By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Gun control debate issues that bother me. Will Libertarians and Republicans please address these?

non-gravity said:
sc94597 said:
non-gravity said:
snyps said:

Name one prohibition of an object that worked and didnt finance organized crime.  You can't. Prohibition doesn't work.  Even if it's a prohibition on half the gun types it's still prohibition and it will finance criminals.

Mental disorders is the only issue that solves the problem and protects our right to defend liberty.

You have no idea how much is outlawed. 

How about carcinogenic products or those fluids that destroyed the ozone layer.

The difference is that those things aren't in demand and are replaceable. 

We can't prove they are or are not in demand if they're not being sold because they're outlawed. And anything is replacable. I'm sensing another petitio principii

Guns aren't replaceable unless by other guns. Drugs aren't replaceable unles by other drugs. If they were in demand then people would get them and use them anyway, which is the point of "prohibition" not working. They realize alternatives that function the same exist without harming the environment, and so choose those alternatives. 



Around the Network
non-gravity said:
sc94597 said:
non-gravity said:
snyps said:

Name one prohibition of an object that worked and didnt finance organized crime.  You can't. Prohibition doesn't work.  Even if it's a prohibition on half the gun types it's still prohibition and it will finance criminals.

Mental disorders is the only issue that solves the problem and protects our right to defend liberty.

You have no idea how much is outlawed. 

How about carcinogenic products or those fluids that destroyed the ozone layer.

The difference is that those things aren't in demand and are replaceable. 

We can't prove they are or are not in demand if they're not being sold because they're outlawed. And anything is replacable. I'm sensing another petitio principii

We CAN prove what is and isn't in demand, this is not petitio principii.  It's simple.  Anything that is in demand will be sold.. Need proof?  Greed. Simple as that.  People wanted alcohol in the 20's they paid the crime lords.  People today want cannabis indica, or illegal guns, the money ends up in Mexican cartels in Juarez.  If people can't find what they want in the store they'll find it on the playground.  That's a fact of American life.

So try again, 

Name one prohibition of an object that worked and didnt finance organized crime.  You can't. Prohibition doesn't work.



betacon said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.


 It’s redundant arguing what humans will do, humans have tendances to be evil they we never change but guns being so easy to obtain is a problem and makes those tendances easier to act on, much easier to stop some in a rampage with a knife then a gun. Now people might say guns people want guns they will get them use they will but people that do this mass shooting are normally your average joe and wouldn’t have connection to get these weapons illegally. It’s as easy in America to get an AK-47 as to get a knife licence in Australia, that doesn’t make you ask any questions? Banning all guns isn’t needed but banning semi automatic weapons is, what possible reason do you need a weapon designed for war. Quite frankly guns shouldn’t be allowed outside of the house, I’m quite sure you founder fathers would’ve approved of the right to bare arms if they knew these events would happen on a regular bases.

 

Any moron can make a highly effective bomb, how easy is it to stop someone with a bomb that has a dead-man switch on it?



JWeinCom said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.


In Israel they had a problem with soldiers commiting suicide via gunshot.  They changed military policy so that guns were not kept at home with the soldiers, but on base.  The rate of suicide via gunshot fell significantly.  The rate of suicide by strangulation rose slightly.  Overall suicide among soldiers fell significantly. 

Of course, the suicidal soldiers could have easily found other methods to off themselves, and some did.  But, the lack of easy access to guns brought down the suicide rate.  Putting an extra step between the thought and the action had a meaningful impact. 

Making it more difficult to get the gun adds several steps between thought and deed, adds more points at which suspicion can arise and the would be killer would be caught, and could conceivably alter the type of weapon that is used, possibly decreasing overall impact.


Are you implying that Israel realized they had a problem with suicide, they didn't do anything to address the underlying mental health problems, and the reason suicide rates fell was lack of access to guns?



HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.

Realistically, I don't think anyone is going to say all guns should be eliminated, especially with the current situation in the States. At most it's an exageration because it's not truly acheivable in any country, let alone one that has nearly as many guns as people.

The point most reasonable anti-gun people seem to make is that guns should have tighter regulations. The car argument came up earlier (cars kill lots of people everyday etc.), but firstly, a car has a different primary use but also has strict laws in place to prevent misuse. There are age limits, you have to take a written/theoretical as well as practical test before you can get a license to drive a vehicle and if you abuse that then you can have your license taken away. I don't see any reason why a similar thing can't be applied to guns.



Around the Network
Scoobes said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.

The point most reasonable anti-gun people seem to make is that guns should have tighter regulations. The car argument came up earlier (cars kill lots of people everyday etc.), but firstly, a car has a different primary use but also has strict laws in place to prevent misuse. There are age limits, you have to take a written/theoretical as well as practical test before you can get a license to drive a vehicle and if you abuse that then you can have your license taken away. I don't see any reason why a similar thing can't be applied to guns.

There are "similar things." Just like a kid can drive a care without a license in a private road, so can one purchase and own a gun without a "lincense" in their own home. In most states open-carry also doesn't require a permit. Concealed-carry on the otherhand usually has restrictions in all states. One restriction is a background check, while in my state you must be authorized by the county sheriff after taking a 10 hour course. In fact, it's much more rigorous to get a concealed-carry permit than getting a license. There are plenty of other laws as well. 



sc94597 said:
Scoobes said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.

The point most reasonable anti-gun people seem to make is that guns should have tighter regulations. The car argument came up earlier (cars kill lots of people everyday etc.), but firstly, a car has a different primary use but also has strict laws in place to prevent misuse. There are age limits, you have to take a written/theoretical as well as practical test before you can get a license to drive a vehicle and if you abuse that then you can have your license taken away. I don't see any reason why a similar thing can't be applied to guns.

