The Usa Should Have More Gun Restrictions

[dairygirl4u2c]

argued here before, but this has some reformulated edits.

 

the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success.

 

-australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform)
-japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low.

 

it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. the states that have no to very few restictions have over twice the homicide rate. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. over 90% of people support background checks, there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it.

-really, it should be more than background checks, but it should be at least back ground checks. we have licenses and training and inventories for cars, why not guns? it would be a lot easier to regulate and keep out of hands of the wrong people. any far out conspiracy about government take over is too remote to trump real life practical concerns here and now concerning homicides.

 

it's common knowledge and i can cite stats that say having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect.

 

it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/stats-show-background-checks-are-effective/article_ac6626fd-8bf5-55d7-83cf-d464e379000a.html

 

people like to point out things like you are more likely to fall down stairs or get killed with knives than guns. this may be true, but that's only because they are so much more common than guns. if you look at how much each causes death, you'd see that guns are more prone to cause deaths.
 

on the same day of a recent mass shooting, there was over twenty people involved in the USA. in a very gun restricted country, is was over twenty with knives involved. guess which country had all deaths, and which one had all injuries?

 

'guns deter people' 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. i've heard stats that say things like half a percent of guns are used for crimes and two percent in self defense. so yes there's some truth to these points. but that only means that we need defense because guns are so prevalent to begin with. take the logic, and triple the amount of guns out there. then we'd see six percent for defense, and closer to two percent for deaths. i'm not saying we should necessarily have a manhattan project like australia did and get rid of guns, but if we did, overall deaths would probably go down. we'd be wanting gun rights, at the expense of more deaths due to the 'right' to defense and to have a gun. it is a clear trade off.
but even without getting rid of guns, that doesn't mean we can't do better at regulating them.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

[polskieserce]

As I stated in the other thread, I completely disagree.  But if this is your goal for the US, the first thing that needs to change is the 2nd amendment.  The constitution needs to be modified in order for you to have the level of gun control you are asking for.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the first and second amendment both have exceptions to them. same goes for almost all the constitution. it's just a matter of degree as to how much restrictions is too much.

so the second amendment doesn't necessarily have to be anulled to get things done. at the very least, more background checks.

[polskieserce]

the first and second amendment both have exceptions to them. same goes for almost all the constitution. it's just a matter of degree as to how much restrictions is too much.

so the second amendment doesn't necessarily have to be anulled to get things done. at the very least, more background checks.

 

For the level of restriction you want, yes it does have to be annulled.  When the problem of more background checks doesn't solve the issue, gun control advocates will keep pushing for further restrictions on top of that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, for the fullest level i want, perhaps it would have to be amended. at the second to highest level, i don't think even licenses, training, and government inventories would be so far that it'd require changes to the amendment. at hte highest level, taking away a bunch of guns in general might need the amendment changed, but it's not something i'm that passionate for, though i would probably do it.

 

but for the minimum i'd expect, like more background checks, i don't think at all that it'd need amended.

[brandelynmarie]

I don't care how many restrictions you place on gun ownership, people with ill intent will always find a way to go around them. :crazyshoot: That's the problem. Evil. Sin. Brokenness. Take away the guns, the bad guys will use knives. Take away the knives, they will use sticks....& so on....Law-abiding pholk are not the problem...it's a broken, sinful human nature problem.

[Credo in Deum]

While I know this brings no real weight in an argument -I had the pleasure of speaking with a SWAT sniper in Miami, FL and he said; "gun control takes guns away from responsible gun owners more than the irresponsible ones, and that the majority of criminals he deals with obtain their guns illegal anyway." He also mentioned that responsible gun owners have actually come to their aid when they needed help. Keep in mind in FL they allow fully automatic weapons.

[polskieserce]

While I know this brings no real weight in an argument -I had the pleasure of speaking with a SWAT sniper in Miami, FL and he said; "gun control takes guns away from responsible gun owners more than the irresponsible ones, and that the majority of criminals he deals with obtain their guns illegal anyway." He also mentioned that responsible gun owners have actually come to their aid when they needed help. Keep in mind in FL they allow fully automatic weapons.

 

That is correct, FL and most US states do allow full auto weapons.  However full auto weapons are very heavily regulated by the federal government and they are really hard to get.

[Winchester]

No, they don't have exceptions. Case law fancies there are, but the words are quite clear, and the absence of the amendments would not amount to a grant of power. The powers of the federal government are enumerated. All federal restrictions on the bearing and keeping of arms are unconstitutional. The performance of an act is not proof of its legitimacy. That people use the opinion of the courts or the actions of congress to prove that abridgement of the peoples' right to keep and bear arms is a legitimate power is comparable to claiming that a murderer's act of murder was legitimate because he successfully murdered someone.

