A constitutional amendment is the only path to regulating firearms. Period. Until the political and cultural atmosphere promotes that path, this is the world we live in. It will be dangerous and unpredictable in many ways. It will also be safer than pretty much any other time in human history. That is small comfort to hundreds of families this week, of course.
*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Compare cars sold per year to car deaths, and guns sold per year to gun deaths. You'll find the ratio staggering. Then look at the fact that 12 Billion bullets are manufactured every year, but there are fewer than 40 thousand deaths by bullet per year.
Shooting sports, including but not limited to hunting and target competitions, are a billion dollar a year business.
So to pretend that guns do not have a practical purpose is the same as pretending that football doesn't have a practical purpose. You may not accept that it's a valid sport and an enjoyable hobby for tens of millions of people, but that doesn't mean you have the right to take it away and say "Too bad for you!"
And before you pretend that football isn't comparable, go do a little research first. Here's a phrase you might find useful: Chronic traumatic encephalopathy. It's a sport that when played with care may still lead to injuries and deaths, just like shooting sports.
GasBandit
Staff member
All I know is 38,000 Americans died because of cars in 2015, and 4.4 million were injured, and it keeps happening and you don't care about it because of your pro-car agenda, and my emotional outrage coupled with huge numbers is apparently an unassailable wall that means you must agree to my policy demands or be branded a monster.
It's fun to be on the other side of fallacy.[DOUBLEPOST=1507046647,1507046571][/DOUBLEPOST]
Funnily enough, we already do live in a period safer than any other in human history. But that doesn't glue eyeballs to cable news networks or grind political axes.
That's what I was saying. I meant the present day.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, at least that is a consistent argument, I guess. But I don't agree with it, either
Ah, the "will be" threw me off.
The difference is cars are regulated. You need to pass a written exam, a driving exam, and you need to have your car pass inspection every few years.
I personally like how New Zealand handles guns. No divinity or sanctity associated with their Constitution. You must pass several rounds of interviews and inspections, including a home inspection to make sure you have proper storage. After all that and a background check, the police may deem you a "fit and proper person." To them, gun violence is a criminal problem that needs a practical solution. And they don't care what their founding statesmen would or would not have thought.
I personally like how New Zealand handles guns. No divinity or sanctity associated with their Constitution. You must pass several rounds of interviews and inspections, including a home inspection to make sure you have proper storage. After all that and a background check, the police may deem you a "fit and proper person." To them, gun violence is a criminal problem that needs a practical solution. And they don't care what their founding statesmen would or would not have thought.
People bring up cars, but the purpose of cars is to drive people around. The purpose of guns is to kill things.
It's like trying to compare the amount of people that die to allergic food allergies and those blown up by terrorists. I mean, really, since we won't ban peanuts, maybe we should just keep terrorists around, I mean they both kill people, so let's just live with it, right?
It's like trying to compare the amount of people that die to allergic food allergies and those blown up by terrorists. I mean, really, since we won't ban peanuts, maybe we should just keep terrorists around, I mean they both kill people, so let's just live with it, right?
GasBandit
Staff member
It's not accurate to say that guns are unregulated, despite my position on the issue. Though, I would be in favor of making gun safety training part of the mandatory high school curriculum.[DOUBLEPOST=1507048650,1507048562][/DOUBLEPOST]
I brought up cars because Null brought up Kinder Eggs as an example of a deadly product being banned. Those, too, have a purpose other than killing things. My argument was intentionally fallacious to illustrate the fallacy of his. I tried to make that as obvious as possible.
I do see your point, but I think Null's point is that we regulate (or ban) things used for general purpose or food that might have the possibility of hurting someone, more then we regulate something that is designed to literally maim or kill things.
Also believe me, I am not anti-gun. I believe a person has a right to own a firearm, but they should be tested, show competence, and be limited. There should never be a time a person is allowed to buy a literal armory of rifles, custom mods, and other goodies that can turn one man into a walking army, which we see very often, done legally, like the guy just this week. Owning a rifle because you like to hunt, or a pistol because you want to have some protection for your family, does not mean you need to own this motherfucker.
Only in the US are people deemed too incompetent to not let their kids be harmed by Kinder Eggs... (also, it's actually not true, you guys just have a law that bans food items from having non-food in it, because of some indocent long ago, or something like that, and someone decided Kinder Eggs qualify, but making fun of usaians is fun)
Too incompetent to have Kinder Eggs, plenty competent to own assault rifles. 'Murica.
I think it's somewhat interesting that the libertarians have been drawn into the argument that the government has any business knowing/regulating what you own at all. What you do with it to others? Sure. But pre-crime seems to be somewhat anti-libertarian. Thus getting you into the argument at all seems... off.
Wouldn't this argument work better if we weren't constantly changing the rules on car safety? We've made laws that require seat belts and air bags. Kids have to be placed in different car seats at different ages. We have seat belt stops and drunk driving check points. We have to take tests and get our drivers' licenses, not to mention declare every vehicle we own, frequently. We get those licenses taken away if we get caught braking those laws or become too elderly/unable to drive. We've changed car designs and materials to allow crumple zones and lessen any impact on passengers. Car manufactures are now making sensors that stop the car and alert us when we leave our lane before our own instincts can react. We've acknowledged that cars are part of our everyday lives, and enforcing changes to prevent lives from being lost.
But we haven't been doing that with guns. As others have pointed out with their articles, we don't enforce background checks and gun safety like we're supposed to. We let everyday citizens purchase military-grade weaponry, and depending on where you live, can carry it anywhere. I realize that there are parts of the US where a gun serves a practical purpose (as a hunter, as a farmer with animals attracting predators, in remote areas where there is no police presence), but there isn't a good reason why we shouldn't be regulating something that is solely designed to kill, even if we have found way to turn it into a hobby/entertainment.
I admit I'm not a fan of guns, but I'm not screaming to remove all guns, either. If we're going to be a nation with gun access, we really need to not only enforce the rules we've put forth, but reexamine where we are as far as population, technology, availability and update the laws, just like we do with cars.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, when you want a toddler to go somewhere, shouting from where you want them to be doesn't always work. Sometimes you have to walk to where they are, and slowly lead them by the hand. Especially when they're too emotional to listen or even see straight.
The thing is, (as I have said countless times) the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or home defense. It is about a well armed populace being necessary to the security of a free state. The former are just fringe benefits. And the latter means, yes, you should be able to own that particular motherfucker.[DOUBLEPOST=1507050355,1507050195][/DOUBLEPOST]
Actually, my car argument doesn't work at all, by design- because it wasn't really about cars, it was about using emotional extortion and big-sounding numbers to advance bad policy, and when confronted with facts or alternate viewpoints, simply reiterating the death toll and using it as a cane to browbeat the opposition.
The problem is that we are not living in the 18th century anymore. It worked back then when the government had the same shitty rifle you had. Now, unless we open the gates and just allow the general population to purchase flying death machines or armored battering rams or ships with giant artillery batteries, whether you have that motherfucker or not means little. The Nazi's rolled over entire countries because they didn't have close to the firepower the Germans had at the time, because it was no longer a 0 sum game between everyone on earth. At best, we would be looking at something like in the middle east, a dragged out guerilla war versus an extremely well equipped and trained powerhouse that would go on for decades and leave most of the country in rubble. That isn't even bringing up nukes, which could just wipe the board clean if the person in governmental power decides he is bitter about losing in the off chance those uprising even get close to succeeding.
Does your argument really consist solely of "By my perfect assessment the citizens can't win, so we should get rid of their right to try."
GasBandit
Staff member
A middle-east style quagmire is still quite a deterrent, wouldn't you think? For all our tanks and helicopters and massive military spending, we basically got chased out of Iraq because guerilla infantry with kalashnikovs and improvised explosives wore away at our national will and enabled the opposition party to make political hay from capitalizing on it. And nukes don't enter into it - nobody's going to nuke their own country (and attempting to do so would incite instant praetorian revolt), and nobody outside is going to nuke the US for fear of retaliation.
I've said it every time it's been brought up - yes, the 2nd amendment was about making it so that the citizen could be as well equipped as any regular footsoldier. To say that only applies to muskets is the same as saying the first amendment's freedom of the press only applies to the movable type printing press, and not radio, TV, or internet.
Well...I wonder (off-handedly) if it was not so much about letting the citizens be able to resist their own government as it was arming the citizens to resist an invasion from a hostile nation, since our burgeoning nation couldn't afford a large standing army. I open that can of worms with no intention of fishing with them.
I am saying that by the nature of the modern world, diplomacy and discussion have better outlooks then "give me all the guns just in case the big gubberment comes for me." If I could I would choose a peaceful solution every time over a violent one.
In the end, much like every other nation on the planet, if for whatever reason it does come to a total uprising as the worst case scenario, getting guns themselves is the least of the problems. We destroyed countless stores of weapons and ammunition for Isis, but they keep getting more, either stolen from other forces and sold to them by other nations. It's not likely, should Trump decide he wanted to become King Trump, that he would roll up on a nation with zero defense ability. It's just we shouldn't be handing them out like candy to those that just want them because they are cool or some shit.
Hell, I would be all for a Switzerland type of situation in which all citizens are trained and given a rifle for the protection of the nation. That still does not mean Billy Joe needs 40 assault rifles mixed with extended magazines.
My issue is that we don't do enough to make sure the right people have gun, not that gun shouldn't exist. It also does not mean I can't call out the general flaws of the 2nd Amendment, and it's purpose in a modern war situation.
We didn't get chased out of Iraq. We withdrew because we'd made an agreement with the Iraqi government to do so. Daesh has lost control of much of the territory it once controlled in Iraq, due to the efforts of the Iraqi national forces. Currently they only control Hawija, north of Baghdad, and around al-Qaim, near the Syrian border.
In fact, over the last two years, Daesh has lost 60% of the territory it once controlled in Syria and Iraq, compared to January 2015.
In fact, over the last two years, Daesh has lost 60% of the territory it once controlled in Syria and Iraq, compared to January 2015.
GasBandit
Staff member
Probably both in equal measures. The founders were very much leery of consolidated federal power, and at first didn't even want a standing army even IF they could afford it. But two things that the Brits did that particularly irked them was to outlaw private armaments and the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent. They were irked by these practices so much they're basically specifically barred by the second and third amendments - and the third definitely was aimed at our own government, not hostile nations.[DOUBLEPOST=1507052464,1507052323][/DOUBLEPOST]
Daesh only rose to power in the first place BECAUSE we pulled out. You've got a short memory.
A note about Switzerland: You are allowed to own a maximum of three firearms unless you can demonstrate legal need for more.
In order to acquire firearms in Switzerland:
In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (art. 8 WG/LArm). Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit. Foreigners with the following citizenship are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania.[note 2] The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:
- valid official identification or passport copy
- residence address
- criminal record copy not older than 3 months
- Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component
- Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component
- Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer;
- Type and number of official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component
- and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted.
When buying ammunition, you must provide all of the following:
- valid official identification or passport (and must be older than 18 and who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and must not be a citizen of the following countries (art. 12 WV/OArm): Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania)
- residence address
- criminal record copy not older than 3 months
- weapon acquisition permit not older than 2 years, or a weapon carrying permit not older than 5 years
You are allowed to have 50 rounds of ammunition per weapon at your home, and the cantonal authorities can check if they suspect you are stockpiling more.
All ammunition bought at a shooting range must be expended there. These sales are also tracked.
I would be very pleased if the US adopted Switzerland's gun regulations.
Also, I'd like to point out I'm getting tired of the whole "military-grade" thing:
Military-grade guns = bad
Military-grade ripstop/Cordura Nylon = good
Military-grade intelligence = laughingstock
Military-grade impact-resistant plastic housing = just say it's made of plastic already
--Patrick
Military-grade guns = bad
Military-grade ripstop/Cordura Nylon = good
Military-grade intelligence = laughingstock
Military-grade impact-resistant plastic housing = just say it's made of plastic already
--Patrick
Last edited:
Daesh was formed in 1999 and was part of the Iraqi insurgency from 2003-2011 as part of Al Qaeda. Once the organization of Al Qaeda broke down, the remnants reformed into Daesh. Yes, they did take over significant portions of Iraq after the US withdrawal in 2014, and have been losing ground since 2015 to Iraqi national forces as well as the Kurds.
But again, your statement was that the US forces were pushed out by the guerrillas, and what actually happened was that the US left, then the guerrillas took over some areas.
But again, your statement was that the US forces were pushed out by the guerrillas, and what actually happened was that the US left, then the guerrillas took over some areas.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Basically we're hitting all the same stops we have in the past, so I'm going to save myself some irritation and stress by just ending my participation here - the owner's in town for the next couple days, so I've got stuff I need to pay attention to and can't afford in depth, pages-long superposting right now.
I'll just end by saying that if our policy on guns needs to change, there's already a method in place to amend the constitution that has been used successfully 17 times (not counting the first 10). But I'm pretty confident that, as usual, once the pain and wailing and gnashing of teeth subsides, sober and dispassionate consideration will most likely mean the majority of Americans will still find themselves coming down on the right side of the argument, and the 2nd amendment will stand.
I'll just end by saying that if our policy on guns needs to change, there's already a method in place to amend the constitution that has been used successfully 17 times (not counting the first 10). But I'm pretty confident that, as usual, once the pain and wailing and gnashing of teeth subsides, sober and dispassionate consideration will most likely mean the majority of Americans will still find themselves coming down on the right side of the argument, and the 2nd amendment will stand.
Some of the alleged weapons from the shooting in Vegas. The bigger gun has the bump stock that was mentioned earlier and a coffin magazine. I was expecting a C-Magazine.
Jesus this really hit Jimmy Kimmel hard. I didn't realize Las Vegas was his hometown.
But on the upside, the stock values of gun manufacturers bumped up due to the mass shooting. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-maker-stocks-surge-after-mass-shooting-in-las-vegas-2017-10-02
As a non-American, this was pathetic to read. Sorry. No one needs that type of gun power.
While I'm commenting on this since it got my attention on how asinine it is...are you seriously basing opinions off some stat chart favoring the US? AND that stat chart has NETHERLANDS in the top 3?
Comon mate, take off the tinted glasses, who are you trying to convince here?
I like stats too.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime
*puts on glasses and waddles around and talks like Matt Foley*
You see here, the crime rate in the US is 8 times more than the Netherlands in 2014.
Violent gun crimes per 100 residents in the US is 23 times more than the Netherlands in 2014.
US smoked more weed too, how DESPICABLE.
I strong suggest if we're to fix this by completely IGNORING what is happening and have more massacres in the US of A cause y'all this is our rights! OUR 2ND AMENDMENT. FREE STATE.
BUY A CAR, GET A FREE M4!
Anyways...
The 2nd amendment is what... 200+ years old? Made in the time where people had a musket on their farms to protect themselves from being taxed from England and the consequences of their call of freedom. Not when you're able to own your own armory with enough firepower to shoot at 500+ random strangers from half a KM away from 32 stories up in the Mandalay bay. Not run into schools and massacre KIDS like Sandy Hook. Gun control is a must. Key word is CONTROL. American cherish their gun culture but what the fuck will it take? I'm sure nothing will change because the American political system broken as fuuuuck. Lobbyism will prevail. Your president is... lol.
Update that law to reflect the needs of the 21st century, see you next time another 50 of you are clipped off at some random event. Maybe in Houston?
Also, the metric system and healthcare are great. Thought I'd throw that in there.
GOP Congressman John Thune has a solution: Look for cover at outdoor events so that you know where to hide in case a shooting breaks out.
That's not a joke. That was his response. “I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions to protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said — get small.”
Oklahoma GOP Senator James Inhofe said "hold my beer" and pinned the responsibility for Sunday night’s massacre on sanctuary cities.
That's not a joke. That was his response. “I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions to protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said — get small.”
Oklahoma GOP Senator James Inhofe said "hold my beer" and pinned the responsibility for Sunday night’s massacre on sanctuary cities.