There are "similar things." Just like a kid can drive a care without a license in a private road, so can one purchase and own a gun without a "lincense" in their own home. In most states open-carry also doesn't require a permit. Concealed-carry on the otherhand usually has restrictions in all states. One restriction is a background check, while in my state you must be authorized by the county sheriff after taking a 10 hour course. In fact, it's much more rigorous to get a concealed-carry permit than getting a license. There are plenty of other laws as well. 

I had a quick look through some of the US gun laws and in some states they don't look particularly stringent, especially when compared to driving a car (in the UK at least, not sure about drving laws in the US). It's not easy for someone outside the US to make sense of all the gun laws though as they seem to vary quite wildy between states.

Out of interest, which state are you in and what does the course you mentioned entail?



Scoobes said:
sc94597 said:
Scoobes said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.

The point most reasonable anti-gun people seem to make is that guns should have tighter regulations. The car argument came up earlier (cars kill lots of people everyday etc.), but firstly, a car has a different primary use but also has strict laws in place to prevent misuse. There are age limits, you have to take a written/theoretical as well as practical test before you can get a license to drive a vehicle and if you abuse that then you can have your license taken away. I don't see any reason why a similar thing can't be applied to guns.

There are "similar things." Just like a kid can drive a care without a license in a private road, so can one purchase and own a gun without a "lincense" in their own home. In most states open-carry also doesn't require a permit. Concealed-carry on the otherhand usually has restrictions in all states. One restriction is a background check, while in my state you must be authorized by the county sheriff after taking a 10 hour course. In fact, it's much more rigorous to get a concealed-carry permit than getting a license. There are plenty of other laws as well. 

I had a quick look through some of the US gun laws and in some states they don't look particularly stringent, especially when compared to driving a car (in the UK at least, not sure about drving laws in the US). It's not easy for someone outside the US to make sense of all the gun laws though as they seem to vary quite wildy between states.

Out of interest, which state are you in and what does the course you mentioned entail?

http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/concealed-carry

"The process for obtaining an LTCF in Pennsylvania is excellent due to the fact that the process is very thorough in making sure that permits are not granted to people that may be irresponsible or pose a danger to others (minors, convicted felons, domestic abusers, etc.) while making it very simple for trustworthy, law-abiding people to obtain one quickly and cheaply.

Pennsylvania LTCF's are available to both residents and non-residents and are valid for 5 years. For residents, the applications are handled by their county sheriff's office, with the exception of Philadelphia where they are handled by the Gun Permits & Tracking Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department. It should be noted that permits issued by one county must be honored by all counties including Philadelphia regardless of rumors to the contrary.

The actual application process itself is very simple and consists of acquiring an application, and a passport-sized photo, filling it out, paying the fee (which can vary from county to county) and submitting it. In some counties (such as Philadelphia) the application must be submitted in person and they may do a quick and basic interview. Once the application is received the entity responsible for handling it will do a background check on you and generally verify who you are. They may contact the references you have provided on the application although many times it will not be necessary. Pennsylvania is a "shall-issue" state in regards to LTCF's, meaning the entity processing your application is required to approve it unless they can prove you are disqualified based on the law. This is very important to prevent localities from simply denying people based on political, or prejudicial biases. Additionally by state law the application must be approved or denied in 45 days (although some offices will use "business days"). Again, this is done to prevent localities from claiming they issue permits, but never actually processing them for political or prejudicial reasons."

 

As for the course, it's not required in Pennsylvania, I was mistaken. However it is required in some other states. 

 

"Some states require concealed carry applicants to certify their proficiency with a firearm through some type of training or instruction. Certain training courses developed by the National Rifle Association that combine classroom and live-fire instruction typically meet most state training requirements. Some states recognize prior military or police service as meeting training requirements.[33]

Classroom instruction would typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, cleaning and maintenance of a firearm, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon. Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues.

Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. During range instruction, applicants would typically learn and demonstrate safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency.

CCW training courses are typically completed in a single day and are good for a set period, the exact duration varying by state. Some states require re-training, sometimes in a shorter, simpler format, for each renewal. An example of a training organization is the Midwest Carry Academy which specializes in practical shooting and defensive training.

A few states, e.g., South Carolina, recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Such states will ask for a military ID (South Carolina) for active persons or DD214 for honorably discharged persons. These few states will commonly request a copy of the applicant's BTR (Basic Training Record) proving an up-to-date pistol qualification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.[34]

Virginia recognizes eight specific training options to prove competency in handgun handling, ranging from DD214 for honorably discharged military veterans, to certification from law enforcement training, to firearms training conducted by a state or NRA certified firearms instructor including electronic, video, or on-line courses. While any one of the eight listed options will be considered adequate proof, individual circuit courts may recognize other training options.[33]

Not all states require training, or hands-on training. For example, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington[35] have no training/safety certification requirement. Mississippi has a basic permit that requires no training but greatly restricts where a firearm may be carried, and an enhanced permit as of July 1, 2011, that allows concealed carry in all but a very few places."



Just to add, I don't think Pennsylvania needs the course-requirements considering how 1/10 of the population has hunting licenses which is about the rate of how many background checks are done for gun owners. So a sizable portion of the gun owners are also hunters it seems. As for those who don't hunt, I'd think they'd learn from somebody who does.



Max King of the Wild said:
dahuman said:
Max King of the Wild said:
just read on yahoo news a parent of one of the survivors is suing for 100 mil.


suing who?



http://news.yahoo.com/claim-seeks-100-million-child-survivor-connecticut-school-003646074.html


that is just fucking retarded.