1. Guest, due to an issue with the agelock we had to redo the whole system, if you did not get your access yet, please wait up to an hour to receive it, if you haven't still gotten it afterwards, please PM dopy.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Using yahoo mail? Some of you have been flagging us as spam, hence mails sent to a yahoo email account will no longer be delivered for an undisclosed time. Please consider using a different email host if you really need those emails.
    Dismiss Notice

Weapon bans

Thal Oct 31, 2016

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thal

    Thal dddd

    1,068
    148
    63
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Arcanine
    Credits:
    5,724
    I got inspiration from this video.



    So, I would to see a (civil) debate on weapon bans. What do you guys think?
     
  2. Texshi

    Texshi Member

    74
    19
    8
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Species:
    Yoshi
    Credits:
    3,011
    No ban need moar gunz
     
  3. Whitescar

    Whitescar Active Member

    341
    89
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Cheetah
    Credits:
    6,027
    Just gonna say that I usually like his vids, but he drops the ball at the starting line. If a school shooting is "emotionally charged" then how is defending against government oppression and John Wayning your way through armed muggers breaking into your home not equally emotionally charged? Both sides are blatantly guilty of this and people who 'think' they know how to handle firearms are way worse than those who flat out do not and also acknowledge that. Case in point: all the accidents and misfires that maim and kill thousands annually in the US alone.

    You can try to have a rational discussion about firearms, but it boils down to issues which have, due to their nature, very limited hard evidence or it is conflicting with itself. So in the end the personal evaluations and beliefs of people will have a disproportionately large impact. No matter what.

    However, two things are facts and indisputable at that.
    1. More firearms benefits firearms manufacturers.
    2. More firearms means easier ways for people to kill and be killed.

    The rest is mostly opinion.
     
    BennyJackdaw likes this.
  4. It'sthatonegiy

    It'sthatonegiy New Member

    10
    9
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Husky
    Credits:
    1,894
    I'm too lazy to type everything out. so I'm just gonna let this guy do it for me

     
  5. Whitescar

    Whitescar Active Member

    341
    89
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Cheetah
    Credits:
    6,027
    So, cases where someone draws a weapon (no matter how dangerously) in a self-defence situation (as judged by themselves) is equal to someone actually dying... Riiiiiiiiiight.
    Self-defence cases are the real problem in this discussion, because the reality of those cases are so poorly documented. Things such as if the sitaution was solvable without firearms, if the use of a firearm made the situation better or worse, if the use of a firearm put other people into even more danger, etc. are left undocumented. Mainly this is because prevention of an event is extremely difficult to judge, what with prevention leaving no record of any event ever happening.

    Also I feel the need to point out that even though the video author states an 800 000 annual self-defence number, he fails to provide any sort of source to this number. Instead he just says it is a number which we all should agree upon, because apparently others do so as well and "no one can argue against it". This is about as bad argumentation as there is. "I have a number that we all know is true and no-one can argue against it. It is so well-accepted, in fact, that I won't even provide any sources for where I got it..." Yeah.

    If you go to the comments, someone asked him for the link/reference and he flat-out refused to provide it. So I think that speaks volumes of how certain he is about this number. If one has nothing to hide, show us your sources.

    So yeah, another heavily biased opinion which tugs at your heartstrings. Because why are children more important than tax-paying adults? Why are 20-somethings less worthy as human beings than people at 18 or 15 or younger? Is a life that's cut short at kindergarten a bigger or smaller tragedy than one which ends at 20, the so-called "prime of your life"?

    All philosophical banter, really, and which brings us to my original point. It is impossible to have a truly facts-only discussion about gun control without going for those emotional arguments.
     
  6. Sapphire

    Sapphire dddddd

    4,398
    316
    83
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Vulpine
    Credits:
    26,731
    When it comes to the opposition to guns, the argument is that guns are designed to kill others as their purpose, and therefore all guns should be banned to prevent anyone using guns for the purpose of killing. But there are other weapons that people sometimes have and you mostly see and hear nothing, or absolutely nothing, in the media about them, such as; bows and arrows, crossbows, swords, javalines, knifes (daggers), and so on. Sure, you hear about stabbings, but you also hear about shootings, even in Europe with our notoriously heavy restrictions on guns. Fireworks are dangerous, could potentially be used to kill or harm people, and they are still sold to the public. They are bombs, after all. If one sets their mind to it, you could use almost anything you see around you to kill someone, and people do; smothering someone with a pillow, using a heavy object (statue, clock, chair, etc.) as a weapon, drowning in the tub, electrocution, suffocation, carbon monoxide poisoning, and all sorts of other creative ways to commit murder. Most of those that die these ways, however, are just accidents that could happen to anyone at any time. And all of these examples are just at the home, you wouldn't believe how perilously dangerous a place of work can be, even in an office; sometimes people die tripping over a wire or snipping on the stairs; and then there are those who are just idiots that do unbelievably stupid things, like standing on a swivel chair or failing to put a sign up on a wet floor surface. Don't even get me started when it comes to industry or construction or other extremely hazardous forms of labour, like mining and drilling and tree surgery. We live in a very dangerous world, you know, and the vast majority of dangers are things you would not even think about; in fact, people go out of their way to refuse to think about them. A person, anyone you see in America, could be carrying a gun, legally or otherwise, and you pass them on the street anyway without even knowing they had a gun on them. The same goes anywhere; you have no idea what other people around you have consealed on their person.

    *pants* Anyway, rant over, the point is that banning guns isn't a magic pill that is going to miraculously solve our fatality rates. People who want to kill will do all they can to accomplish that task. Wannabe-killers will come up with some way to commit murder, and they will even use their own two hands if there really is no other way.

    There is also the argument that people who use a weapon, in self defense or otherwise, used it because they had it and could use it at the time, so banning everyone from having guns would prevent the temptation. Fair enough, but what makes you think they will cease to carry a weapon once guns are banned? Someone who wants to carry a weapon will carry a weapon, legally or otherwise, and you cannot really do anything to prevent it. You can make it difficult, but you cannot stop it.

    It is just better that people have weapons but learn to use them properly and responsibly, just like the guy in the video that Thal posted said. We train people to properly and responsibly use every other type of tool that there is, so why not guns? Guns are tools, after all, like every other weapon.
     
    Maroo, Thal, Tuddy and 1 other person like this.
  7. Tuddy

    Tuddy The Admin that likes Games

    208
    98
    28
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    Species:
    Skunk
    Credits:
    3,327
    ... remind me to never, ever get on your bad side.

    Back on topic, I think Sapphire raises an interesting point in regards to weapon training - in Switzerland, all citizens over the age of 18 are trained in the use of firearms and are expected to be ready to defend their country at any given time. Switzerland has, statistically speaking, the highest percentage rate of gun ownership out of any country you could care to name, and yet, it has the lowest numbers of gun crimes and gun-related deaths, accidental or otherwise. You can attribute this to the higher standards of living and education in the small country - after all, the cost of living there is ludicrously high; and so it's only really achievable by a very small percentage of wider society, those in the absolute best-paying fields of work, and even then the best in their respective fields... and immigration rules are incredibly strict, with illegal immigration to the country being practically unheard of; but it goes to show - a society that is armed and trained to use said arms properly can have gun usage and carry so normalised that anybody likely to shoot somebody for whatever reason isn't going to - I mean, why risk it?

    In regards to Gun Control in the US specifically - to this day, I do not understand the push. Sometimes, I worry that it is pushed by a fearful minority, those who worry that people are going to band against them and overthrow them by force were they to ever get into a position of power; but I realise that sounds like a ludicrous conspiracy.
     
  8. Whitescar

    Whitescar Active Member

    341
    89
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Cheetah
    Credits:
    6,027
    A couple points:

    Yes, anything can be used to kill. Yet if you look at the US where guns are readily available, guns are by far the preferred method for doing so and especially when it comes to suicides. Is this a problem? Yes, because people who have been stabbed several times or bludgeoned by several strikes from crowbars, saucepans, clubs, fists still have a reasonable chance of survival. People with multiple gunshot wounds tend to be very dead by the time any paramedics show up.

    If you want some numbers, a 9mm pistol cartdridge delivers some 600-700 J of energy which is on par with being punched by a professional boxer. However, the damage from a punch is spread over such a wide area that tissue damage is restricted to bruises. Yet the 9mm will tear your insides to pulp...

    So what does weapon banning do? It raises the threshold for using lethal force. When guns are abundant, people die easily. Even a flimsy .22 peashooter will kill a man if it strikes the head. People get punched and hit in the head in fights and still survive (although head wounds are always very serious). So the change is not to human nature, but to the means of violence. Better that we not give ourselves the tools to kill when we get thrown into that red rage and lose all sense of restraint...

    Secondly, Switzerland also has a disproportionately high number of family members threatened by guns. Men forcing their wives to have sex at gunpoint has become such an epidemic in the nation that they have begun to end the issuing of weapons to them.

    Also, note that the guns given to the Swiss conscripts are full-sized rifles and the ammunition is sealed away and inspected regularly. This sort of restrictions alone (especially with inspections) are impossible for NRA-supporters to swallow.
    Furthermore, handguns are the real danger and culprit. Restricting weapons available to the civilians to merely Militia weapons (I.e. Rifles and other long guns) would be a step in the right direction, but again almost impossible to do, politically...

    Speaking of minorities though, the US gun ownership demographic has shown a trend that fewer people own more guns, while a growing number of people own no guns.
    Also in national polls, majority of even the NRA's membership were advocating stronger gun control...

    If you stop to think, which side is out for the greater good? The side that wants to restrict access to everyone or the side that wants to ensure their own continued access to something? Especially when there is such a big industry at risk. It's pretty easy to see that any private interest lies in maintaining a high gun population.

    Lastly, safety is a mentality. I recall a discussion on these forums about a gun that only fired if held by its owner. The usually pro-gun people were horrified, they thought this was a very unreliable means of securing the weapon since it might not fire when they wanted to. So they declared they'd rather sleep with a loaded pistol on the bedside table without a trigger lock instead...

    Assuming this very small sampling has even a modicum of representation for a larger population, we have a problem that runs deeper than just "education". And you can't cure such fundamental problems. Or if you do, let us know because such means could be surely adapted to cure many other social ails as well!
     
  9. Sapphire

    Sapphire dddddd

    4,398
    316
    83
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Vulpine
    Credits:
    26,731
    @Whitescar

    The point is that taking away guns just means people are going to carry and use other weapons, that is if they do not buy guns illegally, which is a near impossible trade to stop. And maybe. Maybe someone stabbed several times could survive, just as someone could survive a shot to the head, but survival of potentially lethal attack isn't really what we want, is it? We want violence to stop, or lessened as much as possible. People are not going to stop being violent towards one another just because you take away their guns. They can always use something else.

    Also, an element of law consists the initial state of the victim before harm was caused. It doesn't matter if the victim was unbelievably medically fragile, you are liable for any harm you caused. If you punch someone and they die from that punch alone, you are liable for murder, manslaughter if the prosecution cannot convince the jury that it is reasonable for the average citizen to know that a single punch could potentially kill. It doesn't matter how light the impact was, how much you didn't intend it to kill, what actions you took when their victim stopped moving, or how compromised you might have been with alcohol or some other form of intoxication; killing someone is killing someone, no matter how you did it or how susceptible they were to severe injury. It doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not, you can kill someone with your bare hands and is easier than most would appreciate, and that is a weapon we certainly cannot take off everyone. So, no, if you punch someone and they live, then consider yourself very lucky they were so durable. You would still be prosecuted for assault, though, and many would consider someone very fortunate to have survived several stab wounds.

    Even if a ban was passed, how can we enforce it? How are we going to convince people to hand over their weapons peacefully, especially when these laws are laws they disagreed with in the first place? By force? By persuasion? I remember that the UK government initiated a scheme for members of the public to hand over weapons, knives typically, to the police in confidential weapon bins and, in exchange, they would not face any legal action for possessing the weapons. It succeeded in acquiring many knives, but there were still many more out there unaccounted for. Not all of them could be recovered this way. But knives were illegal weapons in the UK, whereas guns are legal weapons to possess now in the US. Sure, you could just stop weapons being sold once the laws are passed, but what about the many millions of guns already held by citizens? What should we do if they will not give up their weapons? It's a powder keg, this issue, and one most don't want to go off.

    That is why it is better to work with a system of legal gun ownership in a country like the US rather than trying to wrestle these weapons out of the hands of the public. Like I mentioned, training and safety instruction in the proper and responsible use of guns is the best route, and these things are compulsory with every other type of tool that could potentially kill or harm with misuse. Ensuring all citizens that possess weapons can use them safely and responsibly is not unreasonable, and is desirable to ensure accidents are avoided as much as possible. Also, training citizens only once is not sufficient, people forget things or grow careless as is the case with drivers, and so training and safety workshops should be something compulsory and provided by either the NRA or local police forces at regular intervals to ensure continued retention of the safe and responsible use of weapons.

    The 'greater good'? You cannot be serious. So many horrors can be wrought upon the world if one is convinced that they are doing it all for the 'greater good'. Eugenics is for the 'greater good', objectively speaking, but would any of us support that philosophy? I will leave that for people to decide for themselves.

    Ha, try telling that to the HSE (Health & Safety Executive); you are inviting them to give a long and dull talk on the importance of safety with that first statement. Considering there is an entire science surrounding health and safety procedures, it is far more than a mentality, but most people do not see it that way, I do agree. They see H&S as being meddling and tiresome, to their detriment, but there are also those H&S officers who let the implied power go to their heads. And, yes, I quite agree that this policy is incredibly dangerous, but you solve this by explaining to them the incredible risks they are taking. Of course, H&S offices fire people who do not adhere to safety procedures, and so those that use guns dangerously should have their licenses revoked. I am sure many gun owners would agree with that policy since irresponsible gun owners make them all look bad and pushes for stricter gun laws.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2016
  10. BennyJackdaw

    BennyJackdaw Member

    109
    21
    18
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Species:
    GiantRat
    Credits:
    2,727
    People tell me to look at both sides of the debate. I don't know. I've rarely heard good things about guns. Heck most people don't even feel safe outside anymore because people are allowed to carry guns, and I don't blame them. They say it's the user of the gun, not the gun, that is responsible, but like Whitescar said: the people who think they know how to use guns are often the worst at using them.
     
  11. Sapphire

    Sapphire dddddd

    4,398
    316
    83
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Vulpine
    Credits:
    26,731
    Like drivers. You should read the articles on the HSE website. It is all a matter of knowledge, training, and retention of said information as well as the user's general attitude toward safe use. Many gun owners are responsible with their weapons just as there are many responsible drivers on the roads, but you still get people who seem to think public roads are a rally car circuit. I think there is an entire illegal racing sport built on that idea, in fact.
     
  12. Whitescar

    Whitescar Active Member

    341
    89
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Cheetah
    Credits:
    6,027
    @Sapphire

    One simply question to your proposed solution: Who's going to pay for all of that? And what will the consequences be if one fails to report for their state-demanded safety class? Or fails to showcase a desired level of safety? Will their guns be taken away from them? Will they be fined? Aaand we're back in the same kettle of fish as you just wanted to avoid, i.e. forcibly disarming the population. Or optionally the safety classes will be so easy to pass that they will not make any difference. Because let's be real here, there are a lot of folk in the population at large who should NOT have firearms, yet they still do. These people should have the guns taken away from them. Even if not for their own good, then for the good of the rest of us.

