Guns
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Guns
(26-05-2014 02:23 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  When our installation refused delivery, they dropped the howitzer off in front of his house. Hilarity ensued. Big Grin
Are you going to tell the rest of this story? Pleeeeeeeese!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: Guns
(26-05-2014 03:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 02:17 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Would you like to argue it in the boxing ring?
I don't come from USA, so I am more interested in a discussion on guns with regards to their impact on the safety of society in general (not just within USA society).

I would prefer to have an explorative discussion, exchange of ideas and reasonings rather than trying to win a debate.

I come from a country where guns are restricted and police only carry guns in exceptional circumstances, most people in my country would deem private ownership of a machine gun (for protection) to be absurd. I think most people in my country would consider allowing people to own pistols for protection as absurd. So this is my starting point. I naturally gravitate towards the view that gun restrictions are warranted.

If you expect a highly informative debate from someone who has put extensive research into the topic then you ought to look for an alternative dance partner.

But right now, I am certainly interested to know why you think society is better off if you make machine guns accessible to the general public?

The boxing ring doesn't have to be in a debate format necessarily. The main reason I want to stage a discussion like this there is that if more than 2-3 people are involved in a gun debate it tends to get sidetracked and dragged all over the map.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: Guns
(26-05-2014 03:18 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The boxing ring doesn't have to be in a debate format necessarily. The main reason I want to stage a discussion like this there is that if more than 2-3 people are involved in a gun debate it tends to get sidetracked and dragged all over the map.
Sure, we could give it a go and see where it leads.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 12:43 AM
RE: Guns
From The Ring:

"No one wants nor endorses machine guns for self defense, as they are ill-suited to the task, being less reliable and more likely to cause collateral damage than a handgun, shotgun, or rifle.



HELLO!, says the Black Swan.

*I* want a full-auto for self-defense.

*Nothing* says "FUCK YOU" like a triple-tap to the forehead from a Tommy gun.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
29-05-2014, 11:19 AM
RE: Guns
" So the best solution, which maximized person freedom while minimizing harm, is to have extensive background checks and upfront costs to make sure only those people who we can be as sure as possible are not going to use them to do wrong have access to them. This allows people who want to own a machine gun and can own one responsibly to do so, while preventing people with less pure intentions from doing so."


Sooooooooooo, being not having a shitload of money for these frivolous harassment fees == a propensity to use them to do wrong. Elitist 1%er much? Hobo

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 10:11 PM
RE: Guns
Hey guys, I'm back to debate. I didn't have enough time to do it for a few weeks there, but I'm ready to go again. Unlock please?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2014, 12:18 AM
RE: Guns
Hi folks. I havent posted much; in fact it was the latest podcast that brought me back here; specifically the firearm issue. Let me get a few things out of the way first - I am Canadian, about as socialist as one could get, atheist (naturally); and very, very much a pro-firearms-rights person. I happen to be the vice president of the local outdoor rec club which includes the rod and gun club. Ive been around firearms all my life; having been instructed in them by my family since i was able to walk nearly; I was competitively shooting at the age of 6; and only stopped because Canada adopted ever more insane gun laws.

Phaedrus; Im not sure a debate between us would be particularly eventful given that I generally agree with you; but I will go through your original post and detail where I differ.

(25-05-2014 08:10 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Gun politics is a complicated subject. It is often perceived as a black-and-white issue, but I don't believe that to be the case. It is a polarizing issue. The nature of the debate splits the parties and forces them to take a side, or abstain.

This IS true; particularly when the political left VS right gets into it; however I honestly feel that much of the problems that the firearms rights community has breaks into two key components - the bible thumpers that support firearms rights being, well, bible thumpers; and the constant misinformation being pumped by the media (both sides really) that the left simply lobs onto without THINKING about what is being said and done.
Quote:In my debates on this forum I often find myself defending against arguments and accusations which have little bearing on my political belief. I find myself being forced, time and time again, to educate people on a subject they seem absurdly reticent to do any real research on. I get ganged up on, or gang up on others, with too many arguments running simultaneously for anyone to reasonably keep track of. And when tempers flare, things can turn ugly, or at best force the participants to back off to prevent that from happening.
Oh, yes, I have seen this SOOOO many times. The worst for this? The LGBT community. Seriously. So many of them are what I would call 'rabidly left' that they wind up being no less fundamentalist in their stance and actions than groups like the Westboro Baptist Church psychos.
Quote:So it's time to try something different. 1v1 debate. I don't intend this to settle the questions about gun politics once and for all. This is just my opinion, versus someone else's opinion. And hopefully a fair helping of facts.
Well, read what I say and lemme know if you feel we should.
Quote:Please reply if interested



My position:

There are two reasonable stances to have on the ownership of firearms: one can support a regulated system which ensures that only responsible, sane, law-abiding adults have access to firearms; but once granted that right there is little need for restriction beyond that. Or, one can support a near-complete ban where any ownership beyond extremely limited circumstances can be treated as a criminal matter.
Well, on this i disagree. I feel that the more regulation we have, the less law abiding citizens we have choosing to take part, as well as the EASIER it is for the criminal/violent element of humanity to both obtain firearms AND use them without opposition. So, to me, to say that 'a regulated system is one of two reasonable stances on firearms' is a false argument - The option I favor is a MINIMALLY regulated system where only those that actually commit crimes are punished; rather than the law abiding citizen. (Note - I recognize this varies from state to state; my brother in law is from California. However; in Canada it is a national thing. Here is an excellent vid detailing what a law abiding citizen must go through to obtain various classes of firearms, only 15 min long too so please watch the vid --- http://youtu.be/ewseb59lLzk?list=UUcn7Oe...aVhzaqTE0A

Quote:I support the former stance. I think that the pros of civilian gun ownership outweigh the cons. I believe firearm homicides represent a failure of policy makers to come to a reasonable compromise, due again to the polarizing nature of the debate.
However. The fact of firearms ownership in both Canada and the US is this - firearms owners have had their rights trimmed again and again and again; near constantly since the 1900s. Here is a very simple cartoon illustrating this for the US in particular - [Image: 1479125_10153619529555510_2028855431_n.jpg]
Quote:In the context of American laws my stance includes the following:
  • Citizens have the right to own firearms. That right should only be violated if they cannot demonstrate competency, or if there is significant reason to think that they might use them in an unjustified, violent manner
If something is a RIGHT, then the concept of licensing is invalid. Driving is not a right; but a readily revokable privilege. If such is to be a right; then demanding licensing flies directly in the face of such. (There is no licensing to be religious now is there? Wink )
Quote:
  • Gun ownership should be granted under license to any citizen age 18 or above
  • Technically this is age discrimination. As I noted I was shooting when i was 6 years old. While I would agree the responsibility is up to the parent/s in such regard, making an age limit is quite discriminatory and counter productive in ensuring that youth are fully aware and trained in the responsible ownership and handling of firearms.
    Quote:
  • That license should not be denied on any grounds of race, creed, social or economic status, association, or political views
  • On this I would agree aside of the licensing itself bit.
    Quote:
  • That license should not be excessively expensive, no more than a couple hundred dollars total; more would represent an attempt at economic discrimination
  • Here we see the true reasoning for licensing - tax grab. Plain and symple. If an individual, should they be stopped for any unrelated reason by law enforcement, can demonstrate they are capable of safely handling a firearm, then they should not be penalized for not having a piece of paper - aka paper crimes.
    Quote:
  • That license may require renewal, but I would argue no more frequently than 5-10 years; more frequently would be punitive, rather than in support of safety
  • What and how, pray tell, would renewing licensing for firearms preserve safety? How many criminals have a license to begin with? To use a specific example; the perp of Sandy Hook was known to both law enforcement and the local mental health community for being unstable; so much so that when he attempted to purchase firearms legally he was denied - which merely resulted in him murdering his own mother and stealing her firearms. Please, explain to me how licensing law abiding owners would have prevented this.
    Quote:
  • Obtaining the license should involve a course of a reasonable length educating the applicant on the laws and legal responsibilities of owning a firearm; gun safety and storage; the basic types, mechanical function and care of firearms; a guideline of under what circumstances it is justified to use a firearm in self-defense; and a practical course involving range time with several types of guns.
  • I Do agree, in theory, that if a licensing setup is to be used, then it should be used as a form of ensuring competency of whatever firearm class one wishes to pursue. However; in exactly the same way that driving licensing is far more about cash revenue than ensuring skill set, licensing on both sides of the border fails to ensure adequate training and safety. Indeed; the only point of the licensing in Canada is to register the person wishing to own firearms; and their name is checked automatically daily for criminal offenses within the electronic database (I refer you to the vid i posted previously). Fact is, licensing is used more as a means of knowing who has what rather than ensuring competency; and I see no desire by any political party to change this.

    Quote:The license may be denied, suspended, or revoked based on the following reasons:
  • Failure to successfully complete the course
  • Which, as noted, the current course is a no brainer
    Quote:
  • Commission of a violent felony, or commission of a non-violent felony in the last ten years
  • FAR too restrictive. We place less stringent restrictions on violent offenders. Further, why are NON VIOLENT felonies included in this list? That can mean, 'oh, you got a speeding ticket? No firearms for you for TEN YEARS'. Nonsense.
    Quote:
  • The presence of a restraining order, warrant, or criminal charges against an applicant
  • To a point this is agreeable; however in some criminal issues the person being charged can just as easily be the victim or under threat as well.
    Quote:
  • Serious mental health concerns, a history of mental health issues or violence, or a history of such in their immediate family
  • This is also great in theory - but, as noted with the Sandy Hook example; simply knowing who has issues does nothing to stop them; where as it can far too easily penalize persons whose mental issues are not a threat to others or even themselves when managed (IE - transgender folk are often labled with many different varying mental health issues; yet these same folk are at the highest risk for assault, rape, and murder)

    Quote:
  • In the latter case, the applicant should be able to appeal, and if they can pass a psychological evaluation the license should be granted
  • Which then becomes a case of who does the 'gatekeeping' and how bias they may be.
    Quote:There would be additional provisions regarding concealed carry:
    • A firearms license would not grant the right to concealed carry
    • Concealed carry would be an additional rider or class of license based on completion of additional training
    • Applicants must take an additional course covering, in detail, the legal aspects of self-defense or defense of others
    • Applicant must pass much more rigorous practical shooting test
    So why would you place added restrictions on carry, period? Aside of simply making it more difficult for people to adequately defend themselves.

    Quote:I do think that the system under which firearms are purchased needs modification.
    The word I would use is 'eliminated'. In Canada; the failed Long Gun Registry wasted (that the government admits to) over two BILLION dollars in the time it existed; about 15 years is.

    Quote:
  • I disapprove of the notion of firearm registries as they tend to be designed to be overly cumbersome for the applicants, and have been involved in breaches of personal privacy (for instance the publishing of the locations of conceal carry permit holders in New York City).
  • And across Canada. There is a law suit being launched against the RCMP regarding the claimed use of the supposedly destroyed long gun registry to target homes in High River, Alberta which had been evacuated during a flood - long story short; the case claims that the registry was not destroyed and was used to specifically target homes known to have firearms; which were then forcibly entered - despite the town being cleared days ago - and firearms and ammunition seized 'for public safety concerns' - despite the town being under complete RCMP and Armed Forces lockdown.
    Quote:
  • However, I think a basic registry which contains no more than Name, Firearm License No., and a list of Serial Nos. could be beneficial.
  • It should be possible to add, remove, or transfer firearms online, over a secure connection, given adequate verification of identity. This process should take less than 30 minutes
  • Provide way to register via mail (considered registration submitted by postmarked date) or in-person at a government office
  • Those who sell or give away a gun would be legally obligated to update the registry within 72hrs, barring a reasonable excuse for being unable to do so
  • This would close any claimed "gun show loop-holes", and could tie into the existing Form 4473 process for gun shops
  • Police would require a warrant to search the registry, and would only be granted access to the specific Firearm License No. in question and those directly tied to it by sale or transfer
  • Releasing the registry, in whole or part, to the public would constitute a federal offense with a severe punishment
  • Which, as noted, is a severe breach of personal privacy and security; as such information makes individuals potential victims of theft among other things. I would also note the oft-made comparison that 'guns should be registered like cars'. Well, funny thing that, least in Canada - one does NOT need a license to buy, sell, trade, collect, or part out cars. One only needs a license, registration and insurance if one wishes to operate said vehicle on PUBLIC LAND. If firearms were held to a level similar to this; this would mean that anyone could buy, sell, trade etc firearms so long as they never used them on public land. the licensing, in theory, is to prove competency and legal privilege; the registration is proof that the car is in fact yours, and the insurance is there to protect you in event of an accident or theft. (its funny how quickly many 'anti-gunners' backtrack from this when this is pointed out.) Fact is, the government has no more reason to know what or how many firearms one owns than it does for how many computers one owns; to claim otherwise is pure nonsense.

    Quote:I would suggest that the following restrictions on gun ownership are not reasonable regulation, but instead represent attempts at punishing gun owners or attempts at banning as many guns as possible. I would strike such laws from the books in every state:
    • Bans on specific makes or models of firearm, such as of AR-15s
    • Bans on specific firearm actions, such as semi-automatic
    • Bans on specific calibres or cartridges
    • Bans on cosmetic or ergonomic features, such as foregrips, rails, types of grips or stocks, etc.
    • Bans on firearm magazines on basis of capacity
    • State firearm registries on the basis of any of the criteria above
    • Waiting periods in excess of 48hrs; the latter being optionally implemented at a state or city level
    On these parts I agree; though I note that wait periods are pointless if one is already licensed, already registered, already a card carrying owner.


    Quote:I would also make the following changes to NFA rules:
    • I would end the 1986 ban on newly registered machine guns
    Agreed; the registry is a failure.
    Quote:
  • I would increase the ATF tax stamp on machine guns from $200 to $1,000
  • Disagree; on grounds that this is onerous and penalizes individuals that are already spending significant coin on firearms to begin with with no benefit coming from such fees.
    Quote:
  • I would reclassify bumpfire stocks and other mechanical assisted bumpfire devices as machine guns
  • Except they arent machine guns. Modified, yes, machine guns; no.
    Quote:
  • I would remove short barreled shotguns (SBS) and short barreled rifles (SBR) from the NFA list, as they represent little more threat than regular firearms (both SBS and SBR are legal in Canada, and you don't see dozens of bank robberies with sawed of shotguns there...)
  • Agreed; however I take it further to include firearms that are shortened at home; as many shotguns are simply unwieldy for home defense with long barrels.
    Quote:
  • I would remove suppressors from the NFA list, as they are beneficial for reducing hearing loss and noise pollution associated with firearms, and are rarely used in crime, and are used effectively in crime even less often
  • Also agreed.

    I realize you are looking for someone in an 'anti gun stance' but in MY view; you are the one in the 'anti-gun stance'; ironically enough.

    Now, Id like to reply to a few more people if i might --

    (25-05-2014 11:49 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  It's over reaching and would not work anyway and here is a single quick example as to why it would not work.

    The best work on the ways that criminals get guns was done by Wright and Rossi (1986), who surveyed over 1,800 imprisoned felons in 10 states about their guns. On page 185:

    Among 943 felon handgun owners:

    44% Bought the gun privately.
    32% had stolen the gun
    9% percent rented or borrowed it
    16% Bought it from a retailer

    All regulation only effect retailers (government can not track thefts or private citizen to citizen sales) and any laws that crack down on retailers will not stop that 16% from getting guns but rather force criminals to resort to 1-3, #2 in fact being even less desirable then current trends.


