Personally I'm in favor of a background check when you buy a gun. But here's something I don't understand, why are so many people on the left ok with such thing but so adamantly against requiring a simple picture ID when it comes to voting? I mean if an ID requirement to vote is infringing on the rights of minorities, how is requiring the ID AND background check NOT infringing on their second amendment rights?
Originally posted by darthgoober
Personally I'm in favor of a background check when you buy a gun. But here's something I don't understand, why are so many people on the left ok with such thing but so adamantly against requiring a simple picture ID when it comes to voting? I mean if an ID requirement to vote is infringing on the rights of minorities, how is requiring the ID AND background check NOT infringing on their second amendment rights?
The idea of requiring an ID to vote isn't itself the problem, it's how it's usually implemented in the states that require it. It's often done in a way that is intentionally inconvenient to certain segments of the population (the poor) to try and discourage these people from voting. Often they would be required to travel several hours to a specific government building to get their ID, which for someone who may be poor and may not have access to a car regularly, is pretty much impossible. You're asking them to basically give up a day of work to go get an ID to vote.
There's also the issue that the voter ID suggestion is basically a solution in search of a problem. There just isn't evidence that a significant number of people are engaging in voter fraud, the number is very low, and so the idea that a voter ID is required flys in the face of the statistics. It gives the impression that there are ulterior motives for the idea of voter ID, especially when you consider how it's usually implemented.
With guns, though, there obviously is a problem, and of course, guns are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.
Originally posted by BackFire
The idea of requiring an ID to vote isn't itself the problem, it's how it's usually implemented in the states that require it. It's often done in a way that is intentionally inconvenient to certain segments of the population (the poor) to try and discourage these people from voting. Often they would be required to travel several hours to a specific government building to get their ID, which for someone who may be poor and may not have access to a car regularly, is pretty much impossible. You're asking them to basically give up a day of work to go get an ID to vote.There's also the issue that the voter ID suggestion is basically a solution in search of a problem. There just isn't evidence that a significant number of people are engaging in voter fraud, the number is very low, and so the idea that a voter ID is required flys in the face of the statistics. It gives the impression that there are ulterior motives for the idea of voter ID, especially when you consider how it's usually implemented.
With guns, though, there obviously is a problem, and of course, guns are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.
Kind of like how only a small fraction of gun owners commit gun related crimes?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"If a city or state passes strict gun control measures, people can simply cross a border to buy guns in a jurisdiction with laxer laws.Chicago, for example, requires a Firearm Owners Identification card, a background check, a three-day waiting period, and documentation for all firearm sales. But Indiana, across the border, doesn’t require any of this for purchases between two private individuals (including those at gun shows and those who meet through the internet), allowing even someone with a criminal record to buy a firearm without passing a background check or submitting paperwork recording the sale.
So someone from Chicago can drive across the border—to Indiana or to other places with lax gun laws—and buy a gun without any of the big legal hurdles he would face at home. Then that person can resell or give guns to others in Chicago or keep them, leaving no paper trail behind. (This is illegal trafficking under federal law, but Indiana’s lax laws and enforcement—particularly the lack of a paper trail—make it virtually impossible to catch someone until a gun is used in a crime.)
...or, more realistically, if the federal government passed a law that enforces stricter rules across the US."
I verified this. It's true about the gun crime in Chicago.
But the last part....seems a bit off.
I do think we should have Federal Laws that are minimum standard for all of the US. (Isn't that the case?)
Originally posted by BackFire
The idea of requiring an ID to vote isn't itself the problem, it's how it's usually implemented in the states that require it. It's often done in a way that is intentionally inconvenient to certain segments of the population (the poor) to try and discourage these people from voting. Often they would be required to travel several hours to a specific government building to get their ID, which for someone who may be poor and may not have access to a car regularly, is pretty much impossible. You're asking them to basically give up a day of work to go get an ID to vote.There's also the issue that the voter ID suggestion is basically a solution in search of a problem. There just isn't evidence that a significant number of people are engaging in voter fraud, the number is very low, and so the idea that a voter ID is required flys in the face of the statistics. It gives the impression that there are ulterior motives for the idea of voter ID, especially when you consider how it's usually implemented.
