New York Times advocates gun confiscation

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by heeeeeeeeeres_BUCKEYE, Dec 5, 2015.

  1. To the comment about crime rates in states:

    1.

    I'm talking about federal laws. State-only laws don't do anything, because it's not that hard to smuggle weapons within the borders of your own country.


    2. Correlation, not causation.

    There's a good chance that states with guns banned already had a high crime rate to begin with.

    Which city do you think is more likely to ban guns: One with lots of gun crime, or one without gun crime?
     
  2. #1: are you suggesting it is hard to smuggle stuff across the countries border? I don't know where you live, but it seems like a lot of people in European countries think that somehow something being illegal means it isn't crossing the border daily, partly because they usually border other equally developed countries. Unfortunately that is not the case for America. I live 90 minutes from the Mexican border, and I have family in the border patrol. I can tell you first hand that illegal stuff is coming through daily.

    #2) What is your point? If states had high crime rates, and after gun laws they still have high crime rates, then where is the effectiveness?
     
  3. Assault rifles being illegal. Are you really protecting your family by keeping one of these loaded in our house? Or carrying it to the grocery store?

    I am in Canada, but several friends who live in Montana, own assault rifles. If you ask them why, it really just comes down to, "because we can."
     
  4. They took our jobs
     
  5. People need to look bigger picture.

    1) A "ban on guns" will never work in america, ever. It really is a part of the culture, past the point of return.

    2) A ban on guns or anywhere on the sliding scale of control will not elimiate mass shootings. But i believe there must be a solution somewhere that can decrease them.

    3) the polical separation is likely too great for anything to change anyway, so most of this is likely a waste of breath.
     
  6. The political separation is based on false arguments and irrational fears.

    I would prefer just some honesty with the arguments. Many of the gun proponents react to any mention of gun control withe the delusional straw-man argument that "they're gunna take our guns away." That is not happening, and cannot happen. But it lets gun proponents avoid talking about actual common sense gun control which could reduce illegal gun violence. It is understandable that responsible, law abiding gun owners want to keep their legally purchased guns for legitimate self-defense. But why would they be against common sense regulations that might make it less likely that they would ever need to use their guns against an armed criminal?

    Common-sense regulations:

    Part 1. Universal background checks. Background checks prevent criminals buying guns from stores, gun shows, or any of the places those responsible, law abiding citizens buy their guns. Simple. If criminals want guns, they have to buy them from individuals, smugglers, or "front men." Law abiding, responsible gun owners are not affected in the least.

    "But Calm, the criminals won't buy guns from stores legally." Yes. That is the point, and would be a nice change. "But Calm, criminals will get their guns from other places anyway . . . . ". Very well, apart from making things more difficult for criminals (which is never a bad thing), let's address what we can do about that.

    Part 2. Universal registration of guns by manufacturer, seller, and owner by title.
    Using an analogy to cars, we register cars by the owner. If someone is involved in a car accident or if the car is used in a crime, police can trace the legal owner. The owner can be found negligent or responsible for the actions of the user of the car.

    Now relate that to guns. If guns are registered, police can: a) determine how and from where the criminal got the guns; b) find out who the suppliers of these guns are; c) bring responsibility to the legal owner of the gun (or gun store owner), whether they negligently allowed the gun to be improperly used, or if they are illegally selling guns to criminals, they can face proper punishment (as criminals should face); and d) slowly draw down the number of guns that criminals can get because the supply line is now traceable.

    "But Calm, if there's a registry, the government is gunna tale everyone's guns away." No. The government is not, and cannot do that. It is a political, financial, and logistical impossibility. We've discussed this before. "But Calm, what if a gun gets stolen and used?" Good question. Just like a car, it must be reported as stolen (which gets suspicious when someone has guns stolen from them on a daily basis). "But Calm, I'm a delusional paranoid that thinks the government is going to target me specifically, and I want to make sure they can't find me, despite my social security number, driver's license, credit card accounts, selective service number . . . . ". Get help.

    Part 3. Insurance.
    Just as cars are insured, guns should be as well. When responsible use and ownership results in lower premiums, people comply, making it less likely that the 8yr old in the house can easily access the family stockpile. Insurance also provides a fund for the victims of gun violence (care for the victims never seems to come up in the gun control debate, probably because it is much easier to ignore the innocent victims when advocating for guns). Again, insurance is attached to the legal owner of the gun.

    "But Calm, it won't instantly stop ALL gun violence." No. It won't. Just like laws against murder does not stop murders. Just like speed limits, traffic lights, and drunk driving laws doesn't stop all traffic accidents. The point is to start reducing gun violence, and bring responsibility and justice to those that assist in causing it. Gun violence will never totally disappear, and certainly not instantly. But common sense regulations that make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, while protecting responsible gun owners, would greatly reduce the illegal gun violence in this country.
     
  7. TNT I think you missed my point.

    What I am trying to argue is that a federal law for gun control would be vastly more effective than a state law or municipal law. I'm also arguing that municipal or state laws may simply be ineffective due to gun trafficking between states (and also because it would be impractical to have border patrol between gun control states and non-gun control states to prevent gun trafficking).


    My point in 1 is that a state-wide assault rifle ban is ineffective when a neighbouring state allows people to buy assault rifles with limited background checks.

    A federal law on gun control would be a little easier to follow through with because the borders between the USA and its neighbours are managed a little differently than the borders between California and Oregon.

    I would agree that illegal arms trafficking into the USA could be difficult to manage - but also consider the fact that the majority of the guns used in mass-shootings were manufactured and sold in America.

    As for 2: Apply the same logic as 1. A guy in Chicago can just drive to Texas, buy a gun, and head back into Chicago and commit a mass killing. I don't think there's any border checkpoints along the way to stop anyone, as opposed the the US-Mexican border which has at least some security and checkpoints.

    Edit: I am Canadian, by the way
     
  8. Texas has arguably the least gun control in the us.... and look at their number of mass shootings the last 3 years compared to the rest of the us that has more regulation. people are less likely to pull a gun out in public if they know 10 other people will have the guns to point back at them if they try anything.
     
  9. Because you think that these mass murderers are so very rational?
     
  10. Nice post, King
     
  11. How are you gonna register guns made for the last 100years? How are you gonna stop terrorist wielding home made pipe bombs? All we can do is be vigilant and aware of our surroundings. I'm not promoting a sense of fear, I'm saying to open your eyes and If you see something suspicious stay aware and be ready to take steps to protect yourself.

    Or you can plead for your life like Parsfan.
     
  12. The problem I see, such as in this forum, is that the term "gun control" is perceived to be such a general term. You can have two people arguing with each other, but in reality they are arguing different points.

    Person 1: We need better gun control so psychos can't get guns.

    Person 2: No, I want to be able to carry my gun around.

    Person 3: No, I should be able to have an assault rifle in my house if I want.

    That's just an example, but as you can see, there is actually no conflict between the three arguements.

    This miscommunication is fueled by both sides. Stereotypically, democrats act as if stricter purchasing laws will end the problem, and republicans act as if democrats are trying to take their guns.

    In my opinion, we need to drop the term "gun control", and break it up so there is a better understanding.

    Gun purchasing laws.
    Gun carrying laws.
    Gun ownership laws.

    Just my 2 cents.
     
  13. My bae is back ️
     
  14. I wonder if people committed mass murders with bows and arrows if they would try to confiscate those as well lol.
     
  15. You can ask that whenever any sort of gun gets confiscated and mass murders start happening with bows. No guns have been confiscated yet though. And bows are a pain in the ass to manage.

    Taking guns to prevent gun violence won't prevent it. Outlawing abortion won't stop it. Closing the borders won't stop illegal immigration or terrorists. Because honestly most American terrorists are American born.

    Both the left and right need to stop letting prevention turn into oppression.
     
  16. This.
     
  17. I think we should adopt the same gun laws as the wild wild west.
     
  18. Very nice post good sir. Completely agree
     
  19. What is it now ... 364 mass shooting in the States yet people outside the States with an opinion on this are the idiots...at least this thread has giving me something to laugh at