The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

Just out of boredom one day I went back and read some of those debates from back in the day. I don’t think my debate style on gun control has really changed that much, though. What gets their panties in a knot is that I’ve smacked some of them around in other threads and they bring their residual butthurt to the gun control threads like I’m going to feel bad or something.
Yeah, I remember Slowmutant, Sand, and a few others. The new crop of gun haters is no better.

DW_a_mom wrote:

I don’t think I’ve ever pressed someone to join the NRA although I’m a member. I have given out gun safety pamphlets and a few NRA provided gun locks to those who’ve asked me for them and I’m also an NRA certified Range Safety Officer.
The NRA has effectively done more to prevent firearm related death and injury than any gun control advocacy group could ever hope to.


I didn’t say everyone doesn’t read before they reply.


This is one of those hot topics that really doesn’t have a middle. To me middle sounds a lot like compromise and historically the pro-gun side of the world has made more concessions forced on it in the form of laws than the other side. It’s been to no actual avail except for…………more concessions.


I don’t think I’ve started one on this topic, either, but I don’t see the relevance. Starting threads is not necessarily a bad thing.


Licensing: Bad idea and I’ll tell you why. Constitutionality aside, it creates a tool for unlimited abuse.
Once you go on record as a gun owner there’s no telling what all that could be used for in the future.
1. Invasive police scrutiny for those on the spectrum or have other issues that are the flavor of the month for scrutiny and suspicion.
2. Confiscation (even temporary) occasioned by any kind of dispute.
3. Denial of insurance.
4. Denial of in-home healthcare.
5. Denial of child custody.
I could go on…………

Education: This is something I strongly support. I think it should be a standard part of K-12 curriculum, advancing in comprehensiveness with each year of education. This way you pretty much net everyone in regards to safety training and it is "blanket" training for all without infringement.

Laws and control: We have that and have had it for generations. For the most part it is ineffective and tends to hinder or disable the law abiding more than anything.

It’s also important tor remember that the right to bear arms is a right while driving, for example, is a licensed privilege.

It's not corruption - it's people believing just as you do - that they need to limit the number of guns "out there". I won't support a permit process unless and until it provides that anyone who is not a convicted felon or someone convicted to be mentally deficient can own a gun. Period.

[/quote]

The DMV doesn't track who owns the car, they track who the car is *registered* to. The difference is subtle, but important. The title is the actual ownership, the registration just allows the car to operate on public roads. In theory, you can own a car and only drive it on your property and not have to get it registered. People here get their drivers' license at 16, but you can't be the legal owner of a car (or anything else, for that matter) until you're 18 - so the car belongs to the person's parents. When they turn 18 - the parent can gift the car to the child, so they are the owners of the car - and at that point they contact the DMV to update the registration - they have 30-90 days to do this depending on the state. That doesn't mean they aren't the owner until they update the registration.

Similarly, I know of many gun owners who got their first guns when they were 12-13. They didn't own them, their parents' did. They took them out with their parents to the range, or to hunt, and then they got locked back up in the gun safe when they got home. However, when they turned 18 and moved out of the house, those guns went with them. There's no specific "transfer of ownership" because the ownership never really changed in the minds of the people involved. I see no reason whatsoever to change this practice. Trying to keep track of every gun, all the time, is a waste of effort. It's easy enough to track any specific gun from manufacturer to gun dealer, to buyer - if the person says "I bought that for my son, he's moved out now, but here's where he lives" - it's easy enough to piece that together. That's what detectives are for.



The difference is you don't have the *right* to work for the government. You don't have the right to work at all. However, Americans have the *right* to own guns. That means that our right to bear arms is among the same fundamental rights as the right to freedom of speech/religion, the right to vote, the right to due process, the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It's true that rights aren't absolute - but the point at which rights stop is where my rights interfere with your rights (ie yelling fire in a crowded theater, thereby inciting panic and injuring people). We call those crimes - and until you're convicted of one, you're free to exercise *all* of your rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.




I'm assuming you're talking about the Secret Service, assigned to protect the President, Vice President, Heads of State, etc. Some of them do. The ones who don't are attempting to blend in with the crowd (and usually doing a piss poor job of it). In any case, regulations surrounding firearms carry by law enforcement are different than what we're talking about (carry by citizens) - so that's a separate discussion entirely.

That map shows the USA as not only a major trafficking country, but a major source country. I don't see the EU countries labeled as such. Maybe that's the difference. I also remember hearing something like the USA spends the most on illicit drugs. The amount of money at stake could be a factor.

I never questioned that gang-related violence existed in the EU. What I am interested in is wether gangs are as big or as common as they are here, or as commonly depicted in popular culture. I also seem to be under the assumption (and please correct me if I'm wrong as I admit I'm fairly ignorant of this subject) That many of the EU countries are not as ethically diverse as the USA. Racism between gangs could create greater violence. But again, I'm fairly ignorant of what life in the EU is like, having never been nor seen much info. This is all just speculation on what little I have seen and could be very skewed.

I think you mean ethnically.

I only bring it up because it completely changes the meaning of your sentence.

Oops! Typos that are the wrong word instead of not a word don't sure up in spellchecker. I'll need to remember that for future reference.

ok so they do it wrong way.
We are talking ideas here. You are opposed of an idea because someone betrayed it. It is like ignoring elections because politicians are greedy-guts. Sure they are. But only way to change this is by ballot. You change nothing by inaction or conserving status quo.



What's the point of this? WHY not to make it simple?



You hold to this 225 years old piece of paper like bigot holds to the Bible/Koran. Seen what it made in the world?
World changes. Language changes. It is not 1787 anymore.
Roman empire was quite a success back then. All that remained are some pages in history books. US was succesful too. But is falling down and can't provide basic security for own citizens because they want to hold to some old piece of yellow paper. Beyond my understanding




I do not care about legislation. They can write their own anytime. But still you will find out most of them don't carry openly. WHY?





good observation. Well it doesn't matter where the actual production takes place. The place where you sell is the most affected one. Both by un/satisfied customer's actions and the seller's (and his boss and boss of his boss etc) in order to save his profits and expand business.
Now, does it matter if it is billion and half in US vs billion in Europe? Not much. People kill for pack of gum nowadays, so it really doesn't make much difference IMHO.



No. I do not think so. It is less common here I think and hope. google some numbers if you want. But again, don't know if this matters. Because per capita violent crime deaths are the reason of all this gun discussions. So very simply said, common European kills less than common Yankee. And now the question WHY THE f**k comes in game.



True. Most diverse is UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany (my opinion). But again. Compare crime/violence stats from any of this country with US. Same story, people/criminals kill much less here...

PS: You say you are ignorant, but thinking

It's clear that we're just simply not going to see eye-to-eye on the issue. You would rather sacrifice the ability for law-abiding citizens to get guns to prevent supposed criminals from getting them. I will afford any law-abiding citizen the ability to buy a gun for whatever reason they want - and then if they commit a crime with it, they lose that right.

The fact is that the vast majority of criminals in the US don't buy guns legally - so you're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Cutting down on the total number of firearms may reduce the supply of illegal guns available for purchase, but the only way you do that through our legal system is by taking guns away from people who are eligible to posses them legally - which I won't support.

There are ways to improve the system as it exists, but they mainly center around consistency of existing checks, and improving education efforts, not creating new hoops people have to jump through.

Because they're trying not to be noticed - there is a tactical advantage to not being noticed by anyone trying to attack. The ones who openly carry *are* trying to be noticed - that's why you usually see the guys who carry concealed on the inside, and the guys who open carry on the outside.

Old bread gets moldy and needs to be thrown away. Old bread is generally worse than new bread. Old ideas are generally better, because stupid ideas are more likely to be thrown away, and they've survived awhile.

If you like new paper better than old paper, download the text of the constitution and print it out. Then you can admire your printout for being only 225 seconds old, instead of 225 years. Plus, it's not yellow, so it's automatically more correct than something on ugly yellow-colored paper.

Well I think we have a bigger problem with the Federal Government than Gun Dealerships, Fast & Furious ring any bells people.

Yeahhhh...the ATF needs to go away, let the FBI take over.

The ATF is utterly and completely incompetent. They haven't done one productive thing ever without a direct order from Congress. The ATF is charged with regulating 4 things: Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. And yet somehow they fail to do anything meaningful in any of those 4 categories.

Actually it was the Department of Justice that pulled Fast & Furious...

People may not say it much, but they do notice who is reasonable, who is logical, who is fairminded in a thread. They won't see (unless they've participated and/or lurked for a very long time) how patient you've been in the past. They will see if you overreact, even if you have something to react to.

It's not your first time debating it, but it probably is for someone, and if they see one side being obnoxious and the other side overreacting, they're likely to think "a pox on both their houses". If they see one side being obnoxious and the other side making calm, rational counterarguments, they'll notice that too.

I often find that the way a position is argued is a good proxy for how good that position really is.


That's not just true in the gun debate, it's true of any debate. A long time after a thread is dead, I won't remember any of the silly BS arguments, or who insulted who over what. I will remember any good points that were made.

No it wasn't - the ATF was running Fast & Furious - the DoJ oversees all law enforcement activity, so they at some level OK'd it - but it was always the ATF's stupidity.

Actually, it has been traced back to some people pretty high up in the DoJ, whom directed ATF to impliment Fast & Furious. It may even go all the way up to the oval office, originally I thought it stopped at Holder, but Obama exerting executive privledge leads one to wonder.

No - the ATF initiated the operation, that much is fact. There is some level of disagreement about who knew about the operation and allowed it to continue - which is where Holder comes into play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwal ... nd_Furious