With guns, though, there obviously is a problem, and of course, guns are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.
Here's something no-one here has mentioned yet:
Switzerland
2 million guns in circulation compared to a population of 8.5 million. Only the US and Yemen have a higher gun-per-capita rate.
Yet the Swiss haven't seen a mass-shooting since 2001 when a gunman opened fire on a legislative body. In the past 10 years there were only 120 cases where guns were used in homicides. '
'
They have a similar "gun-loving" culture as ours yet don't go through the same bull-sh*t.
With the exception of fully automatic weapons, everything is legal to buy and easily accessible.
What differentiates the Swiss from the Americans is that the former has thorough mandated background checks and are constantly approaching individuals who are reported by mental health professionals.
It's also the norm for government-sponsored groups to teach kids as young as 12 how to safely handle a gun. More than 3000 shooting clubs around the country do this.
Here's a kicker:
"In Switzerland, the government also banned immigrants from eight countries, including Algeria, Sri Lanka, Turkey and nations of ex-Yugoslavia from owning firearms. This rule stems from political conflicts and hostilities that simmer within these groups, posing “a serious threat” to the safety of our population, Musliu added."
Originally posted by darthgoober
Yeah but no one's talking about making it easier to get an ID in the wake of requiring a background check on guns, so wouldn't the policy still disproportionately target minorities and place an undue burden on them in exercising their constitutional right to bear arms? I mean if there's anywhere that law abiding citizens could use the right to defend themselves and their families from illegally armed assailants, it's in the ghetto. And if we do implement a system making it easy enough to keep from unfairly removing their ability to defend themselves by requiring an ID, there shouldn't be an issue with requiring an ID to vote, right?
Not necessarily because they wouldn't be required to go to the same exact places as they would for the voter ID. The two things are independent from one another.
Again, there isn't a problem with the premise of having a voter ID, it's how it's implemented that is problematic. If every single community had a convenient and free way to get a voter ID then it would be fine. But that's not how it's done.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Kind of like how only a small fraction of gun owners commit gun related crimes?
Yes, but compare the severity of the results. The wrong person getting a gun can lead to dozens of dead people. A person voting twice, not quite as severe.
Originally posted by BackFire
Not necessarily because they wouldn't be required to go to the same exact places as they would for the voter ID. The two things are independent from one another.Again, there isn't a problem with the premise of having a voter ID, it's how it's implemented that is problematic. If every single community had a convenient and free way to get a voter ID then it would be fine. But that's not how it's done.
Yes, but compare the severity of the results. The wrong person getting a gun can lead to dozens of dead people. A person voting twice, not quite as severe.
Voting ID laws have been called racist. If they are, isn't it racist they need an ID to get something to protect themselves too? How does that work?
Originally posted by Surtur
Voting ID laws have been called racist. If they are, isn't it racist they need an ID to get something to protect themselves too? How does that work?
I already explained something similar to this earlier. But I'll say again - it all depends on how it's implemented if the criticisms of one would fairly mirror the criticisms of the other.
Originally posted by BackFire
Not necessarily because they wouldn't be required to go to the same exact places as they would for the voter ID. The two things are independent from one another.Again, there isn't a problem with the premise of having a voter ID, it's how it's implemented that is problematic. If every single community had a convenient and free way to get a voter ID then it would be fine. But that's not how it's done.
Yes, but compare the severity of the results. The wrong person getting a gun can lead to dozens of dead people. A person voting twice, not quite as severe.
I was only addressing your numbers argument, hence underlining that part. so if you're dropping that as an argument. we're good.
Originally posted by BackFire
Not necessarily because they wouldn't be required to go to the same exact places as they would for the voter ID. The two things are independent from one another.Again, there isn't a problem with the premise of having a voter ID, it's how it's implemented that is problematic. If every single community had a convenient and free way to get a voter ID then it would be fine. But that's not how it's done.
Yes, but compare the severity of the results. The wrong person getting a gun can lead to dozens of dead people. A person voting twice, not quite as severe.
Originally posted by Kurk
Here's something no-one here has mentioned yet:Switzerland
2 million guns in circulation compared to a population of 8.5 million. Only the US and Yemen have a higher gun-per-capita rate.
Yet the Swiss haven't seen a mass-shooting since 2001 when a gunman opened fire on a legislative body. In the past 10 years there were only 120 cases where guns were used in homicides. '
'
They have a similar "gun-loving" culture as ours yet don't go through the same bull-sh*t.With the exception of fully automatic weapons, everything is legal to buy and easily accessible.
What differentiates the Swiss from the Americans is that the former has thorough mandated background checks and are constantly approaching individuals who are reported by mental health professionals.
It's also the norm for government-sponsored groups to teach kids as young as 12 how to safely handle a gun. More than 3000 shooting clubs around the country do this.
Here's a kicker:
"In Switzerland, the government also banned immigrants from eight countries, including Algeria, Sri Lanka, Turkey and nations of ex-Yugoslavia from owning firearms. This rule stems from political conflicts and hostilities that simmer within these groups, posing “a serious threat” to the safety of our population, Musliu added."
The counter to that is very simple, Kurk: "America isn't Switzerland, so it won't work."
This is the counter used whenever someone mentions countries with stricter gun laws than the US which have little to far less gun violence incidents.
Originally posted by Silent Master
I was only addressing your numbers argument, hence underlining that part. so if you're dropping that as an argument. we're good.
Even then it's a shitty comparison because we actually have legit numbers available that show the amount of gun crimes compared to gun owners as a whole, such numbers don't even exist for voter fraud.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Whenever I hear people clamoring for voter ID laws, they're not talking about some massively restrictive process to obtain one. They're actually talking about making them as easy to get as a license. The arguments raised against them are ridiculous things like "minorities are less likely to be able to afford to get a picture ID".
How they're talking is irrelevant when we have them in practice in several states and can see that, in practice, they have the issues that I mentioned. If they were made fair and actually were convenient then I don't think you would see too many people opposed to it. Problem is, when they're put into place, they are not convenient or fair.
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol so just to be clear, 2 million guns for a population for like 8 million is comparable to a country with 300 million people and 300 million guns?Why? Besides reasons, of course. Lay this out for me in a way that resembles logic.
Um, less than a 1/3 of Americans own guns, iirc. It's like wealth, a smaller number have the most of it. It's not every American owns a gun, you retard.
Originally posted by Robtard
The counter to that is very simple, Kurk: "America isn't Switzerland, so it won't work."This is the counter used whenever someone mentions countries with stricter gun laws than the US which have little to far less gun violence incidents.
You know what's really ironic? People on both sides wouldn't have nearly as much to argue about if they just observed all the major differences between countries rather than trying to pick and choose. For instance, Switzerland is a country people cite as an example of socialism working in regards to healthcare and education, but they also have mandatory service in the military. Meanwhile, we offer healthcare and free education to those who serve in the military. So if those who want to receive the same benefits as those in Switzerland would sign up for military service the way people in Switzerland are required to then they'd get those same benefits...
Originally posted by BackFire
How they're talking is irrelevant when we have them in practice in several states and can see that, in practice, they have the issues that I mentioned. If they were made fair and actually were convenient then I don't think you would see too many people opposed to it. Problem is, when they're put into place, they are not convenient or fair.
Then rather than screaming that it's racist to require minorities to get an ID to vote, maybe liberals should be saying something to the effect of "Ok lets have voter IDs but make sure it's not implemented in a way that's unfair to minorities".