    Anyway, deploy the wall of text!

    So you're saying that by reducing guns we'd be seeing more people armed with baseball bats? Riiiight...
    You drive an SUV if the gas price is suitable. If it goes too high up, you switch to some sort of hybrid. If it goes up even further, you'll start thinking about public transporatation or (heaven forbid) a bike. People respond to incentives. If the "price" of carrying a gun is very low and the preceived benefit of being armed is perceived to be above this price, then people will be armed. There are thus two ways to disarm people. One is the raise the "price" of being armed and the other is to reduce the perceived benefits.

    The Price can be raised by making it more of a chore to get a carrying permit, require special steps on safety (like trigger locks or other such safety measures to be in place even when carrying the weapon in public), limit the types of weapons (only long guns) or by simply putting a fat tax stamp on guns and ammunition.
    The Perceived benefits can be lowered by providing additional security through police presence and improving response times, actively fighting against disenfranchisation and gangs, etc. In a nutshell, make people feel safe and they will not consider it a must to be armed every time they leave the house.

    You make a huge point on how easy it is to kill people, but if you look at the statistics, you will see that people who are intent on violence and pick up a gun instead of a broom or a skillet tend to end up killing the target far more often than their counterparts. Wonder why?
    No-one is saying you CANNOT kill without a gun. What people are saying is that guns make it far too easy to kill someone.
    https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
    Guns are used in almost 70% of murders. Is this a coincidence or is this just that guns are very well suited for that purpose while the other implements are less so? And are you going to argue with a straight face that if we removed guns as an option for murder, the total number would stay exactly the same, with people simply switching to other implements?

    We want people to be less violent and that is a complex issue to tackle. Merely taking away the implements of lethal violence does not remove violence, but it does drastically limit its impact. If a fight erupts between two people and they draw guns on eachother, it is quite likely that someone will end up dead. If the same situation happened and knives were drawn, there is a good chance both sides involved would be hurt and pain has this odd function of being a very good discouragement for whatever action that caused it, which at least holds the potential of ending the fight without leading to lethal endings. Firearms have no such ability.

    Of course this is where the couch John Waynes pop in and say they'll shoot for the legs, but when the other guy is drawing a gun on you and opening fire, I'd love to see the person who has the mental fortitude to "aim for the leg" if it means exposing themselves to fire in order to take such aimed shots. For the vast majority of people, this is an entirely impossible thing to do.

    Basic human psychology, like that of most animals, is not geared to be lethal. In a situation where a confrontation happens, the ability to discourage the other side from continuing whatever action they're trying do is the goal, not killing them. In nature, this behavior is called posturing and usually involves bright colors, looking big and bumping against the foe in a non-lethal manner. In a lot of cases, humans operate the exact same way and the conflict can be solved by "posturing" or simply yielding. Rarely is a criminal interested in murder. It would either imply they are psychotic or have some reason to kill you. In most cases, though, it's about money or some other valuables.


    On the topic of safety, telling people about risks is always a good thing, but what I mean by safety being a mentality is that there are some people who simply are more risk-prone than others. They may know the risks, but in their minds they are different and although "everyone else" has to adhere to the rules, "They" can bend them just a little bit. Because as long as they know the risks, nothing bad can happen from slightly bending safety regulations, right? Yeah...

    Just from the workplace perspective, humans are the cause of accidents in 99,9% of cases. Machines are very nice in that they rarely fail to do what is asked of them and, assuming failsafes are installed, will not injure people. However, when such failsafes do not exist (or they have been disabled), then bad things can and will happen. This is the reason why humans are the focus of most H&S stuff, rather than machinery. The steel is already smart and safe. A gun with a safety on will not discharge itself in any but the most unusual of circumnstances. So when someone gets injured, around 70 000 cases annually, or killed, around 30 000 cases annually, the reason for this is "operator error". Or to put it another way, "guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns just faciliate the killing".

    So in conclusion, yes, gun-owners need to be a heck of a lot more careful with how they store and operate their firearms. However, who is going to pay for this gun training? Can it be made mandatory without it being considered in violation of the 2nd Amendment and to be paid by the gun-owner themself? Who will ensure that the safety standards are upheld?
    We often see these very well-versed gun owners take to the podium and declare that guns are totally safe when used and handled safely and responsibly and I agree with that. However, let us not take them as a sampling of actual gun owners. When the highest reason for owning a gun in the US is self-defence and the most common type of firearm is the handgun (the most dangerous of guns in terms of danger zone), then it is easy to understand that most gun owners will not be experts and will not spend a lot of time refining their skills, nor will they necessarily find it useful to obtain safe storage for the weapon. And this is the problem... People who actually are passionate about firearms, who train with them and who act professionally with their longrifles are not the problem. The problem, unfortunately, is Joe Twelvepack who bought "A Gun" for "Protecting the house" and who's weapon training consits of a half-slept lecture ten years ago and a selection of Westerns and Die Hard.

    Better training and demands for higher standards are a must, but it will have to involve tightening the gun laws. Without people potentially losing the right to own and carry, most of the training will just be wasted. Consequences breed responsibility. Is that not what gun-owners tend to say to justify carrying guns? That the consequence of a shootout deters robbers. Clearly consequences for neglicence should be far harsher in order to deter folk from doing stupid things which lead to injuries and death.
     
  13. Whitescar

    Whitescar Active Member

    341
    89
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Cheetah
    Credits:
    6,027
    And filtering out these irresponsible idiots and making sure they are disallowed from having a gun or car (respectively, but not exclusively) is in the case of a car totally justified by general consensus, but far less so when it comes to guns. Nevertheless, irresponsible owners should have their weapons taken away from them, even if they have not caused any direct harm (yet). Training is all fine and dandy, but what you need is repercussions for failing exams and checks...
     
  14. Sapphire

    Sapphire dddddd

    4,398
    316
    83
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Vulpine
    Credits:
    26,731
    Think of it like the laws on driving licenses. I heard on the news some time ago that governments were thinking of implementing manditory driving license renewals every 10 years or so, and it would be no different with guns. It is just a matter of whether this could be classed as unconstitutional or not, which I leave for those more familiar with US law to say.
    1) The Government through schoolling at an early age. You cannot 'infringe' on the right, so the best way get safety practices to be adopted by potential gun owners is to train everyone at a school age to properly and safely use weapons. It is the only way I can think of that could work, be agreeable, and be constitutional at the same time.
    2&3) I suppose there is little that you can do. You could fine people for not completing courses or meeting requirements by law, but will that stop them? No. The US treasury will get some money, though. Officials would say that is a plus, at least.

    People who shouldn't have guns shouldn't have guns, but blanket bans on guns just won't work, constitutionally or practically. Either way, if we cannot do it your way and we cannot do it my way, then the status quo is the remaining option until someone offers a solution that everyone can be happy with. Regardless, trying to convince the public in the safe use of guns is still worth doing, even if few take notice.

    Not baseball bats, necessarily. Bit obvious, one might say. Knives, shivs, daggers, and some that can be concealed in gloves for hand-to-hand fighting would likely be used. All options that can and are used in place of guns.

    The same argument to raise prices as deterrents has been used on other things from junk food and alcohol to smoking and car usage. People will just pay the higher prices, or even begger themselves to get what they want. They will also just put up with the frustration of getting their licenses and guns. People put up with the DMV, after all. It doesn't work.

    Also, not everyone buys guns for the purpose of self defence necessarily, but rather because they like shooting as a sport or just have an interest in weaponry. I don't understand the interest myself, but then again I have never held a real gun before. Maybe I ought to try it sometime.

    Police are already fighting those battles today, to the best of their ability with the resources and mandates given to them by the authorities, but some people would rather have the added security of a gun themselves, just in case. You never know, right?

    That is because guns are more readily available, of course. The point is these same people, without a gun, may very well use another weapon in place of a gun. In short, the gun crime statistics would just become knife crime statistics, or other statistics of different violent crime with weapons or improvised weapons or their bare hands. And, yes, that is what I am saying. Again, it doesn't stop black market buying of guns, and people who want to kill will achieve that task with another weapon or their own hands, whichever way they can. You also have to take into consideration the amount of guns there are out there already, meaning that finding even the majority of them will take decades, and will likely spike gun crime because all gun ownership, of one sort or otherwise, would be a criminal offence. And, again, this would be unconstitutional.

    Not necessarily. They might realise how risky the situation is and pull out diplomatically. Mutually assured destruction, and all that. You would have to be a very confident shooter, or an incredibly stupid shooter, to take that kind of risk with an unknown element. Even if that element is criminal, they would likely realise there are easier targets to hit, and back away still. The threat of lethal force can make a person think very differently very quickly. Also, you would have to know how to use a knife properly and know where to hit for it to be non-lethal, otherwise the danger of killing someone or being killed yourself is still high. And that is if you lose and if that person wouldn't sooner just kill you. And, again, you have no idea of the condition of the person you are attacking or defending yourself from. Someone who cannot clot their wounds could die very quickly from a stab wound, and you wouldn't know, not that it matters. Besides, your interest isn't in the safety of your attacker but in your safety. Weaponry in fights is terribly risky no matter what you use, or how armed one is in contrast to the other.

    It really depends. But if you cannot take a non-lethal shot, then what can you do? Let them shoot you? If you did not have a gun, your assailant still might, and you would be in an even dire situation of being at the mercy of your attacker. And, depending on their interest in you, you might prefer to be shot and die right there than suffer whatever horrors they might have in store for you. And, yes, most of the time it is just to rob you, but people do not know what their assailants at that moment have in mind. It could be anything. They might want to kidnap you and sell you into slavery. Or rape you. Or kill you. Some, many probably, would prefer to risk defending themselves than yield, so that is what they choose to do; not going down without a fight, and all that.

    Yes, there are those people, they also run red lights and repair machinery while it is still in use. Fools. That is where firing them comes into play, in industry. But what about guns? It all depends on what the Supreme Court would determine as constitutional or not.

    1) As mentioned, the government through schoolling at an early age. 2) The Second Amendment is an interesting one. The wording is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Constitutionally, you would have to interpret the wording in line with the rest of the document, and it is quite difficult to legally deprive anyone of a 'weapon'. One way around it is to interpret 'the people' and 'militia' as being one and the same thing, at least in this context, but I doubt that would stick. Another way is to interpret 'infringed' and whether regulations and safety procedures are 'infingements' on the right or not. One last intrepretation would be on 'Arms' and whether more modern weapons would be included. Other than those, it seems impossible to change without a constitutional amendment. 3) Legally, a regulatory body, if one doesn't exist already, assisted by the NRA and the public, like how the HSE operates. Socially, there could be groups and clubs, including those that already exist, that promote safe use of guns, though I am sure many do already.

    *chuckles* Oh, you are funny sometimes, Whitescar. :smile: And yes, I totally agree, but what can we do? All we can do is try to promote safety and training, and try to get it through to people how dangerous guns can be if misused and encourage them to pick up safety practices. A constitutional amendment would be revolutionary, perhaps literally, so it just isn't going to happen. And we know the advocates of gun control laws won't revolt. I mean, how would that work? Nag people to death? They try that all the time away.

    This is a difficult issue, but we have to find a solution which is both agreeable and constitutional. I really think the training and responsible use instruction of guns whilst at school age is the best way forward.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2016
  15. Whitescar

    Whitescar Active Member

    341
    89
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Cheetah
    Credits:
    6,027
    No, it clearly is not. If only a handful take notice and you spend 10-100 million dollars in order to prevent 2 deaths per year, that is not worth it. You could have spent those dollars on improving public safety in other areas and gained a far greater "bang for your buck". So whatever sort of system you want to implement, it has to be competitive and that will, most usually, involve the users paying for it, i.e. the gun owners.

    Making gun/weapon training mandatory at schools?! Sorry to say this, but that is both a pipedream and also frankly ludicrous. Just the simple fact of trying to get past the teachers' union with this sort of stuff and the general public outrage and political backlash for "militarizing" the population...

    And from where would you take this time?
    Which curricular activities would be less-important so they'd be eschewed in lieu of gun training? Especially when not nearly everyone will ever own or use a firearm? We don't train people to drive at school, so I it being a mandatory class sounds like a horrible idea.

    But if we want to equate it to a car, then why not have it the exact same way as a car? You take theory lessons, handling lessons, then do a theory exam and then a practical exam and then you're issued a gun-carrying lisence which is good for, let's say 10 years. Also as a part of said exam is a medical examination, just like if you have poor eyesight or something like that which would interfere with your ability to drive a car, but this exam would be more of a psychiatric evaluation, since that is a more relevant check to do anyway.

    Once the citizen has done these steps and acquired the lisence, they're free to purchase firearms, though they must also provide a reason for purchase and a statement of where the weapon will be stored when not on the owner's person. This is to ensure that guns don't simply "go missing" and that they are kept properly behind lock and key. Just like you don't give your car keys to your underage (or lisence-less) child, you must not allow your guns to fall into their hands.

    With these steps all completed, the citizen can now own and use firearms normally and safely. Not a bad system, no?
    Considering a driver's lisence costs about 1000 $ to acquire with all the training, actually around here it's closer to 2000€+, I think a conservative estimate for the cost of this ten-year lisence would be around 500-700$ plus administrative fees for renewal of the lisence every ten years.

    It does not impede or restrict anyone's right to bear arms if they qualify as a safe gun owner. It does not remove any firearm from the reach of the citizen either, so things like "assault weapon bans" needn't be maintained, because every registered gun-user would be trained and certified to operate them safely.

    Well, at least as safely as people operate their cars.

    It does work, quite well in fact. You just have to be bold enough and tighten the screw hard enough. When a burger costs 10 dollars, fries an extra 5$ and drinks somewhere in between, the salad bar next door which offers a meal for the price of a drink at McKing becomes very competitive. Every product has its price point and a level at which consumers will choose to buy another product instead. This is simple economics and it works.

    The reason why adding an extra percent or two or even ten to the price of a 2$ hamburger is not changing anything is because the new price would be at most 2.50$ and although some folk might consider that a deal-breaker, it will not be for most. Add a flat 5$ per purchased item -tax and watch the results...
    Obviously this is not a feasible option politically, but economically it does work.

    On a final note, just to put it to rest, guns are the most prefered means for killing your fellow man because they're both extremely good at it and they're psychologically easy to use. It takes a different person entirely to shove cold steel into your fellow man's guts, repeatedly, or bash them with a blunt piece of pipe, repeatedly, in order to see them dead as opposed to pulling a trigger from 100-50-20-10 yards away and watch them slump down. You can't even really make out their face, leading to dehumanization and thus an easier kill-choice.

    Guns promote killing and arguing what you can potentially achieve in a fight with weapons other than firearms is a pointless discussion. Yes, you can do harm, but No, no other weapon available to the public (or probably even the military) comes close to the sheer destructive firepower of small arms. That is why globally they are the leading cause of death when it comes to weapons. You can of course keep bringing this point up, but I will no longer register it, since it is an utterly moot point.
     
  16. Sapphire

    Sapphire dddddd

    4,398
    316
    83
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Vulpine
    Credits:
    26,731
    Wow, I am sure those two people would disagree, not that they would know. But, anyway, we do not know how it will affect the situation until it is used, at least somewhere to a sufficient degree. Government test out schemes by getting a single state or city to practice it for a time, then roll it out nationally when they have more information about the schemes effect and usefulness. Such a test would not be so costly, and, if it works, then we can plan for the big budget national implementation afterwards.

    Some might disagree, and it will be debated, but the central theme of these classes is safety and responsible gun handling, not to train people for combat. The teachers unions and the public, both, can hold their authorities accountable for the lessons, and demand explanation. It is either this, or risk our children becoming irresponsible gun owners in 30 years time; every fool and hardened criminal was a child like them once, after all. Sure, you could just tell the kids not to use guns, but you have no idea whether that is a viable option in 30 years or not.

    And it would really depend on the curriculum, and it doesn't have to be a whole separate class on its own. Gun use and safety could be taught in different classes alongside everything else; gun safety in health class, practical use of guns in PE, safety practices and procedures in citizenship class, gun maintenance in workshop classes, and so on. Also, emphasising 'gun safety' as the main reason and priority of these additional topics to our classes would get people on board in time. Showing them the material and explaining the rationale behind it would ease concerns.

    Because it wouldn't be constitutional. I mean, I agree with you, truly I do, but I do not think the Supreme Court would determine it to be constitutional since many would see these hoops as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the right. After all, if you do not go through all this, are you prevented from keeping and bearing arms? Yes, unless all gun shops everywhere had a personal policy to only sell guns to those with a valid license, but it would have to be all of them, and it cannot be because of government pressure. I know it is frustrating, but we have to find a solution that will not involve the Supreme Court, because whatever policy we come up with will be shot down if it does.

    In strictly literal sense, yes, of course if you raise a price high enough then it will become unaffordable, but no government would implement it and no company would tolerate it because it would destroy sectors of the economy. Governments try to do it gradually, but people adapt and find the money to spare, and so it continues. Education changes things, the more informed the public then the better choices they can make, and are likely to make. It is only through educating people on the health risks of smoking has it crashed in certain countries in recent decades.

    Not always. Some might think this, others might not. Personally, I think of WW1 and the Western Front when I think of guns, and all those millions of men who died in that hell. It is that destructive power that gives people pause, I would say, and makes them think about it more than what I knife would since it is just that closer to us in history and memory. Education, like I said, leads to people making better choices. And it is better to understand how to properly handle that destructive power responsibly than trying to do away with it entirely; we might been to use it one day, however unlikely that possibility might be.

    If the outcome is the same then it doesn't matter what weapon you use; gun, knife, crossbow; it hardly matters. Islamism, in all its history, is arguably responsible for killing 270 million people, and they did not have guns for most of that history. It is the same with ancient wars long before the advent of guns, going back and back thousands of years. You do not need guns to unleash horrors, you just need that desire to kill. As said, it is the violence and accidents that we are trying to curb, that is our real problem in this situation, not gun ownership. Guns mean something different to different people; it is historic to me, it promotes killing to you, it is a vital tool to armies, a source of protection and symbol of freedom to US militias, and a viable option when under threat for civilians all over the world. Swords and bows were thought of in much the same way once. Banning guns will not solve the problem of violent crime, of violence at all, and could potentially make gun crime worse, even if temporarily. But if you do not wish to discuss it then that is your choice.
     
    Tuddy likes this.
  17. White Timberwolf

    White Timberwolf dddd

    334
    15
    18
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Species:
    Timberwolf
    Credits:
    5,492
    OK, I'm going to put my purely blunt and forthright opinion in on this topic. Note though that most of what I will state is my own personal opinion, accented by two and a half years of military service along with 10 years of self-study and private usage of firearms.

    Weapon bans, and as a focal point, firearms, generally work only when a populace has limited interior and exterior ability to acquire/develop said weapon through any probable means. North Korea and China are likely a few notable ones that have managed to effectively utilize said bans due to rigid control of the mass populace, but said bans are low in actual effectiveness on their own.

    Now, firearms are one thing that simply cannot, and I bold, CAN NOT be taken from a well-armed populace such as the United States without excessive force, and even then it would cost more lives of both the populace and policing force than the U.S. Air Force carpet bombing New York City's urban population.

    Let that sink in for a moment. That is the amount of resistance that would enfold should said a widespread firearms ban ever become a possibility here.


    Now something simple, such as a mental check and weapons handling lesson prior to every firearm purchase, can easily limit the loss of life from firearms by a noticeable degree. It's why every Soldier, Marine, Airman, and Sailor in the U.S. Armed Forces learns how to properly care and use a firearm before ever being given rounds, be it blanks or live ammunition.

    As for who would pay for this?
    Hmmm, well since a .223 caliber AR-15 style rifle without magnifying optics and custom internals usually runs between $300-$800 USD, I'd say an extra $80 or $90 on top to pay for an in-store instructor to give say, an hour long twenty person maximum handling course.

    Even then, you'll still have that percentage that will do something stupid, but are you really trying to argue about that one guy you heard about who didn't do this or that and shot himself in the foot? That cannot be taught out no matter what, as human stupidity is probably expanding faster than the universe can.
     
