Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Tecumsehsbones]

Exactly, so we need to ask ourselves if unrestricted access to guns is a good idea not if we have an inalienable right to it.

Not completely useless. As I said, the concept of "rights" does represent deeply and widely and (as Colpy pointed out) long-standing consensus.

So, what basis shall we use? Utilitarianism? Individualism? Altruism?

I'm up for anything but squishy feels.

There is no difference between the 2 rifles shown except the way they look. Both come in the same caliber and both can come in semi automatic. Both are used for hunting.





At this point in time, no one in North America has unrestricted access to "guns".

Betcha Obama does.

 

[Corduroy]

At this point in time, no one in North America has unrestricted access to "guns".

The Magna Carta be damned.

Not completely useless. As I said, the concept of "rights" does represent deeply and widely and (as Colpy pointed out) long-standing consensus.

So, what basis shall we use? Utilitarianism? Individualism? Altruism?

Ah, let's just use good sense. This whole debate started with JLM saying gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey the law. That's just silly.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The Magna Carta be damned.



Ah, let's just use good sense. This whole debate started with JLM saying gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey the law. That's just silly.

Good sense? In a GUN DEBATE?

OK, gotta admit, it's a novel idea.

How 'bout this?

1. In order to own a gun, a person must have a license. In order to receive the license, a person must have:
a. A criminal and mental health background check and submit fingerprints.
b. Certified training in:
i. Weapons safety.
ii. Use of force.
iii. Demonstrated proficiency with a rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun.

2. Move toward a goal of no weapon that holds more than 10 rounds in a fixed, non-detachable magazine which must be reloaded one round at a time.
a. Offer an official trade of a qualifying rifle, shotgun, or pistol for a non-qualifying rifle, shotgun, or pistol.
b. Set a date certain after which all non-qualifying weapons will become illegal to own.
c. Impose stiff penalties for owning a non-qualifying weapon after the date certain (e.g., 5 years, no parole).
d. Impose draconian penalties for manufacturing or importing non-qualifying weapons, and for modifying qualifying weapons to non-qualifying.

3. Impose a mandatory 5 years, no parole, in addition to any other sentence, for committing a crime with a gun.

4. A licensed gun owner may carry her gun, concealed or unconcealed, in all public places (owners of private establishments may set their own rules).

Questions? Comments?

 

[gerryh]

Good sense? In a GUN DEBATE?

OK, gotta admit, it's a novel idea.

How 'bout this?

1. In order to own a gun, a person must have a license. In order to receive the license, a person must have:
a. A criminal and mental health background check and submit fingerprints.
b. Certified training in:
i. Weapons safety.
ii. Use of force.
iii. Demonstrated proficiency with a rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun.

2. Move toward a goal of no weapon that holds more than 10 rounds in a fixed, non-detachable magazine which must be reloaded one round at a time.
a. Offer an official trade of a qualifying rifle, shotgun, or pistol for a non-qualifying rifle, shotgun, or pistol.
b. Set a date certain after which all non-qualifying weapons will become illegal to own.
c. Impose stiff penalties for owning a non-qualifying weapon after the date certain (e.g., 5 years, no parole).
d. Impose draconian penalties for manufacturing or importing non-qualifying weapons, and for modifying qualifying weapons to non-qualifying.

3. Impose a mandatory 5 years, no parole, in addition to any other sentence, for committing a crime with a gun.

4. A licensed gun owner may carry her gun, concealed or unconcealed, in all public places (owners of private establishments may set their own rules).

Questions? Comments?

Which state does that already exist?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Which state does that already exist?

None. It's a compendium of the good ideas (in my opinion) I've heard from here and there.

I think it balances the need (if need it be) for the people to be armed, for hunting, defense, amusement, and a check on the government, and the need to make guns and the possession/use thereof as safe as possible.

 

[gerryh]

None. It's a compendium of the good ideas (in my opinion) I've heard from here and there.

I think it balances the need (if need it be) for the people to be armed, for hunting, defense, amusement, and a check on the government, and the need to make guns and the possession/use thereof as safe as possible.

I agree, it's close to what we have here. Aside from the hand guns. The only reason to carry here is if it is required for your job.

Hand guns are not allowed for hunting and only registered trappers can carry a hand gun in the bush.

 

[JLM]

Ah, let's just use good sense. This whole debate started with JLM saying gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey the law. That's just silly.

How do you figure silly? Give me an example of a single mass murder in the past 50 years that was committed by a law abiding citizen!

