The Gun Control THINK TANK thread

[Heather]

Arawn, I will assume then that you meant to say guns and not killing devices in your original post.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Sorry, I should have left off at killing. A hunting rifle is still designed to kill. But that still falls under the type of regulation, licensing, maintenance, accountability, and re-certification that I was talking about.

Slip of the “interweb” tongue, it happens.

We already have regulations on the purchase of a firearm. I personally question putting too many regulations against the free right to own one due to the people that choose to handle them illegally.

I think so far brien as brought about some good points as far as dealing with those who abuse the right to own a firearm.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Aside from the debate on banning facism or whether or not to proscribe facism, for those of you who are in support of less facist laws and how to lessen the damages caused by facism, what ideas could you put forth to aid in controlling facism so that that damage caused by it to the constitution is limited in scope? Think of this as a round table discussion or think tank where in which the question of facism has already been decided, and we are now just brain storming on how to go about it and how far (but not all the way to banning it).

Do you actually know what fascism is? It has nothing to do with gun laws... but any way: -

You do realise that under the Nazi state, the number of guns under control by the populous increased massively? It is a common semi-myth that pro-gun individuals come out that the Nazis banned guns. This is actually a rather distorted truth. Hitler did ban the general populous from owning guns, but actively allwed and encouraged millions of individuals to own fire arms. If you were a member of numerous Nazi organisations, even a childrens organisation - namely the Hitler Youth - were allowed to carry weapons.

So if anything one could argue that pro-gun individuals are actually near fascism.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

[quote=Heather;376397]Arawn, I will assume then that you meant to say guns and not killing devices in your original post.
QUOTE]

Heather not a language slip.
for me all weapons......... swords, purpose designed knives, crossbows, spears (not javalins) bombs, grenades, flails (hell who thrshes by hand in the west) all are killing devices :) Guns definately a killing device

even hunting kills something. And a good hunter should be happy he's within the law, those who tread the line of poaching might not be so willing though :)

[ZNFYRH]

Heather

The people I'm talking about punishing are the ones who abuse, or are negligent, in their ownership.

I'm asking because I'm truly curious: why do you think it is wrong for gun ownership to require regulations that are no more stringent than those for owning a car?

The other question to ask: why shouldn't there be incredibly harsh punishments for those who are irresponsible or abusive towards their weapon ownership?

[brien]

We know we can't control the people

Yes we can, and do, to different degrees, in society.

there are no stringent requirements on the most efficient, hand-held method of killing known to man

Yes there are.

For those citizens who truly want to own a firearm, strict regulations give them no pause

We already have them.

Apparently citizens aren't being responsible for one of their freedoms

I beg your pardon. It is the criminals that aren't being responsible. Don't lump us law abiding firearms owners into this category. I resent it.

Would you leave a $10,000 bill out on the deck of a boat?

Don't be silly. You can't impose fines that are unreasonable upon people who probably can't pay them. Your question was how do you lose a gun? I answered it with a simple example.

[ladyphoenix]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Do you actually know what fascism is? It has nothing to do with gun laws... but any way: - You do realise that under the Nazi state, the number of guns under control by the populous increased massively? It is a common semi-myth that pro-gun individuals come out that the Nazis banned guns. This is actually a rather distorted truth. Hitler did ban the general populous from owning guns, but actively allwed and encouraged millions of individuals to own fire arms. If you were a member of numerous Nazi organisations, even a childrens organisation - namely the Hitler Youth - were allowed to carry weapons. So if anything one could argue that pro-gun individuals are actually near fascism.

Right, and hitler was rounding up and trying to gas the "hitler youth" organization members? I think not. The question is did he disarm the people who he was actively trying to eradicate (since oppress is far to nice a word)...? The answer to that is yes, he did. And he used a law that required people to register their firearms to do it. Kind of makes me not want to get my permit, knowing I have to submit to having my fingerprints taken, among other things... Makes me very uneasy.

[Heather]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Heather The people I'm talking about punishing are the ones who abuse, or are negligent, in their ownership. I'm asking because I'm truly curious: why do you think it is wrong for gun ownership to require regulations that are no more stringent than those for owning a car?

It would really depend upon what types of regulations you propose putting on owning a firearm. In your example of fining those who lose a gun, I worry that there would be legitimate reasons for losing it, hence, punishing a law abiding citizen. And I cannot condone that.

The other question to ask: why shouldn't there be incredibly harsh punishments for those who are irresponsible or abusive towards their weapon ownership?

I answered this question somewhat above, in addition, I do think that for those who sell or purchase a firearm illegally they should be punished accordingly without question.

[Kamehameha34]

Do you actually know what fascism is? It has nothing to do with gun laws... but any way: - You do realise that under the Nazi state, the number of guns under control by the populous increased massively? It is a common semi-myth that pro-gun individuals come out that the Nazis banned guns. This is actually a rather distorted truth. Hitler did ban the general populous from owning guns, but actively allwed and encouraged millions of individuals to own fire arms. If you were a member of numerous Nazi organisations, even a childrens organisation - namely the Hitler Youth - were allowed to carry weapons.

Of course I know what it is.

Quote by: Dictionary.com 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

The point I was making is that we have a constitutionally limited government. If we give the government leave to remove those at will, we're one step closer to a facist regime.

So if anything one could argue that pro-gun individuals are actually near fascism.

That's laughable. You just described the anti-gun movement in that analogy.

They want to restrict them from the general populous, but encourage use among those friendly to the government.

[Osborn F Enready]

Heather said: Os, do you think that the illegal use of guns could or should be controlled better?

Yes, absolutely. I think illegal use of firearms should be punished more severly, especially if used for rights infringement.

I think gun education and safety should be a public school and private school course taught like any other course, and it would be inclusive with what I think is essential to education, which is fundamental understanding of the concept of rights, self-government and responsibility as a citizen of this nation for your actions at all times.

I think if this were applied starting immediately, over the next 10 years we would see a significant reduction in crime, a significant increase in CCW licenses, and a signicant increase in citizen respect for both the law, and others, requiring less police funding and an increase overall in the concept of neighborhood watch, while still retaining critical emergency services like 9-11.

ZNYFRH said: You slipped into the anti-gov't thing again.

Its impossible not to when discussing abridging rights of individuals in this nation.

ZNYFRH said: But the point you are making, beneath it all, is that if only law enforcement has the guns, then the criminals who want them will target law enforcement with violence or money.

Exactly. Do you recall the recent wholesale of russian weapons on the black market? I do.

ZNYFRH said: Putting aside the concerns we've already addressed about not trusting the armed authority figures, answer me this... If the criminals don't have guns, how are they going to steal them?

Because the laws won't make guns evaporate, it will make them more valuable in the black market. Guns out there now would become valued and sought after, and aquired through illegal means before and during confiscation. Already owned illegal arms in the hands of criminals will stay in the hands of criminals, and be passed down, maintained and new ones built to replace them, one part at a time, until black market production picks up.

Have you ever seen a black market gun producer? They are all over the mid-east, turkey, africa, asia, etc. and can be set up in any basement in the USA if the market was there, which it would be.

ZNYFRH said: It's great that an ex-Seal could breach military security, but we're not really talking about Special Forces, are we?

No, and you must have missed the part about TACTICS AND GEAR. I provided a link man. Red Cell used goods obtained at any hardware store in small town USA to do their dirty deeds, and embarassed national military installations. They flew a freakin plane over a submarine base waving a russian flag for Christs sakes, mocking the reactions of the military personnel and response teams!

They even have a video.... order it if you don't believe me.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn Because the laws won't make guns evaporate, it will make them more valuable in the black market.

That doesn't answer my question.

How can criminals, who don't have guns, steal them in the first place?

You are getting way off-topic right now.

What does what you are saying have to do with controlling guns getting into the hands of those who wish to use them illegally?

See if you can answer that without more anti-gov't rant.

Kame

Could you please drop the fascism stuff already? It's completely off-topic and was already reported once.

[5010]

Quote by: ZNFYRH How can criminals, who don't have guns, steal them in the first place?

Break in and take.

[ZNFYRH]

Okay...

How do criminals, without guns, break into a guarded military installation and take guns?

Do you see what I'm getting at, here?

[Kamehameha34]

Kame Could you please drop the fascism stuff already? It's completely off-topic and was already reported once.

If anything, I should take the lack of action on your apparently innocuous report as encouragement for my argument.

If you can't grasp it, don't address it. It's that simple.

[CoffeeSaint]

Here's my second idea on reducing the impact that guns have on our society: get all you people that want access to firearms increased instead of descreased to stop barging in and yelling that guns are great, it's only people that suck. Yeesh.

People do suck, and it is criminals that cause worse problems than legal gun owners. But you know what? Guns suck, too, and the guns make the effect the criminals have on society worse. It's a symbiotic relationship: criminals make guns worse, and guns make criminals worse, in terms of the effects both have on society.

Just as attempting to solve the problem without addressing criminals as a source of the problem is naive, so addressing criminals without talking about dealing with guns is equally naive.

What is the potential for non-lethal self defense, as a replacement for guns in the hands of law abiding citizens? Could that reduce the negative impact that firearms have on society?

[Kamehameha34]

What do criminals do?

They commit crime.

What do you do to people who commit crime?

You put them in prison.


The state has the right to imprison those who use firearms maliciously. They have no right to carry out this perverse "prevension" of crime, if it infringes upon the rights of the unwilling law abiding citizens.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Wow, lots of posts made and good points brought up.

Brien brought up a valid point i.e. that current gun laws are not prosecuted strongly and that that could go a long way towards curbing some of the abuses of guns. I think he also targeted Hollywood figures for the hypocracy they put forth about guns but yet romanticize their image. All quite valid and duly noted. But I don`t think that is the end all and still think other measures can still be introduced to lessen tragedies.

Fushigi on another thread brought up the issue of not having guns in the house. I think that in some degree is worth looking at.

I think that in general maturity comes with age (yes, I know there are mature 14 year olds and immature 34 year olds). Because of that I think gun regulation can go hand in hand with age e.g. some places may have a minimum age for gun ownership. I think that should be reinforced and would propose something like this:

• Persons purchasing,owning, or possessing bolt action rifles stored at gun armory/range facility must be at least 21 yrs of age [23 yrs of age for in home]
• Persons purchasing, owning, or possessing rifles with clips that may feed a semi automatic feature at gun armory/range facility must be at least 25 yrs of age [28 yrs of age at home]
• Persons purchasing, owning, possessing handguns at gun armory/range facility must be at least 28 yrs of age [32 yrs of age in home]

Perhaps shotguns could be added in there somewhere.

The time period between being able to have the right to possess it at home rather than at armory/range facility could be viewed as a probation period, where one must come a certain amount of times to take gun courses and the person would be able to check out the gun so that they could take it to the range of their choice or their private property. But upon check out they would have to have it secured back within the facililty by a certain time. Violations of time return could require either a fine or additional months tagged onto the time it takes to be able to move the gun from armory location to home.

*In addition, if one is well past the minimal ages suggested above. all persons would be required to maintain their gun at the armory for a minimum of one year for the classes and check out probation times.

[Sonart]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint My best idea is really just an attempt to bring a paradigm shift. If guns weren't cool, then it would greatly reduce the negative impact they have on our society....

Quote by: Heather I agree with your thoughts here. In addition, I think the "guns are cool" mentality could easily be stifled with proper parenting, guidance, and education.

There it is... Americans have been raised on the mythology of a gun culture that, while helpful in creating a nation out of a vast wilderness, became not only obsolete with the end of our national expansion but has made our contemporary society one of the most murderous and violent in the free, civilized world.

And the number one 'anti-coolness' message we can start delivering is that the NRA has been lying to us for generations... Americans do NOT have a Constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, but we just don't, not as the law stands today.

Individual gun ownership is a privilege, an extremely dangerous privilege, and the government has not only the right but the obligation to control access to firearms through registration, licensing, regulated sales and restrictions.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Individual gun ownership is a privilege, an extremely dangerous privilege, and the government has not only the right but the obligation to control access to firearms through registration, licensing, regulated sales and restrictions.

Right, and thats why some soldiers get to keep their firearms when they're discharged from the service, so Uncle Sammy can come kick their door in at his convenience.


Reality check.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: That doesn't answer my question. How can criminals, who don't have guns, steal them in the first place?

How do you think? They will study their targets and hit them when it is the prime time for lax security and minimal risk, and avoid contact with armed guards. They also could overwhelm supply convoys. They also could construct homemade bombs to blow their way in and outline the perimeter of their escape. They could dig a tunnel into the supply or manufacturing sites.

Shall I give any more suggestions that aren't outside common sense?

ZNYFRH said: You are getting way off-topic right now. What does what you are saying have to do with controlling guns getting into the hands of those who wish to use them illegally?

How can you determine a "wish"? You can't, and that should be blatantly obvious, almost as the nose on your face I am assuming of course you have a nose, is that ok?

The idea of prohibtion of "objects" is a failed one, and it alwasy will be if the law disregards the market for the object, and deals with it first.

What is the market for guns?

People concerned with property and individual rights.
People concerned with personal safety.
People concerned for loved ones safety.
Hunters.
Target Shooters
Sports Shooters
Security Personnel
National Militaries and Police
Criminals.

Why would you HARM DIRECTLY every person in that market, to only attempt to affect one part of that market, especially knowing the market you are trying to affect DOESN'T ABIDE OR RESPECT THE LAW?

Does this seem intelligent to you?

ZNYFRH said: See if you can answer that without more anti-gov't rant.

Hey Z, my kindness of your misrepresentation of me is wearing thin.

I am not anti-government, I am pro-limited government. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT, ok?

ZNYFRH said: How do criminals, without guns, break into a guarded military installation and take guns? Do you see what I'm getting at, here?

Yes, you are incredibly naive of self-defense and lethal force, and all aspects surrounding it.

You assume that without guns, criminals won't be able to obtain guns.

Have you ever heard of a cop being overtaken? Police car stolen? Miltary weapons being stolen? No? It must not ever have happened then, huh?

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: Individual gun ownership is a privilege, an extremely dangerous privilege, and the government has not only the right but the obligation to control access to firearms through registration, licensing, regulated sales and restrictions.

Prove it..... Oh, you can't. Thank you, next.