The situation in CT.
- Thread starter Loren Littlejohn
- Start date
My definition of free must be different than most. Because my definition of free is being able to do what I want as long as it doesn't fuck with the freedom of others.
That said this was still a dumb law created by dumb fuck idiots. Serves them right that this blew up in their face.
That said this was still a dumb law created by dumb fuck idiots. Serves them right that this blew up in their face.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
And my definition of free involves not living in fear of being shot or held up by gunpoint while going about my daily life. For the most part that's already the case but the older I get the harder it seems to be to pass any kind of sensible reforms dealing with restrictions like Egan outlined.
Unless you have a different definition of 'fuck[ing] with the freedom of others'?
Skinny Viking
¯\(°_o)/¯ How do Lydian?
You can live under whatever irrational fear you like. I'm not personally responsible for your desire to feel safe.
And it's still a dumb fucking law conceived by dumb fucking people.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
I'm the one who's irrationally fearful while you're the dude hoarding guns? Right. We have the most gun-related deaths per capita of any country on Earth; it's not irrational to be afraid of something that 35% of the population legally owns and god knows how many more illegally own them.
I'm not trying to be flippant or aggressive here but you really don't seem like you're trying to see any viewpoint but the Freedom(TM) one you're clinging to.
You assume a lot. To say that I hoard guns is pretty funny actually. None of the firearms I own will have to be registered under the law passed last year and I doubt I own as many any you think.
It would be a lot easier to see your viewpoint if you said exactly what you would like to see, how you would like to see it implemented and what purpose you think it will have.
I actually tend to agree with you on most things, I don't see the logic in your viewpoint on this though. I don't walk down the street afraid of being mugged or shot, and I don't carry around a gun.
It would be a lot easier to see your viewpoint if you said exactly what you would like to see, how you would like to see it implemented and what purpose you think it will have.
I actually tend to agree with you on most things, I don't see the logic in your viewpoint on this though. I don't walk down the street afraid of being mugged or shot, and I don't carry around a gun.
There're around 10'000 gun deaths pear year in the US while there are around 15 per year in the UK, if the UK had the same population it would be around 75 deaths pear year. USA would have around 133,3 times higher rate of gun deaths than UK, im pretty sure this would be a lot lower with stricter gun laws. And South Africa which is considered a very dangerous country, is just above US when it comes to gun related deaths :/
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
Whats the point in even having a handgun if you don't intend to shoot somebody?
I can see the point in having a rifle (hunting) but the sole purpose of a handgun is pretty much to blow a hole in somebody at close range - I'm not sure I see the point in having one of those unless you're that terrified of the prospect of other people with guns which lends credos to the gun control argument in the first place.
I can see the point in having a rifle (hunting) but the sole purpose of a handgun is pretty much to blow a hole in somebody at close range - I'm not sure I see the point in having one of those unless you're that terrified of the prospect of other people with guns which lends credos to the gun control argument in the first place.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
I pretty clearly stated in my first post that I agreed with what Egan had stated:
The hoarding comment was hyperbole, more or less mocking your "irrational fear" statement and the dumbed down definition of freedom you offered with that insightful picture.
This is my viewpoint: guns are dangerous tools and this country has an unhealthy obsession with them. We interpret the 2nd Amendment in a way that I don't think it was intended to be applied and don't take proper precautions to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who use them irresponsibly. I think that the evidence from other countries strongly suggests that there is a direct correlation between how freely available guns are and how much gun violence we have. I don't buy into the "responsible gun owners prevent gun crimes" argument, nor do I believe the notion that "bad guys are still going to get guns regardless of the legality." I think both of those are crappy arguments both applied to gun ownership and when extrapolated to talk about other issues.
My biggest concern is a total lack of continuity in the theory when applied to other areas of policy making. Most gun advocates are probably anti-social services, and the logic tends to be that "they're abused and taken advantage, so we should cut them." AKA a few bad apples necessitates the reformation or abolition of said program. This logic is NEVER applied to gun ownership, where more than a few bad apples exist and have resulted in the deaths of numerous innocent people, including children.
The hoarding comment was hyperbole, more or less mocking your "irrational fear" statement and the dumbed down definition of freedom you offered with that insightful picture.
This is my viewpoint: guns are dangerous tools and this country has an unhealthy obsession with them. We interpret the 2nd Amendment in a way that I don't think it was intended to be applied and don't take proper precautions to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who use them irresponsibly. I think that the evidence from other countries strongly suggests that there is a direct correlation between how freely available guns are and how much gun violence we have. I don't buy into the "responsible gun owners prevent gun crimes" argument, nor do I believe the notion that "bad guys are still going to get guns regardless of the legality." I think both of those are crappy arguments both applied to gun ownership and when extrapolated to talk about other issues.
My biggest concern is a total lack of continuity in the theory when applied to other areas of policy making. Most gun advocates are probably anti-social services, and the logic tends to be that "they're abused and taken advantage, so we should cut them." AKA a few bad apples necessitates the reformation or abolition of said program. This logic is NEVER applied to gun ownership, where more than a few bad apples exist and have resulted in the deaths of numerous innocent people, including children.
Yeah I'm not in the group that would support the abolishment of social programs. My employment is within one of those social programs. I support the crackdown on those that abuse the shit out of it because I feel that hurts those that really need it but that's it (and I support this because it has saved NYS million in the past going after those who have stolen from the system because they usually do so to the sum of thousands a year).
But back to the topic:
Ok so I think I sort of understand you. Lets stay on point though. You would like universal BRCs, a registry of all gun owners (I'm assuming a bit with this one as I'm guessing the registration of "assault guns" doesn't go far enough for you), and waiting periods. There are probably other things but lets go with this and I'll ask my original question again:
But let me phrase that into a better question: How do expect those things to be enforced and how will it cause a decrease in illegal gun ownership?
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Look, the "you can't tell me exactly how it would work down to the last detail and not have any failures or we're not doing it at all" mentality isn't going to fly here. How would it be enforced? The same way the current ones are enforced; ATF would spearhead and maybe create a new subdivision directed specifically towards firearms. Are there issues currently? Sure; let's at least hold them to the same efficiency standards as the private sector, though.
As for how it will cause a decrease in illegal gun ownership, the point is to make it harder to get guns period. Less guns in the country = less access points to get them illegally.
Think about it - do you really think widespread use of guns is going to make this a safer country? If everyone in Detroit had a gun, it would be a far worse place than it is now. If nobody had guns you'd see a decrease in total killings but probably not violent outbursts and attacks in general. Neither of those are possible or probable, so let's try to cut a middleground. We want the least amount of total guns, and we want to make sure that the guns that are there go to the most responsible people and the people who need it the most. How do we make sure of that? Background checks, gun registrations, stricter carry requirements, use your imagination.
I don't get why you're playing so hard and fast on this - why is it on those who want stricter gun control laws and restrictions enacted to prove why it would reduce guns and not on you to prove why more guns is going to make us safer? The evidence is pretty clear cut: look at gun-related deaths in Australia before and after the Port Arthur Massacre, and then look at the laws enacted in response to it and how widespread firearms were in the country before/after. Then look at something like Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc.
Australia reacted to a massacre with restrictive measures and as a result have less gun ownership and less gun violence. We react to massacres the complete opposite way and what do we get? More massacres, more frequently. We can't go a week without a mass shooting in this country. There was a website up for a while called www.LastMassShooting.com that kept track, and it never got over like 20. That's INSANE. I do not understand how anyone can look at data like these and not come to the conclusion that gun violence is directly linked to the amount of guns present. Are there extenuating circumstances? Sure - there always are. But that in no way, shape, or form means that we should abandon all hope of reducing firearm violence through legislation. It works, period. Show me another place where lax gun laws led to less shootings; I promise you that there are far more where tighter gun laws led to less, and I think we should be basing our legislation of proven methods and empirical data, not the whim and fancy of personal interpretations of a 200+ year old document written before something like a semi-automatic handgun was a thing.
As for how it will cause a decrease in illegal gun ownership, the point is to make it harder to get guns period. Less guns in the country = less access points to get them illegally.
Think about it - do you really think widespread use of guns is going to make this a safer country? If everyone in Detroit had a gun, it would be a far worse place than it is now. If nobody had guns you'd see a decrease in total killings but probably not violent outbursts and attacks in general. Neither of those are possible or probable, so let's try to cut a middleground. We want the least amount of total guns, and we want to make sure that the guns that are there go to the most responsible people and the people who need it the most. How do we make sure of that? Background checks, gun registrations, stricter carry requirements, use your imagination.
I don't get why you're playing so hard and fast on this - why is it on those who want stricter gun control laws and restrictions enacted to prove why it would reduce guns and not on you to prove why more guns is going to make us safer? The evidence is pretty clear cut: look at gun-related deaths in Australia before and after the Port Arthur Massacre, and then look at the laws enacted in response to it and how widespread firearms were in the country before/after. Then look at something like Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc.
Australia reacted to a massacre with restrictive measures and as a result have less gun ownership and less gun violence. We react to massacres the complete opposite way and what do we get? More massacres, more frequently. We can't go a week without a mass shooting in this country. There was a website up for a while called www.LastMassShooting.com that kept track, and it never got over like 20. That's INSANE. I do not understand how anyone can look at data like these and not come to the conclusion that gun violence is directly linked to the amount of guns present. Are there extenuating circumstances? Sure - there always are. But that in no way, shape, or form means that we should abandon all hope of reducing firearm violence through legislation. It works, period. Show me another place where lax gun laws led to less shootings; I promise you that there are far more where tighter gun laws led to less, and I think we should be basing our legislation of proven methods and empirical data, not the whim and fancy of personal interpretations of a 200+ year old document written before something like a semi-automatic handgun was a thing.
Well lets go back the OP. There are an estimated 100,000 people who don't agree with registration in CT. So what do we do in this case? They are all felons so...
Except they really aren't. We haven't really prosecuted anyone who lies on the fed ATF form. Gun crimes are plead down pretty regularly. I'm actually all for coming down harder on those who commit crimes with guns, but that doesn't seem to be what the gun control groups seem to be talking about.
Yeah I don't get this at all. I can go to Home Depot and build a single shot shotgun for less than $40. I can order a chunk of plastic and mill it into an AR15 receiver with a rotary tool for less than $60. I saw a guy on youtube mill out an 80% AR15 upper with a POS router.
I'm not willing to make that assumption because correlation does not imply causation. Gun ownership has gone up in the USA and crime has gone down. I don't think one has necessarily caused the other.
I'm fine with background checks if society wants to foot the bill. So far, at least in NY it has proven to be just another tax. If I buy a new gun the BRC is free. If I want one facilitated so I can sell one of mine, I'm subject to a $20-80 fee (depends on who does it). Kind of makes selling a rifle worth $100 that is $160 new a bit silly. Some lawmaker came up with the idea of letting people BRC buyers themselves, I thought it was a great idea but it was shot down.
"Need" is a slippery slope to me as there never seems to be a clear definition of what need is. It's just left up to interpretation. The reason NJ has a class action against the state started with an individual being denied a carry permit because his reason wasn't good enough. His reason being he stocked ATMs for a living, some in high crime areas and had several instances where people fallowed him back to his car. This apparently didn't justify the need.
I just can't see the desire for illegal firearms going down because there are more legal hoops for those who want to obtain them legally.
Looking at Columbine and Sandy Hook and wondering why that's the model of how we should deal with school shootings when Pearl High school, Parker Middle school and The Appalachian school of law, is a much better model for how we should handle a school shooting. Sadly all three of those examples are not possible in states with strict gun control laws. The first example would land that guy with a felony in NY.
Australia also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons. It's important to note, because I don't think the same scheme is financially viable in this country.
Last edited by a moderator:
People hunt with handguns guy. They hunt with AR15s as well. Most of the people carrying them around legally in America aren't doing so in hopes they get to shoot someone.
FrankTheSmith
Member
- Apr 20, 2013
- 494
- 9
- 18
I don't know about you guys, but I NEED my assault riffles to have a minimum of 200 rounds per clip for me to be satisfied.
Basically they're saying banning guns is stupid because you can't defend yourself from bad guys with uhm...guns.
"Columbine would not have been prevented by more gun control"
So if there weren't guns avaible they would have just magically appeared on those kids hands anyways.
"you can't stop insane people from doing insane things"
k
We all know bans are super effective. 1920 to 1933 was good times in America. If we ban weed surely there will be less people who get high and if we ban all guns then nobody will have them.
You are missing the point with Columbine. Eric and Dylan acquired their guns illegally so how would you go about making it more illegal? It was illegal for them to make the pipe bombs as well. Columbine also occurred while the Brady law was still in effect.
Every thing they did to prep for the massacre was illegal. They could not legally buy the guns they had, they could not legally build the bombs they had.
So no more gun control would not have done anything to stop that massacre.
Similar threads