 

[talloola]

because criminals don't obey the gun laws is 'not' a reason to get rid of gun laws.

make it as hard as possible for anyone to get a gun, and it also makes it harder for
'them' to get guns, sure they will find a way, but if there were no gun laws, every tom
dick and harry would be packing, and u.s.a. here we come, is that what we want, nope.
I don't believe in the saying, 'if you can't beat em, join em.', no thanks, I will live
my way, not their way.

and if the list of legal gun owners is there for all the legal system to see, it makes tracking
guns easier.

it will never be perfect, never has been, never will be, there has always been criminals, bad
people, mean and violent people, that is the world we live in.

no one can completely protect anyone or anything, just have to do the best we can.

people make the decision to take drugs and or drink alchohol, then turn into some kind of
freak, steal and harm others, drive while high and or drunk, rob for money to get more
drugs and alchohol, can't work, no one wants these creeps, so on it goes, and that is only
the beginning, then there are the gangs, but thankfully they seem to mostly kill each other,
so keep that going, its helpful.

 

[JLM]

Of course there has to be gun laws and I've never said otherwise. The reason for them is so charges can be laid when infractions have been committed. But that is a far different thing than thinking gun laws are going to put an end to the violence, it simply won't. People have to be punished for murder but only an idiot would think for a minute that, that would end murder.

 

[spaminator]

'The gun didn't kill my boy. I did'; Dad blames himself after accident at shooting range
The Associated Press
First posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 11:16 AM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 11:35 AM EDT
SARASOTA, Fla. -- A Florida man who authorities say accidentally shot and killed his 14-year-old son at a shooting range is blaming himself -- not the gun -- for the death.
Clayton Brumby, 64, told the Tampa Bay Times a smoking hot shell casing went down the back of his shirt, causing him to flail both arms in the air Sunday afternoon at High Noon Guns, where the Sarasota family had gone for shooting practice. His finger was still on the trigger, which fired.
He heard his 24-year-old son yell, "Dad, Stephen's been shot."
The bullet from the .22-semi-automatic Ruger SR22 ricocheted off the ceiling and struck the teen in the jugular vein, Brumby told the newspaper.
"The gun didn't kill my boy," Brumby said. "I did."
Brumby said the gun belonged to his 12-year-old daughter.
Brumby said he has been shooting for about three years. Stephen took up shooting about 18 months ago and his father says he was "a natural" who would "shoot anything."
Brumby's version of events differed slightly from the one offered by the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office. Deputies based their account on what witnesses told them. According to the report, Brumby tried to remove the casing, which had bounced in the back of his shirt, with his right hand, which also held the weapon.
"While doing so, he inadvertently pointed the firearm directly behind him and accidently fired," the sheriff's report said.
Brumby said he preaches gun safety. "That's why yesterday was so stupid and freaky on me because the gun is supposed to be pointed down range at all times," he said Monday. "My first thought was 'That was pretty stupid of me. I should've put the gun down.'"
Sarasota County Sheriff's officials are calling the shooting accidental. As of Monday, no charges were planned.
'The gun didn't kill my boy. I did'; Dad blames himself after accident at shooti

 

[Corduroy]

Good sense? In a GUN DEBATE?

OK, gotta admit, it's a novel idea.

How 'bout this?

1. In order to own a gun, a person must have a license. In order to receive the license, a person must have:
a. A criminal and mental health background check and submit fingerprints.
b. Certified training in:
i. Weapons safety.
ii. Use of force.
iii. Demonstrated proficiency with a rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun.

2. Move toward a goal of no weapon that holds more than 10 rounds in a fixed, non-detachable magazine which must be reloaded one round at a time.
a. Offer an official trade of a qualifying rifle, shotgun, or pistol for a non-qualifying rifle, shotgun, or pistol.
b. Set a date certain after which all non-qualifying weapons will become illegal to own.
c. Impose stiff penalties for owning a non-qualifying weapon after the date certain (e.g., 5 years, no parole).
d. Impose draconian penalties for manufacturing or importing non-qualifying weapons, and for modifying qualifying weapons to non-qualifying.

3. Impose a mandatory 5 years, no parole, in addition to any other sentence, for committing a crime with a gun.

4. A licensed gun owner may carry her gun, concealed or unconcealed, in all public places (owners of private establishments may set their own rules).

Questions? Comments?

I can't say which specific policy would work. If we're talking about the United States, you likely couldn't just apply another country's gun laws to their situation. America's gun psychosis is unique. It hasn't even gotten to the point where politicians are willing to have a discussion about gun control. What would motivate American politicians to even consider it? Not daily mass shootings apparently. Maybe you all need Agenda 21 UN vans to drive around and round up NRA members. Maybe... campaign finance reform...

How do you figure silly?

I already explained that.

It's the perfect reason to not have any laws. You think that saying criminals don't obey the law is an excuse to not have gun laws, then that logic would apply to all laws. You can't make murder illegal because murderers don't obey the law and what if you have to kill a murderer to stop a murder? It's total nonsense. There are good arguments in support of gun rights. Figure them out and stop relying on complete illogical idiocy. No one would say that the point of the law is to stop 100% of all illegal activity. You know it. Everyone knows it. Why do you forget it when you talk about guns? Give your head a shake ffs.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I can't say which specific policy would work. If we're talking about the United States, you likely couldn't just apply another country's gun laws to their situation. America's gun psychosis is unique. It hasn't even gotten to the point where politicians are willing to have a discussion about gun control. What would motivate American politicians to even consider it? Not daily mass shootings apparently. Maybe you all need Agenda 21 UN vans to drive around and round up NRA members. Maybe... campaign finance reform...

You're skipping ahead (and getting snarky). So, two questions:

1. Are we done talking seriously?

2. If not, what do you think of the program? It's not another country's gun laws. All of the points I presented are either in force in one state or another, or have been proposed. Let's make sure we agree on the program before we start studying how to get it passed.

 

[Corduroy]

You're skipping ahead (and getting snarky). So, two questions:

1. Are we done talking seriously?

2. If not, what do you think of the program? It's not another country's gun laws. All of the points I presented are either in force in one state or another, or have been proposed. Let's make sure we agree on the program before we start studying how to get it passed.

The only thing I wasn't being serious about was the UN vans. Like I said, I can't speak on the specifics of gun policy, with details of types of guns and ammunition capacity or whatever. I just don't know.

 

[JLM]

This entire gun discussion is a moot subject. There is absolutely NOTHING that can be done to eliminate gun violence. You might reduce it by 1% by making guns harder to obtain, and I think penalties should be increased just on general principles as gun murderers will likely get into other mischief as well. Even if it was possible to get rid of gun violence, violence from other cause is only going to increase. There's a lot of bad bastards out there who aren't fussy about HOW they commit mayhem!

 

[Corduroy]

There is absolutely NOTHING that can be done to eliminate gun violence.

Eliminating gun violence isn't the point. This is exactly why saying "criminals don't obey the law" is silly.

 

[JLM]

Eliminating gun violence isn't the point. This is exactly why saying "criminals don't obey the law" is silly.

Apparently it IS with a whole bunch of people in the U.S.

 

[taxslave]

The Magna Carta be damned.



Ah, let's just use good sense. This whole debate started with JLM saying gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey the law. That's just silly.

No JLM is correct. You just ignore reality. Handguns have been restricted in Canada since the 1930's and automatics are prohibited but that does not stop criminals from obtaining and using them. Nearly every wek there is an incident in SUrrey with automatic handguns. That makes you either silly or ignorant of reality. Probably both.

 

[Corduroy]

No JLM is correct. You just ignore reality. Handguns have been restricted in Canada since the 1930's and automatics are prohibited but that does not stop criminals from obtaining and using them. Nearly every wek there is an incident in SUrrey with automatic handguns. That makes you either silly or ignorant of reality. Probably both.

or you completely missed the point.

 

[taxslave]

I agree, it's close to what we have here. Aside from the hand guns. The only reason to carry here is if it is required for your job.

Hand guns are not allowed for hunting and only registered trappers can carry a hand gun in the bush.

There are a few others permitted. Miners, foresters. Basically anyone that works alone in remote areas can get a carry permit but the rules are rigid.

or you completely missed the point.

Nope. I get the point. You don't like guns so you figure no one should have one.

 

[Corduroy]

Apparently it IS with a whole bunch of people in the U.S.

So your point about criminals not obeying the law would apply to those kinds of arguments. In arguments over gun control meant to reduce gun violence, that argument is nonsense. So if you want to get into the debate about eliminating all violence ever, then you can take your "criminals don't obey the law" and "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" to fantasy land and have at it.

Nope. I get the point. You don't like guns so you figure no one should have one.

That's not what I think, so you don't get the point.