User Tag List

First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 212

  1. #61
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Discussed this with a buddy of mine last night.

    Both of us realize that the arguments of most gun control freaks are idiotic.

    But we both agreed that the ability to buy an assault rifle is something that should require extra restrictions.

    We settled on two conditions: 1) one must have a gun license for at least 10 years (to prevent people who want to go buy one in order to imminently commit an assault); and 2) pass a psychological evaluation saying that you are mentally fit for owning such a weapon (i.e., extremely low probability of ever using it illegally).Admittedly, I don't know much about gun control laws, so I defer to Disco when it comes to what restrictions are already out there.
    I think this is a good start.
    People will crow at the top of their lungs that their rights are being impinged upon, but rights to do what? It seems the argument is that one should have almost unlimited rights to acquire firearms for some unspecified future purpose. But what future purpose is fulfilled by the purchase of two assault rifles, body armour, handguns and thousands of rounds of ammo? It’s irrational to conclude that it’s for pot-shotting gophers.
    There is a bar in North Seattle called Café Racer that I have gone to several times to see friends play music and to hang out. Last month someone walked in and killed four people with a handgun, then killed himself. The staff there said in interviews that he had been in before, but had a reputation for being disruptive and had been asked to leave on more than one occasion. His family also stated that he had a history of mental illness.
    I don’t know when he purchased that gun. I don’t know what kind of legal stricture could have identified him as at-risk for violent behavior. But the de facto result of his actions was the death of five people.
    At this point gun nuts throw their hands up and provide some bromide about personal responsibility or the sanctity of the constitution. I would argue that a constitutional right that is as open-ended as that stated in the 2nd amendment, requires equally strong sense of responsibility, and that seems lacking in America, and certainly at odds with modern technology, which the founding fathers, despite their remarkable foresight on many things, could not have anticipated.
    I don’t have concrete answers yet. Your post goes farther toward that than this one. But I know that people actually get hurt, their lives are destroyed or ended, and one of the answers is strict, careful regulation. It’s just gone too far.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    I think this is a good start.
    People will crow at the top of their lungs that their rights are being impinged upon, but rights to do what? It seems the argument is that one should have almost unlimited rights to acquire firearms for some unspecified future purpose. But what future purpose is fulfilled by the purchase of two assault rifles, body armour, handguns and thousands of rounds of ammo? It’s irrational to conclude that it’s for pot-shotting gophers.
    Defending themselves against the government. I'm not sure I completely buy that argument, but I can't dismiss it either.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #63
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Background checks that actually work.
    Background checks do work. Ask a felon who's tried to legally purchase a firearm from a reputable dealer.

    What we need is psychological screening. Say you have to pass a psych profile test in order to own a gun. If you want to own a semi-auto rifle you'll have to pass a more extensive psych exam.

    Limits on amount of ammo (does anyone really need 3000 rounds at one time?).
    You can only carry so much ammo at any one time. More importantly, its not like the amount of ammo someone owns makes them crazy.

    To be honest, with ammo prices the way they are, people tend to buy a lot when they see a good deal, and bulk discounts are great.

    Most importantly, once one has passed the psych tests mentioned above, there is no reason to assume they intend to do anything unlawful with the ammo.

    Bars are held responsible if they get someone drunk and then that person drives in that condition. Why shouldn't gun dealers be held to a similar standard of social responsibility?
    The relationships between a bar and it's patrons, and a gun maker and it's patrons are fundamentally different.

    Bars are held responsible because they provide a product that, by it very nature, limits the ability of those who consume it to be responsible. Armed with that knowledge, it's reasonable to expect bars to limit the intake of their patrons.

    There is no corresponding correlation between buying a gun and being able to act responsibly.

    A better analogy would be suing lighter manufacturers for arson. Yes, the product is inherently dangerous, but that does not absolve the arsonist of responsibility, nor does it convey responsibility onto the manufacturer.

    The lawyer inside me loves questions like that.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Really?

    I would think the different between a right to own a gun, and mandatory gun ownership would not be lost on you.
    It is not. If you look closely, you will see there is no confusion of the two in my post either. Its actualy point, of course, was to elaborate on Kalach's perspective, which, considering how often the right-to argument is senselessly employed, seemed interesting enough to argue from.

    Let us take it to another level: You are at the starting point. Everything else being as equal as is possible in this scenario, there are no (or very few) guns distributed among the American citizenry and there is no Second Amendment. You can now decide whether to implement a Second Amendment or a ban on privately-held weapons. What would you do?

  5. #65
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    But we both agreed that the ability to buy an assault rifle is something that should require extra restrictions.

    We settled on two conditions: 1) one must have a gun license for at least 10 years (to prevent people who want to go buy one in order to imminently commit an assault)
    The first gun I purchased when I turned 18 was a Bushmaster Patrolman carbine.



    There are no gun license requirements in Florida. 10 years is a long ass time.

    I'm down for greater regulations for owning a semi-auto rifle, but this would effectively ban anyone under that age of 28 from owning such a weapon.

  6. #66
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    It is not. If you look closely, you will see there is no confusion of the two in my post either. Its actualy point, of course, was to elaborate on Kalach's perspective, which, considering how often the right-to argument is senselessly employed, seemed interesting enough to argue from.

    Let us take it to another level: You are at the starting point. Everything else being as equal as is possible in this scenario, there are no (or very few) guns distributed among the American citizenry and there is no Second Amendment. You can now decide whether to implement a Second Amendment or a ban on privately-held weapons. What would you do?
    Not answer questions about hypothetical situations that don't currently exist.

  7. #67
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    @ disco, post #63

    The result of successfully using a gun is usually injury or death. That implies a higher standard of responsibility than that implied by owning a lighter, which can be used without causing injury or death. The fact that guns can also be used to deter others simply means that others are aware of the potential for injury or death. A lighter has no such implied threat. I can take it out of my pocket in public without causing fear.

  8. #68
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Defending themselves against the government. I'm not sure I completely buy that argument, but I can't dismiss it either.
    In that same discussion with my buddy, I presented three reasons:

    1. Against the government.
    2. In case the government collapses, and one must protect oneself.
    3. In case a foreign army (human or alien) successfully invades the country.

    These may seem a bit paranoid and crazy, but they are legitimate reasons to want to develop a considerable stockpile of munitions.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default



    I don't agree or disagree with the comic strip above, just thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant. Replace the references to Tucson with Aurora, Colorado and it's perfectly up to date.

  10. #70
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    The result of successfully using a gun is usually injury or death.
    I'd be curious to see, out of all the times a trigger is pulled on a legally owned firearm in the US how frequent injury or death is the result.

Similar Threads

  1. The Gun Appreciation Thread
    By Rainman in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 506
    Last Post: 12-20-2012, 12:19 PM
  2. Gun Control in the UK
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 249
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 09:16 AM
  3. Gun Control in the UK (Not Gone, Is Being Fixed...)
    By Halla74 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 11:29 PM
  4. American Gun Control (Version 2!)
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 234
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 02:24 PM
  5. Gun Control
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-13-2008, 03:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO