us against internal threats. That is what is wrong with today's people. They think the government should give us everything, including safety. The only that the government should provide is that against foreign threats. And even then it is the people who provide the soldiers and supplies for that to happen.

The government does not have the right, EVER, to sacrifice my privacy for some sense of 'safety'. Let me repeat that: EVER.

Except the PEOPLE can't always be relied on to protect themselves. Sometimes the people ARE the problem and that's when the government needs to step in. We can't just have NO GOVERNMENT whatsoever. That's foolish. Also, contrary to your belief the people aren't always sane individuals and will always find a way to protect themselves.

[Wells]

I'm fine with that proposal. I can't see a great reason to view gun registration as essentially different than car registration.

Agreed.

Well do the research and you will find that they are even stolen or not registered.

I feel no reason to do research to find out if your claims are valid or not.

And the government is not here to provide and protect us against internal threats. That is what is wrong with today's people. They think the government should give us everything, including safety. The only that the government should provide is that against foreign threats. And even then it is the people who provide the soldiers and supplies for that to happen.

You don't think its the government's job to enforce laws? A gun registry could certainly fall under necessary and proper to the execution of the government's duty.

The government does not have the right, EVER, to sacrifice my privacy for some sense of 'safety'. Let me repeat that: EVER.

All this tells me is you're not thinking through a single damn thing you're saying.

[Eroginous]

What right does a registry infringe on? Its not stopping you from getting a gun, its not controlling your property. If the data is kept secure its not even a serious infringement of your privacy. I think the ability to easily figure out who owns a gun when that gun is used in a crime is a sufficient gain to justify a database.

The fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) must be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. The amendment is the basis for the exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced into a criminal trial.[82] The amendment's interpretation has varied over time; its protections expanded under left-leaning courts such as that headed by Earl Warren and contracted under right-leaning courts such as that of William Rehnquist.[83]

[TwoNineMarine]

Except the PEOPLE can't always be relied on to protect themselves. Sometimes the people ARE the problem and that's when the government needs to step in. We can't just have NO GOVERNMENT whatsoever. That's foolish.

People used to rely on themselves to stay safe. People have gotten soft and refuse to do it. They expect the police to save them when 9/10 the police arrive too late to do anything. By the time they arrive that person is either dead, raped, or bleeding out on the floor. I will not allow that to happen to my family or myself. I do not rely on the police or the government for anything.

And in the perfect world a search warrant would be a good thing. Still doesn't actually protect anything.

And no we can't have no government. But we can limit it to wayyyy less then what it is now. It is so bloated and corrupt it's amazing that people don't see it. But again it goes back to our lazy give me give me culture that we have here.

[Wells]

The fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) must be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. The amendment is the basis for the exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced into a criminal trial.[82] The amendment's interpretation has varied over time; its protections expanded under left-leaning courts such as that headed by Earl Warren and contracted under right-leaning courts such as that of William Rehnquist.[83]

A registry isn't search or seizure.

[TwoNineMarine]

Agreed.


I feel no reason to do research to find out if your claims are valid or not.


You don't think its the government's job to enforce laws? A gun registry could certainly fall under necessary and proper to the execution of the government's duty.


All this tells me is you're not thinking through a single damn thing you're saying.

I know exactly what I'm saying. I've fought against some of the most terrible people in the world. I know what men are capable of. I know what corruption will do to a kind, gentle people. I've seen the suffering first hand.

The government is there to provide stability. Not safety, not handouts.

My safety is my problem. The police won't save me or my wife or my children if someone breaks in at 2am. I am responsible for that. And I take that responsibility very very seriously. Someone breaks in they will be on the floor by the time the cops arrive. I promise you that.

[Wells]

I know exactly what I'm saying. I've fought against some of the most terrible people in the world. I know what men are capable of. I know what corruption will do to a kind, gentle people. I've seen the suffering first hand.

The government is there to provide stability. Not safety, not handouts.

My safety is my problem. The police won't save me or my wife or my children if someone breaks in at 2am. I am responsible for that. And I take that responsibility very very seriously. Someone breaks in they will be on the floor by the time the cops arrive. I promise you that.

So you don't think its the government's job to track down people guilty of murder for instance?

[Spectral]

The government is there to provide stability. Not safety, not handouts.

I guess as long as we're quoting the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It seems to me that this hints more than a bit strongly at security and welfare being priorities for a government. More to the point, the past couple centuries of jurisprudence and policy making are pretty consistent with a governmental responsibility to provide basic safety and security services.

My safety is my problem. The police won't save me or my wife or my children if someone breaks in at 2am. I am responsible for that. And I take that responsibility very very seriously. Someone breaks in they will be on the floor by the time the cops arrive. I promise you that.

I'm not really clear how a serial number on a weapon prevents you from handling this.

[TwoNineMarine]

So you don't think its the government's job to track down people guilty of murder for instance?

Absolutely I do. But not at the expense of my privacy. That is the difference. My privacy chumps a miniscule chance of finding a bad guy based off a gun he stole from me.

Do you think that criminals will register their weapons? There are plenty of back doors and dark alleys where you can get a weapon if you so choose. A bad guy will not register or will simply steal a weapon to get the job done.

I don't often see a case where a murderer legally owned the weapon.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

People used to rely on themselves to stay safe. People have gotten soft and refuse to do it.

@_@ Oh please, that's not a good reason. People haven't gotten soft. People have gotten maybe at least more intelligent and act like savage beasts. So stop trying to act like the internet tough guy. It won't work here. We don't need to show off being tough with fighting off threats. Not everyone is able to protect themselves or willing to. That is not their fault. You can't force citizens to start holding a weapon or acting violent and what not.

They expect the police to save them when 9/10 the police arrive too late to do anything.

I can make up statistics to if you want to play that game. Well do you?

By the time they arrive that person is either dead, raped, or bleeding out on the floor. I will not allow that to happen to my family or myself. I do not rely on the police or the government for anything.

Because humans aren't perfect or omnipotent. They are not gods and you may not admit it but you rely on the government more then you admit. We need the government just as much as they need us.

And in the perfect world a search warrant would be a good thing. Still doesn't actually protect anything.

'
In a perfect world there wouldn't be a need for guns and or such and such. That's not here nor there. Search Warrants have their uses and it is necessary unless said warrant is used for no good reason and honestly that can be said for anything of good use.

And no we can't have no government. But we can limit it to wayyyy less then what it is now. It is so bloated and corrupt it's amazing that people don't see it. But again it goes back to our lazy give me give me culture that we have here.

The people in it are corrupt. The government is full of people like us. There is no AI in the government that just turns people into robots. Again you fall back to the lazy fallacy calling others lazy.


If anything is wrong here. It's you who are just saying "YOU ALL ARE LAZY RAWR!"

[Spectral]

Absolutely I do. But not at the expense of my privacy.

I'm not clear how police would accomplish anything at all if everyone's entitled to 100% privacy over all other priorities.