  18. Whitescar

    Whitescar Active Member

    341
    89
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Species:
    Cheetah
    Credits:
    6,027
    Gotta love it how restricting access to a commodity item is going to cause wide-spread mass uprisings and essentially a civil war...

    Especially when most realistic "bans" are simply restrictions on weapon types, rather than outright total disarmament.
    Speaks volumes of how "logical" the pro-gun side is and another example of how pointless it is to ask for a non-emotional debate. When the other side is willing to start killing police and law-enforcement agents so they can have their guns, you know you're talking with lunatics. How many Hummer owners would start driving over policemen and DMV clerks if certain high-pollution cars were banned or restricted ownership only?

    Yup! Nothing but logical reactions here!

    But an interesting point was raised, control is needed to make such bans effective. Thus the US has lousy border control. Must build more walls and make the gun manufacturers pay for them...

    In all seriousness though, sensible restrictions to limit self-harm and injury shouldn't be a problem. No-one has so far been advocating any outright disarmament or total ban of firearms. So again the knee-jerk reaction of "try an' take mah guns and I'll shoot ya!" is almost as pointless as saying people would start arming themselves with baseball bats instead if guns were unavailable...

    Also on that note, crossbows are still illegal in most of Europe and Swords were usually illegal to carry inside cities, because even medieval societies exercised weapons control ad weapon bans.
     
  19. White Timberwolf

    White Timberwolf dddd

    334
    15
    18
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Species:
    Timberwolf
    Credits:
    5,492
    That's exactly the point I make people realize when they start spewing the same thing about the recent Presidential Election, and Hillary Clinton specifically. A level of education and control is needed, but needs to be initiated by a reputable source to enlighten individuals, and over time, a populated area.
     
  20. Maroo

    Maroo dddd

    493
    52
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Species:
    brown bear
    Credits:
    6,692
    Alright. I got plenty to read and among it I found a lot I can agree to. Now let me write down my own perspective and maybe an idea or two. I hope I am not forgetting anything since some of what I just read here gave me some good ideas, but my short-term memory keeps playing tricks on me.

    First off let me outline my own situation so that you hopefully can see the reasons for my perspective.
    As some of you may know, I am a German and I work on a security job. At this point I have neither the qualification nor does my current job bring the necessity of carrying a gun. But I have given this topic quite a lot of thought and I am planning on obtaining the qualification for firearms at some point. Also note that gun laws in Germany are very VERY strict. Outside police and military I can at this point only recall two groups of people who can get a license for firearms capable of shooting live ammunition - these being security personnel and licensed hunters. All others are limited to things such as air guns or alarm guns which look like real guns and make a ton of noise, but don't fire live rounds. Sure, both of these are still dangerous, but not as much as "Joe Twelvepack" with his gun full of APDS or whatnot - who was mentioned earlier.

    Quite frankly the possibility that everyone and their mother might be carrying one or more guns in combination with irresponsibility of a portion of US gun owners is pretty much why I am honestly afraid of visiting the US. Yes I know it isn't quite that bad, but the incidents I have read about are reason enough for me to not feel safe in such an environment (People luring others onto their property just to shoot them and referring to that stand-your-ground-law for example - or instructors giving Uzis to children and things like that).

    With this out of the way let me dive into the topic itself...

    Do I think a ban of firearms is useful - or even feasible?
    Short answer: No and no. As was already determined, it is the irresponsible people who pose the greatest problem in this case. And as such they will hardly acknowledge a ban - which makes it unfeasible. This far I do agree with what has been outlined so far. a ban doesn't make a problem disappear.

    Then what else can be done if a ban is out of the question?
    Again a good solution was already outlined here. Education. Not in school mind you. The whole idea of making guns for childrens (such as "myfirstrifle") makes me sick every time I read or think about it - the same is true for instructors who let a 9-year old shoot an uzi on full auto (with the result of the responsible irresponsible instructor being hit in the head). No I am talking about proper training. And for this it is very useful that Sapphire already quoted that infamous second amendment.

    The key words in my opinion are "well regulated" here. Herein also lies a possibility to solve the problem of enforcement: Those who want to own and use firearms and ammunition need to join the militia. Not only would this require registration of guns as part of regulation, but the regulations could also demand weapon exercises on a regular basis - which technically is training where instructors could then further drill home the idea of responsible use of firearms. Sure, it is by no means foolproof, but I think it could be a start. Those who would not join the militia would subsequently no longer be able to call upon the second amendment, which would result in their weapon ownership becoming illegal.
    But what about collectors?
    This depends on whether said collectors want to use their guns or not. If yes they would have to enlist with the militia. If not they could after proper safety training obtain a possession license for guns, but not ammunition which also would require renewal every few years or so (with repetitions of the aforementioned safety training).
    And what to do if people are caught being sloppy in terms of training? Simple: Revoke license or militia membership and confiscate guns until the standards are met. This should provide sufficient incentive for people to take things seriously.
    Plus a thusly organized militia might appear to be an additional deterrent to gang culture which might help getting that problem in check as well if the other reasons for said culture are also being tackled.

    I had been thinking of a few more things, but try as i might I can't remember them at the moment..
    I'm wondering what you all think about this. and yes, i am aware that this idea would be a bit difficult to implement, but it is an option, is it not?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.