How are the following "strict gun control":
No sales of guns at gun shows other than with background checks
No magazines/drums/devices over 15 shots -if you can't protect yourself with fifteen shots, it's very unlikely you ever will
All sales of guns must be registered and background checks done.
As someone who would like strict gun control, I can say that I almost always don't care about a metaphysical question like this one and almost always care a lot about policy outcomes to the exclusion of everything else. I am not about to find myself in a state of nature, so I don't care what the state of nature entails. Hope this non-answer suffices.Originally Posted by lurkerdeac
I'm fine with 1 and 3 minus the "registration" requirement as registration has historically led to confiscation, but background checks are no problem. Number 2 is a meaningless regulation. But that's not what's in Finestein's proposed legislation and not what most people are advocating in this thread.
It has NEVER led to confiscation in the US. That's a crock of shit.
Ban assault weapons (we can't own tanks), tax the shit out of all other forms of guns, and start taking mental illness seriously. Also encouraging our parents to actually be parents (and not babysit their wussy ass kids with TV and video games) wouldn't be bad idea either.
What happened in GB and Austrialia? Even if I thought you meant that RJ, some of your liberal, i mean moderate, friends actually speak what they think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dougla...b_2341815.html.
Not sure I follow you on this one Faithful. Would you think of someone as crazy or a "nut" if they had a tornado bunker? Not sure about a sprinkler system but does having a fire extinguisher in my house make me crazy because I want to be prepared in case of a fire?
Back at ya mate.
The problem is even if we ban and confiscate all rifles it will barely affect the number of gun deaths. More people were beaten to death with someones bare hands than were killed with a rifle last year.
Link? And why did you specify "killed with a rifle" rather than "killed with a gun"? Who brought up rifles besides you?
Good enough for me. I'm not big into them either. I just was surprised by the number of people that don't seem to think you have a right to protect yourself or your property. Self-protection and private property are the basis of a civilized society. I wouldn't shoot someone over a TV hanging on my wall, but I not really inclined to let them get near my three little girls or my wife if they forcibly enter my home.
Get you a link in a second BBD, I posted it from the FBI website in a thread the other day. As to why I brought up the rifles, I was responding to Brasky who said we should ban all assault weapons. We've discussed ad nasuem how that term means different things to different people but generally "all rifles" would include the broadest definition of "assault weapon."
I agree.
See even there I'm not concerned about "rights." That I have a right to be safe should mean that others have an obligation not to harm me. We then put together a state in which people don't harm other people, within limits. I'm sympathetic to castle doctrine, but David Hemenway's research shows that guns in the house are more likely to be used to threaten or shoot an intimate than to defend against a home invasion. I don't like that trade-off, so I don't like self-defense rationales for gun ownership.
Of course it is possible that big muscles are also used more often to threaten intimates than to protect against home invasions. I may have to do some thinking. I do think guns are uniquely lethal.
BBD, here's the link: FBI Statistics
I'm sure that some of the "category" unknown may in fact have been rifles, but if the % breakdown of type of weapon holds, it wouldn't effect much.
As a practical matter, without banning (weather through an outright ban or rediculous taxation) handguns, your not going to touch the number. Also, even with confiscation, my guess is it would take a long time to get all the handguns out there.
I'm also not a defeatest about being able to curb the number of innocent deaths, I just don't think taking away legal gun ownership is the answer.
As long as we are thinking big picture, my problem is I still believe we live in a fallen world and that there will always be evil, it's human nature.
I agree they are uniquely lethal. That's why they provide equality of force to women, handicap persons, and older folks. Otherwise, the muscle would always win.
What in the world does "fallen world" mean?
A very small percentage of people who commit crimes are the kind of people who would have committed those crimes no matter what (the people with psychopathic genes). The vast majority of those who commit crimes are doing it because they are desperate individuals with nothing to lose, caught in the heat of the moment. If people have something to lose, they are much less likely to commit crime. It's why political unrest/revolution is usually preceded by economic depression or drought.
Being evil isn't human nature. Doing whatever you can to survive and procreate IS human nature. If you give people a good enough framework to survive and procreate in a lawful manner, crime will plummet.
Yes, I was waiting for god to come into the conversation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote