Supporting Common Sense Gun Control!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because lord knows we all trust and bow to your great authority. Careful fellas, this one's the real deal!

So because something worked in a bygone era, it's going to work today? Your founding fathers fought a war and created a country with the right to bare arms when "arms" were muskets that highly trained troops took forever to load and fire a single, highly inaccurate, low-range spherical slug. Not semi-automatic assault rifles that send 30 conical rounds to an effective range of ~600m that any shmuck with a box of ammo and some free time can get in to a good grouping. Your constitution's "right to bare arms" is an outdated law from a time that couldn't predict the obstacles and dangers of the modern age. Dangers such as approximately one firearm per U.S. citizen. All 324 million of you.

You do realize that it's simple hand guns that are responsible for the majority of firearm related deaths (that aren't suicides which occupy a huge portion), right?

You keep preaching about how outdated our constitution is and I keep telling you it's irrelevant by giving you examples of countries with a much higher guns per capita rate and among the lowest firearm related deaths in the world. Forget the constitution for a second, although if we're going to change one thing I'd change a bunch of different things. Guns aren't the problem or at least the main problem, and taking them away is a stupid solution for those that like to overreact without a modicum of thought.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You do realize that it's simple hand guns that are responsible for the majority of firearm related deaths (that aren't suicides which occupy a huge portion), right?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You keep preaching about how outdated our constitution is and I keep telling you it's irrelevant by giving you

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
examples of countries with a much higher guns per capita rate and among the lowest firearm related deaths in the world. Forget the constitution for a second, although if we're going to change one thing I'd change a bunch of different things. Guns aren't the problem or at least the main problem, and taking them away is a stupid solution for those that like to overreact without a modicum of thought.

I do know that actually, but I was contrasting the standard weapon of choice on battlefields/hunting grounds in the Revolutionary days vs. it's modern equivalent (I know hunting rifles don't have 30 round-mags [I hope]). People back then didn't hunt with pistols. And on the hunting note: since it's handguns that kill the majority of people today, there's no hunting excuse for them. People don't hunt with handguns (unless you're a lunatic, or your prey is people).

No, I don't. That was the first time I've written the word "constitution" on this site in ages. And I don't think I've ever mentioned the Constitution as irrelevant on thise site before. Like ever. In over 11 years. Although I would agree with me if I had.

And you're right, taking them away will just lead to something bigger and more catastrophic later. Confiscation, law-changing, policy-changing... these are just formalities and stepping stones. The real change that needs to happen is an entire cultural shift in attitude towards firearms, their role in everyday life, and their value as household weapons. That kind of change would dig right at the core of the values, beliefs, and personal/national identities of tens of millions of people---needless to say, it will (and is) vehemently resisted against. It's not a change I see happening in my lifetime. And I plan on being immortal.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
What exactly makes it outdated? The 2nd amendment?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Ok so we're in agreement to the possible solution. I wish our gun culture mirrored that of the Israelis and the Swiss.

The 18th amendment isn't outdated, it was repealed. It was a stupid amendment that had the unintended effect of creating the American Mafia.

Oh I know--it sucked. A small minority of people convinced the government to ban and confiscate something that Americans just absolutely f*cking loved. And it was a complete disaster. The War on Drugs has done the same thing (minus the amendment). Imagine if they tried to do the same with guns. Americans weren't (and still aren't and never will be thank Jebus) ready to give up alcohol, no matter how personally, socially, and literally destructive it's use can be.

Ditto for guns. They need to be baby-stepped toward not wanting them anymore. Eased in to it, over a long ass time. I honestly have no clue how to actually do that effectively.

I'm in favor of pretty heavy gun control. I simply don't believe owning a gun should be a right, I think it should be a privilege given to those only after they prove they are capable of handling one safely, and who go through the necessary training and testing to ensure they mentally fit.

👆

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm in favor of pretty heavy gun control. I simply don't believe owning a gun should be a right, I think it should be a privilege given to those only after they prove they are capable of handling one safely, and who go through the necessary training and testing to ensure they mentally fit.

I could go for that, but I also believe the majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners, so you may reduce the number by a minimum.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm in favor of pretty heavy gun control. I simply don't believe owning a gun should be a right, I think it should be a privilege given to those only after they prove they are capable of handling one safely, and who go through the necessary training and testing to ensure they mentally fit.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Like requiring minimum time in military service? Like in Starship Troopers? *squeeee*

YouTube video

There are already plenty of safety and training courses available to the general public. Joining the Military or Police that is a career choice.

Funny how the LIBERALS always use this argument when it comes to Guns seeing as how they are always claiming the military and police are nothing but a group of racist murders.

So yes. LIBERALS are ok with MURDERERS being the only ones with guns.

Must be why The Hilldawg ran guns thru Libya.....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]There are already plenty of safety and training courses available to the general public. Joining the Military or Police that is a career choice.

Funny how the LIBERALS always use this argument when it comes to Guns seeing as how they are always claiming the military and police are nothing but a group of racist murders.

So yes. LIBERALS are ok with MURDERERS being the only ones with guns.

Must be why The Hilldawg ran guns thru Libya..... [/B]

No no, that would be considered common sense gun control. I think even the gun owners would agree to that. Safety courses and a pass/fail system before you can get your first gun.

As I said before, there's loads of ways you can limit access to guns without banning them. You can levy a ridiculous sales tax on them to price almost everyone out from buying them. You can enforce adoption of technology such as guns with GPS that can only be fired in registered gun ranges or if they are capable of being fired anywhere then as soon as they are they alert the police and give a GPS location of where they were fired, who the registered owner is etc. Or you can have the fingerprint recognition to be able to use the gun. If they can implement a basic version of that on phones without a huge increase in cost then they can easily do it with guns.

As I said before, there's loads of ways you can limit access to guns without banning them. You can levy a ridiculous sales tax on them to price almost everyone out from buying them

You can enforce adoption of technology such as guns with GPS that can only be fired in registered gun ranges or if they are capable of being fired anywhere then as soon as they are they alert the police and give a GPS location of where they were fired, who the registered owner is etc.

Or you can have the fingerprint recognition to be able to use the gun. If they can implement a basic version of that on phones without a huge increase in cost then they can easily do it with guns.

Those kind of measures are nice and all, but they're just shiny coats of paint on a car that's rusted all the way through and the engine is on fire. There's a bigger drive (ha) toward the entire faulty system beyond the visible, surface stuff.

Originally posted by Trocity
The "Well rocks and cars and knives can kill people, too!" argument is so cringe worthy.

I think it depends on the context. Am I saying there is ever a context where cars should be banned? No, but I'm saying..it depends on what the argument is being said about since sometimes I think people say it out of frustration.

Take what happened in Orlando. A horrible shooting, many murders..many innocent people gone. This was terrorism, this was radical Islam. But a lot tried to skirt around the issue and said nope it's the guns. Then a few weeks later bam more Islamists murdering folk, this time with an automobile.

It's about cultures really and you see yep we do have a culture where people essentially wanna bang their firearms but..it's actually not those types of people who usually commit murders with guns.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Ah yes, because that's what every responsible gun owner needs and that's to be watched everytime he fires his weapon. Another terrible solution.

If a responsible gun owner is discharging a weapon anywhere other than at a firing range, something bad has probably happened, and the authorities should be notified.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
What's the point of fingerprint recognition other than being totally awesome? That just means that gun owners can....Fire their own weapons? I suppose that will prevent 1 massacre a year so I'm for it. The rest of the suggestions aren't realistic or even logical.

It means only the owner can fire the weapon. Not a three-year-old, not a jealous spouse, not a home invader who tries to use your own gun on you, etc. It is actually a brilliant fail-safe device.

If a responsible gun owner is discharging a weapon anywhere other than at a firing range, something bad has probably happened, and the authorities should be notified.

It means only the owner can fire the weapon. Not a three-year-old, not a jealous spouse, not a home invader who tries to use your own gun on you, etc. It is actually a brilliant fail-safe device.

Stricter laws won't ride guns off the black market, but it will drive their price up; thereby lowering the overall number.

But aren't most gun massacres with guns purchased legally?