|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Feb 7, 2013 13:42:44 GMT -5
But those people likely aren't buying their guns from stores or manufactures. They'll have them anyway. Let's forget the whole "taking guns away from law abiding citizens" argument for the moment. How would heavily regulating firearms decrease gun violence when what you're regulating isn't even the primary means by which they're obtained by most people who use them to commit violent crimes? Less guns = less deaths. That's almost certain to happen. But how will there be less? Like you guys said, they're not "banning" anything. So people who really want them will still buy them. And bad people who really want them will still steal them and buy/trade them through the black market. You're just pushing something that's already underground, even further underground. It's not ceasing to exist. Plus, I do believe that there are states that are proposing potential confiscation. That means incriminating innocent people who'd never point a gun at anyone.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 7, 2013 16:21:56 GMT -5
considering the epic amounts of death american firearms commit daily in the mexican drug war, it's pretty clear something needs to be done in the american gun business/regulations surrounding it. You know how they got those guns? Search 'Fast and Furious'. The US government gave them those guns. It seems to be anti-gun people want to either take guns or ban guns. I don't see pro-gun people wanting to force everyone, even the anti-gun people, to own guns. Jesus Christ... We've made it quite clear that we don't want to take away or ban guns completely. We just want them to be regulated more, I don't see why that has to be such an issue. I do believe we've had some posts in this thread that had people saying to ban or take away guns. You're regulations are unnecessary. Drug testing everyone who wants to own a gun. I don't think you ever answered my question about how many times they have to be drug tested. So they are tested when they want a gun (they could just stop taking drugs around that time). Are they tested again every 6 months? Are they tested every time they want to go hunting or to the range? Which drugs are you testing for? Are you going to see if they are an abuser of prescription medication or alcoholic and ban them from owning a gun if they are? What if they've gotten a ticket for road rage? No gun then? What if they've been recently fired? No gun just to make sure they can't shoot up their old employer? You would make it very difficult for anyone to own a gun. You're never going to stop famine and disease completely, so why bother giving to charity right? I don't see the connection.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on Feb 7, 2013 22:30:28 GMT -5
But those people likely aren't buying their guns from stores or manufactures. They'll have them anyway. Let's forget the whole "taking guns away from law abiding citizens" argument for the moment. How would heavily regulating firearms decrease gun violence when what you're regulating isn't even the primary means by which they're obtained by most people who use them to commit violent crimes? Less guns = less deaths. That's almost certain to happen. Less guns wouldn't mean less deaths, sure gun related deaths will go down but crazy people will find another way to kill.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 7, 2013 22:53:12 GMT -5
Less guns = less deaths. That's almost certain to happen. Less guns wouldn't mean less deaths, sure gun related deaths will go down but crazy people will find another way to kill. the article i posted a few pages back pretty much puts it plainly that mental illness and gun violence have nowhere near the correlation the mass would believe there to be.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 7, 2013 22:55:30 GMT -5
Less guns wouldn't mean less deaths, sure gun related deaths will go down but crazy people will find another way to kill. the article i posted a few pages back pretty much puts it plainly that mental illness and gun violence have nowhere near the correlation the mass would believe there to be. If someone is willing to kill someone (and I don't mean in defense) then I'd say they are a little crazy. Whether or not they've gotten an actual diagnosis from a professional doesn't matter, they've got to be a little unhinged to want to murder.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 8, 2013 3:00:36 GMT -5
psychotic episodes occur in even the sanest in extreme moments of stress.
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Feb 8, 2013 12:47:18 GMT -5
Not to do too hard an abrupt turn here but I thought I'd post this and get some thoughts. My state, Minnesota, has a ton of gun-related legislation being introduced this session. Here's a link to all of them: www.kare11.com/dontmiss/1009573/387/Gun-bills-introduced-during-2013-LegislatureNow, the ones that I find most concerning are: HF 243: Large-capacity magazine crime established for the manufacture, transfer, or possession of ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to accept more than seven rounds or any conversion kit, part, or combination of parts; terms defined; and criminal penalties provided. Introduced by Hausman.So...no more than 7 rounds, huh? Guess you better get ready to start rounding up everyone who's got a Beretta 92, XDm, Glock.....the list is endless. And what about something like one of those old 9-shot .22 plinking revolvers? The whole gun would technically be against this new law. Magazine restrictions are among the stupidest of all the stupid gun laws, and that's saying something. HF 241: Assault weapons; crime established for manufacturing, transferring, or possessing assault weapons; existing assault weapon disposal or registration provided for; terms defined; data classified; language clarified; and penalties provided. Introduced by Hausman.Back to "assault weapons" again. No real definition of what an 'assault weapon' is. Probably yet another bill written by someone who has no concept of firearms or their operation. Black, polymer, and has a big mag? Better ban that sucker. After all if it looks like an M4 carbine, it must be a select-fire death machine that we simply cannot trust our citizens to own.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 8, 2013 14:51:15 GMT -5
Legislation they are introducing in California "Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time. Lawmakers also want to make some prohibitions apply to current gun owners, not just to people who buy weapons in the future. Like New York, California also would require background checks for buying ammunition and would add to the list of prohibited weapons." www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568322/calif-lawmakers-seek-toughest-gun-laws-in-nation/
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Feb 8, 2013 17:48:22 GMT -5
Legislation they are introducing in California "Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time. Lawmakers also want to make some prohibitions apply to current gun owners, not just to people who buy weapons in the future. Like New York, California also would require background checks for buying ammunition and would add to the list of prohibited weapons." www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568322/calif-lawmakers-seek-toughest-gun-laws-in-nation/Say goodbye to the ultimate assault weapon/killing machine then. The one every American lives in fear of. The one. The only. The .22 caliber Ruger 10/22.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Feb 8, 2013 18:45:25 GMT -5
At the rate these legislatures are going, they're going to create a Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by Suckasays on Feb 9, 2013 10:43:58 GMT -5
Have fun shooting one another up then. If this country is that stupid that they randomly start shooting each other up over a law they disagree with then I want no part of it.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 9, 2013 10:50:22 GMT -5
At the rate these legislatures are going, they're going to create a Civil War. If it ever came down to people having to give up there guns it may just come down to that. Most everyone I talk to at the Range and Gun Shops say they will refuse to give up their firearms no matter what. I don't know how much of that is all talk or not but it's a scarey thought of what could happen.
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Feb 9, 2013 11:22:18 GMT -5
Unfortunately I think a lot of that bluster is just that: bluster. It's nice to talk about how you're never giving them up, you'd die first, etc. etc. but in reality I'm sure most of those guys probably would hand them over if told to. I would hope not, but they probably would. Most guys have families, responsibilities, kids, whatever....and if the choice was 'hand over your gun or go directly to prison' I'm sure a lot of people would just hand them over.
Not saying I'm some sort of guerrilla badass who's going to shoot it out with the cops, but it makes you think. What would you do if they came for the guns?
It's got to be an all-or-nothing type scenario. If everyone refuses to give them up, what are they going to do, imprison tens of millions of Americans all at once? But if it's 80% give them up and 20% refuse, it's not going to work.
That said I don't think in any of our lifetimes this'll be something that happens. It'll be incremental erosion of gun rights starting with magazine restrictions, specific gun bans, higher taxes/fees, and tighter controls on where, how, and when you can own and shoot guns period.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 9, 2013 12:53:14 GMT -5
Thus far all that's been accomplished by Obama is that he actually helped put more guns and ammo in law abiding American citizens hands (yet again). So many people are buying guns right now, same with ammo. Everything is scarce and very hard to find. It's good to see so many new gun owners exercising their second amendment right.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 9, 2013 16:22:34 GMT -5
Thus far all that's been accomplished by Obama is that he actually helped put more guns and ammo in law abiding American citizens hands (yet again). So many people are buying guns right now, same with ammo. Everything is scarce and very hard to find. It's good to see so many new gun owners exercising their second amendment right. And into the hands of Mexican drug lords.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 9, 2013 16:37:01 GMT -5
Thus far all that's been accomplished by Obama is that he actually helped put more guns and ammo in law abiding American citizens hands (yet again). So many people are buying guns right now, same with ammo. Everything is scarce and very hard to find. It's good to see so many new gun owners exercising their second amendment right. And into the hands of Mexican drug lords. seriously. i highly suggest vice's documentary on the mexican drug cartels. it can easily be found on youtube and is a horrifying reality of the impact the american gun industry has had on the people of mexico.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 9, 2013 16:42:09 GMT -5
And into the hands of Mexican drug lords. seriously. i highly suggest vice's documentary on the mexican drug cartels. it can easily be found on youtube and is a horrifying reality of the impact the american gun industry has had on the people of mexico. Not to delve to far into it since it really can't be discussed here but if drugs were legalized in both countries then the gun and drug problem would severely decrease.
|
|
|
Post by Suckasays on Feb 9, 2013 18:29:36 GMT -5
seriously. i highly suggest vice's documentary on the mexican drug cartels. it can easily be found on youtube and is a horrifying reality of the impact the american gun industry has had on the people of mexico. Not to delve to far into it since it really can't be discussed here but if drugs were legalized in both countries then the gun and drug problem would severely decrease. Well...you think? Not to sound like a smart ass but if it's "legal" then it's not breaking any laws hence statistics etc would suggest that it isn't a "problem" on paper. It's a lot like those stats that say areas with gun control laws have more gun related crime than other areas. Of course that's going to be true when the simple act of owning a gun is a crime. And please note: I am not one of those guys who are out to get your guns. I could care less if you have guns. I could care less if they take them. I'm indifferent about it either way. If I were given a vote, I'd vote for some restrictions sure. I would not vote to have them taken away. And either way they went with it, I'd lose not one minute of sleep. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 9, 2013 18:33:48 GMT -5
Not to delve to far into it since it really can't be discussed here but if drugs were legalized in both countries then the gun and drug problem would severely decrease. Well...you think? Not to sound like a smart ass but if it's "legal" then it's not breaking any laws hence statistics etc would suggest that it isn't a "problem" on paper. I mean violence would go down and money would be saved from trying to fight it. If it was legal then you wouldn't have to worry about drug lords or gangs as much. Not saying they wouldn't be a problem but not as big of a problem as they are now.
|
|
|
Post by Suckasays on Feb 9, 2013 18:39:06 GMT -5
Well...you think? Not to sound like a smart ass but if it's "legal" then it's not breaking any laws hence statistics etc would suggest that it isn't a "problem" on paper. I mean violence would go down and money would be saved from trying to fight it. If it was legal then you wouldn't have to worry about drug lords or gangs as much. Not saying they wouldn't be a problem but not as big of a problem as they are now. Gotcha. Either way, it would be dumb to even suggest lifting drug restrictions. I graduated school in a small town. My graduating class was like 110...maybe less. I could name at least 10 of them that have OD'd and died since graduation 14 years ago. Ok...so the drugs were illegal. They still got them and died. Sure. But I also know a lot of people who had rounds with drug abuse who, after many brushes with law enforcement etc were able to kick the habit and turn their lives around. Had what they been doing been legal, there would have been no repercussions and there would have been little to no motivation for them to clean themselves up.
|
|