 

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html

[superblue]

saying that the USA needs more gun restrictions due to this statistic and that and throwing example after example on why one favors either doing away with or limiting the 2nd amendment, is comparable to arguing that priests should be allowed to marry because that in turn would cut down on future sex scandals.

 

the logic doesn't add up,

 

The second amendment is the last stand we as free people have against a government that continues to get bigger and more oppressive presidential term after presidential term.

 

If one were to do away with the second amendment and engage in limiting guns of any kind to legal law abiding Americans, then we mine as well  sign our lives over to our government and pray that God will move them to do the right things with our lives.

 

I will support any law that demands safety training or some kind of firearms training for those that want to legally own one, and to take annual tests in maintaining and firing ones fire arm, like we do for driving a car; tests out the ying yang and even in some states smog testing. Same for a fire arm, perhaps someone inspects the fire arm every so often to make sure it is being maintained properly and isn't rusting or what ever. An making sure that the ammunition is being properly stored and cared for. That doesn't require someone going into ones home it would simply require bringing in said ammunition and fire arms for inspection and documentation of how it is being protected and stored. Or maybe not maybe that is a horrible idea, but the point is leave the second amendment alone, and if anything create better ways of educating people on how to properly use , maintain, store said fire arm an ammo.

 

 

I am more disappointed that we do not have some kind of government fire arms training in general,  let alone government options to purchase safes , locks, and storage devices for ammunition in general.

[CrossCuT]

Haha, I didnt read the OP but just the title made me laugh. Youre asking to be flamed by conservative gun nuts...that is all. 

 

 

Good luck to you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Haha, I didnt read the OP but just the title made me laugh. Youre asking to be flamed by conservative gun nuts...that is all. 

 

 

Good luck to you.

 

ive had this debate before. i am aware of the gun nut flame prospect. as someone who sometimes trolls, getting flamed can be amusing so it's not like it's all bad.

 

plus this time i gave a lot of organized and preemptive responses. i'm curious if people will keep repeating hte same talking points when there's so many already responded to. maybe they will see the bigger picture sooner and only offer more valid points, maybe some progress can be made. 

 

i realize there are folks like winchester who views anything like a gun restriction as legally and morally wrong, end of discussion. i'm mostly looking for people who oppose gun restrictions for practical purposes, then taking away their practical purposes. then seeing what else they have left to offer.

[dairygirl4u2c]

saying that the USA needs more gun restrictions due to this statistic and that and throwing example after example on why one favors either doing away with or limiting the 2nd amendment, is comparable to arguing that priests should be allowed to marry because that in turn would cut down on future sex scandals.

 

the logic doesn't add up,

 

The second amendment is the last stand we as free people have against a government that continues to get bigger and more oppressive presidential term after presidential term.

 

If one were to do away with the second amendment and engage in limiting guns of any kind to legal law abiding Americans, then we mine as well  sign our lives over to our government and pray that God will move them to do the right things with our lives.

 

I will support any law that demands safety training or some kind of firearms training for those that want to legally own one, and to take annual tests in maintaining and firing ones fire arm, like we do for driving a car; tests out the ying yang and even in some states smog testing. Same for a fire arm, perhaps someone inspects the fire arm every so often to make sure it is being maintained properly and isn't rusting or what ever. An making sure that the ammunition is being properly stored and cared for. That doesn't require someone going into ones home it would simply require bringing in said ammunition and fire arms for inspection and documentation of how it is being protected and stored. Or maybe not maybe that is a horrible idea, but the point is leave the second amendment alone, and if anything create better ways of educating people on how to properly use , maintain, store said fire arm an ammo.

 

 

I am more disappointed that we do not have some kind of government fire arms training in general,  let alone government options to purchase safes , locks, and storage devices for ammunition in general.

 

it basically sounds like you agree with me. i see merit in having guns, though i might be one to want to get rid of them or find way of significantly reducing them. aside from that, your other points you seem to agree with me on, pretty much. you're not as much of a gun advocate as you might think.

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i am curious if the most viorulent gun proponents think violent felons should be able to have guns. the second amendment if you take it as clear beyond the militia point, would seem to indicate tha tthey too should have guns.

[CrossCuT]

ive had this debate before. i am aware of the gun nut flame prospect. as someone who sometimes trolls, getting flamed can be amusing so it's not like it's all bad.

 

plus this time i gave a lot of organized and preemptive responses. i'm curious if people will keep repeating hte same talking points when there's so many already responded to. maybe they will see the bigger picture sooner and only offer more valid points, maybe some progress can be made. 

 

i realize there are folks like winchester who views anything like a gun restriction as legally and morally wrong, end of discussion. i'm mostly looking for people who oppose gun restrictions for practical purposes, then taking away their practical purposes. then seeing what else they have left to offer.

 

Hehe touche!

Ps. I love that video! Im a big John Oliver fan! :)