    Now I'm just going to speak from my own point of view: Gun Control Laws always seemed extremely paradoxical to me. You can't be against gun violence and for gun control because the only way to enforce gun control...is with gun violence or the threat of gun violence.
    If they are aware of it or not pro gun control always struck me as an argument that says "I as an individual believe in and support a government monopolization of the use of force" because at the end of the day that's what you get: a centralization of the ability to use coercive force in the government. A system that I should like to think history bears out as a really really bad idea.

    To me though it's always come down to two fundamental questions.

    1.) Does an individual have an right to the defense of their person, loved ones or property?
    2.) Does an individual have a right to initiate force or to delegate to a different individual or any group of individuals the right to initiate force?

    To me the answers have always been a obvious and resounding yes and no respectively, though I know there are others that will think differently. I will not be surprised if many many people here disagree with me and that is perfectly fine haha

    Where I expect to get a lot of flack is in this statement: America does not have a gun problem, it has a gang problem.
    I would state that the gang problem is not the ONLY problem. Its a SOCIAL problem that the US has, as well as a massively failing medical mental health structure (which I personally blame on the rampant capitalism in the US buuut thats another topic). But otherwise I agree.


    [quote]
    (26-05-2014 06:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  If I was living in a fear-based culture, I'd probably want to own one too.

    Blink

    The feelings of insecurity that lead to the desire / need to carry a weapon (any weapon) are an indicator of an unhealthy society or one where humans are in direct competition for resources with wild animals (e.g. poisonous snakes, killer woodpeckers or crushed cats).

    Drinking Beverage
    For some, yes there is an element of fear. For most however, firearms are simply a way of life. I am far less concerned of defending myself from humans than I am from wildlife (note - I live in the Yukon Territory, Canada - and though I live in the center of my small town I have seen many of the natural predators up here on my driveway; to say nothing about when I spend time in the bush) and I collect most of my firearms for either the sake of collecting (I am a fan in particular of firearms made by the Russian manufacturer Tula Arms) and for the sake of target shooting (handgun, long rifle and shotgun) as well as for actual hunting. In Canada; I do NOT have the 'legal right' to carry a firearm for self defense; and if I should use one in such a manner I will be treated as much as, if not more than, the criminal from which I sought to defend myself from; with very precious few legal protections for me in such regard. This, to me, is the purest of wrongdoing by my government.

    Now then, Phaedrus - if you feel that we should debate, let me know. Wink
    Find all posts by this user
    Like Post Quote this message in a reply
    [+] 1 user Likes AlexInYT's post
    21-09-2014, 05:14 PM
    RE: Guns
    My stance on firearm ownership is that everyone should be required to do three things.

    1. Pass a lie detector test to determine reasons for gun ownership and purchase.
    2. Pass a gang Affiliation Background check.
    3. Pass a Psycho Evaluation.

    If someone can pass all three, than go right ahead and own a gun of your choice.


    My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
    Find all posts by this user
    Like Post Quote this message in a reply
    21-09-2014, 05:15 PM
    RE: Guns
    (21-09-2014 05:14 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  My stance on firearm ownership is that everyone should be required to do three things.

    1. Pass a lie detector test to determine reasons for gun ownership and purchase.
    2. Pass a gang Affiliation Background check.
    3. Pass a Psycho Evaluation.

    If someone can pass all three, than go right ahead and own a gun of your choice.

    Forget #1. Polygraphs are voodoo, not science. Drinking Beverage

    Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
    Science is not a subject, but a method.
    [Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
    Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
    Like Post Quote this message in a reply
    [+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
    21-09-2014, 05:23 PM
    RE: Guns
    (21-09-2014 05:14 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  My stance on firearm ownership is that everyone should be required to do three things.

    1. Pass a lie detector test to determine reasons for gun ownership and purchase.
    2. Pass a gang Affiliation Background check.
    3. Pass a Psycho Evaluation.

    If someone can pass all three, than go right ahead and own a gun of your choice.

    Any gun that is not a firearm can not be used out side of ones property.

    [Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
    Find all posts by this user
    Like Post Quote this message in a reply
    Post Reply
    Forum Jump: