New Gun thread, for Dox

Post Reply New Topic

Yes and iam sure your country is well on its way to dealing with this threat with more gun control yes it has worked so well. That's what we are here fighting against people like you who's only job it is to slowly but surely take away as many rights as possible.

My only job? Seriously... My country must be bereft of rights, awash with tyranny and absolutely overflowing with despotism.
Look at the picture, there are 1600 threats to your liberty in it... can you seem them all... No... ahh well better turn up the paranoia gauge.
[img][800:381]http://media.royalcaribbean.com.au/content/shared_assets/images/destinations/regions/hero/australia_01.jpg[/img]

Also as a symbol of my obvious leanings towards tyranny its 'whose'. With a suspicious mind like that, I can see why I should trust you with a gun.

Where did say anything like that in my post I just pointed out that ever so slowly but surely people like you want to take as many rights away as possible and how did you respond with idiocy. I don't expect people like you to see or understand real problems and solutions to them as you have so clearly pointed out with your guns are bad argument. Lets trade gun crime statistics for new crime statistics just as log as guns aren't a part of the statistics everything is fine yeah thats real progressive thinking there. Also without missing a beat because I didn't share you ignorant enthusiasm for more control over peoples way of life you would think it best that I have more of my rights taken away. Yeah people have no reason at all to be worried about people like you because you only have our best interests in mind just set back and let us make the decisions because obviously we are to dumb to know whats good for us

Show you crime rates, we have already been through that. So you would agree that if guns correlate to crime, then you would give up your firearms? I doubt it, since most of the participants in this discussion who are against gun control hold to their right to bear arms as for reasons other than the rates of homicide.

I find it silly when you talk about 'taking your rights away' when the only two things I've advocated for are assault weapons bans and a gun registry. I have already stated that I, personally own a firearm. But that's ok, feel free to frame the discussion as 'about people like you', 'your only job', that rhetoric is just silly and worthy of a bit of derision. Australia had a rational discussion about the place of firearms in our society and we made a decision to pursue increased restriction. The sky did not fall in and the tyranny so far has not destroyed our very way of life.

Using such absolutist terms is just not really a part of the gun debate because, everyone in the debate so far, regardless of their position on the subject understands that line has to be drawn somewhere. Nobody, so far, has been only advocating mounting .50 cals on the roofs of cars or expressing an inalienable right to give automatic weapons to children. As a result, the discussion is not between logical absolutes and therefor does not really invite 'us' and 'them'. distinctions. If however you want to charge in and separate me into the camp of tyranny expect me to have a laugh about it

Are you aware that there are no laws protecting individual privacy in government records? Meaning that, if a gun registry were enacted - the identities of every single gun owner in America, along with what guns they own, would be accessible to anyone with a FOIA request?



That's interesting, because earlier you said this:



And we have had that discussion, and the consensus is that the gun control measures that have been suggested wouldn't be tenable - which is why they failed.



If someone wants to mount a .50 cal on the roof of their car, and can do it while staying within DOT regulations, then I don't really have a problem with it (aside from wondering why the hell anyone would actually want to do that). Somebody mounted a couple of Walther PPKs to the undercarriage of an older Aston Martin because they wanted to have a James Bond car. To each his own.

[quote="redriverronin]That's what we are here fighting against people like you who's only job it is to slowly but surely take away as many rights as possible.[/quote]

Please do not use this sentence again. I don't think that there are very many people on this or any other thread who advocate taking away as many rights as possible. And please don't assume that anyone who favors any sort of firearms regulation is anti-gun ownership.

I am very much in favor of the right to safe gun ownership. I would support several different firearm regulations, including registry, mandatory safety training, and universal background checks with zero exceptions. That does not mean I want to take your gun away or that I am against the right to bear arms.

It makes good sense for women to support gun control.

[img][800:2351]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/5483/28i6.jpg[/img]

Oh boy, an infographic with no sources and no author. It's clear now that everything you say is completely right. How could I ever have been so stupid.

I suggest that you read 5 U.S.C. § 552a, otherwise known as the Privacy Act, 1974. This act prohibits precisely the type of disclosure that you posit.

I'm no great fan of gun registries. Our long-gun registry was an abject failure, but failure to protect individuals' privacy was not among its shortcomings, and US privacy law is equally--if not more--robust.

Notice that it cites MAIG, among other "sources". Also, that it uses that favorite anti-gun sleight of hand of using "gun deaths" as opposed to "deaths".

Sharp as a mackerel, that one.

Is there another qualified gunsmith with experience in firearms design on the forum?



Where does the Second Amendment mention killing? Last time I checked, it only enumerates the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't specify what you can and can't do with them.



The Heller decision put that theory to bed for good a few years back.


I quite agree.
V

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3311325

And that study included suicide attempts, where there is direct muzzle contact and shot placement is exact.



Are .22s coincidentally the most common firearm in Australia? Might that have more to do with the numbers than their ballistic power?

Gun control is only the next step to:

That isn't how the FOIA works. And even if it did, the request must be processed and a valid reason provided for the request in the first place.

When a FOIA request is generated and the information is collected, the information is then evaluated to determine whether or not you get the info (or even some of it). A gun registry would fall under personally identifying information, which in most cases is entirely exempt from the Act.

I am in favor of a gun registry, personally. I feel that some sense of accountability for firearms once they leave the factory/smith should exist. I am not enthused about a registry, but have seen no other proposals that would accomplish this. I just think that someone shouldn't be able to buy a few dozen weapons online, then drive to Chicago to hawk them on the corner for a tidy profit.

I can cut and paste infographics too:
[img][800:2900]http://truthaboutguns.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GunFactsInfographic1.jpg[/img]

Did that sway anyone?

It specifies what we are dealing with in terms of the weapon. If the item does not qualify as 'arms', then it is not covered by the constitution. You missed the more subtle point I was making. The case you mentioned does say "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:" so it is determined what you can and cannot do with them. Specifically in your case "For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."



The overall mortality rate of 61% is comparable to that of other series of civilian gunshot wounds including those in which more aggressive surgical management was undertaken.

Very tricky of you Dox, I have highlighted the section you left out.



Certainly someone might prefer a different weapon but the .22 is fully capable of killing someone.

The privacy act only comes into play for a federal registry, not a state-run registry. Given Mack and Printz v. United States, it seems to follow that, at the very least some of the gun registries would end up being state-run.