The US Politics |OT|

[vivster]

vivster said:

1. How is that illegal? Aren't there also voter registries and a registry of licensed drivers?

4. Some hobbies cost money, there is no reason why a dangerous hobby like playing with guns shouldn't be expensive and heavily regulated. The freedom of owning a cheap gun does not trump the freedom of not getting shot. Without trying to sound bigoted, poor people are the last people I would like to make it easier for to own guns.

6. Correct. the limit should be 2.

9. Depends on the crime. If it was a violent crime, not having the right to own a gun anymore seems like a good idea. Call it extra punishment for being an asshole.

10./11. It is fair to assume that if someone is willing to break the law by owning an illegal firearm, he's also willing to break the law otherwise. For example by using the gun inappropriately.

If I believe gun owners correctly, they will only use their firearms for sport, which makes it a hobby. There are no special protections for hobbies. Owning a weapon designed for mass killing isn't a right, it's a privilege and people should pay for that privilege like every other person for their hobbies. At this point fucking drones are more regulated than guns.

A colleague of mine is a fan of guns and he uses them for sport. I'm pretty sure here in Germany all of these policies are in effect and that is absolutely fine. Fans of guns will jump these hoops for their hobby and everyone else will feel a lot safer.

1. There are laws that prevent the government from registering guns to their owners.

4. Not all gun owners hunt though. Some keep it for protection and we can't assume that every gun owner can afford a mental health check up. If someone is poor they should be able ot own a gun if a rich person can. It's wrong to not want them to especially when you consider that poor people are more likely to live in dangerous neighborhoods and are more prone to danger.

8. There should be no limit.

9. Even if it was a violent crime the person served their time and should be able to go back to how life was before their crime. Laws and policies restricting former criminals access and rights to certain things don't help anyone. It just causes resentment among these people and could lead to them committing another crime. If we stopped treating former criminals like they're second class citizens we would be a much safer country.

10/11. Not in all cases.

1. These laws are obviously stupid and would need to be changed as well then.

4. If people fear for their lives if they don't own murder weapons, there is something really wrong in their country. And it's not that there are not enough guns. Giving everyone who's scared a gun is most certainly not a solution.

8. Why? I mean I would set it to 1 because who needs more than 1? But I bumped it up to 2 in case one of the guns is in the shop or otherwise not available.

9. I would like to err on the side of caution here. People who committed violent crimes should have no need for a gun. Just like 99.999% of the non-criminal population. I mean those people live in a country where innocents are murdered by state officials, not being able to own a gun seems like a negligible issue. Again, the right to own a gun does not trump the right to not get shot by a person who had a violent past.

10/11. Again I would like to err on the side of caution.

We're not talking about Kinder Eggs. We're talking about mass murder weapons. Can we please have strict regulations on things whose only purpose it is to hurt other people? Thank you.