.

[jasignhagj]

I know some on the pro gun side are afraid to allow any sort of gun control legislation to pass, even if they agree with it, because they feel that the anti gun side won't stop there and will keep pushing for even more controlling laws. I wonder if Obama could get a few more Senators on board for UBCs if he offered them something in return, like loosening silencer regulation.

[Ember]

.

[obfuscator]

we would have legislators arguing that we need a registry to "give police the tools to do their job" in another 5-20 years.

 

 

Actually already happened in canada: Long Gun Registry. Luckily it was recently repealed (the non-restricted part).

[Ember]

.

[Resistance]

Personally I would suggest a complete blanket ban on all guns. The constitution is outdated and irrelevant.

How I would regulate it:

 

Home defence and hunting are not legitimate reasons to own a gun, the rate of gun crime in the US is far higher than countries without gun crime. Guns are implements designed for murder, there is no reason a person should own a gun. People do not need to worry about these sorts of things without guns.

 

If people want to hunt, then hunting ranges will make guns available for use. Embedded inside will be trackers and electronic disabling devices to make sure that they can only be fired when it is safe to do so. There is no legitimate reason why a person needs to own and keep a gun inside their house instead of just using the ones at the range.

 

After guns are made illegal, there will be a three week grace period where people will be given the opportunity to dispose of their guns. They will be sold to a different nation, which will gladly take the US's second hand guns and then that money will be then used to fund American Charities.

When people dispose of their registered firearms, they will be given a slip saying that they have done so - this will ensure that there are no registered firearms still in the system, alternatively it could be a computerised system based off of already existing data.

 

Anybody who has not handed in a gun will be punished severely. The jails are overcrowded anyway so the options are:

• Execution (little extreme but the death penalty is acceptable in the US)
  
• Amputation of hands (sounds severe, however: less severe with death penalty, ensures that troublemakers cannot use firearms, makes it known the to public that the person is dangerous, acts as a good deterrent)
  
• Deportation.
  

 

These are rather extreme punishments, I accept that but I feel that it is necessary for the government to help make guns illegal which will prevent A LOT more murders in the future. In a way it's sort of like utilitarianism.

 

-

 

EDIT:

 

"The right to bear arms may not be denied by the

legislature; it only has the power to 'regulate the

exercise of this right'; that is, among other things, it

may prohibit carrying concealed weapons, or prescribe the

kind or character of arms that may or may not be kept,

carried, or used, and various other things of a regulatory

character." (1937)

 

 

Since to a lot of Americans, breaking the constitution is quite a big thing, sort of like a muslim going against the Koran, or a Jehovah's witness going against the Watchtower (although my disdain for a piece of paper that is treated as holy and the word of God is an off-topic and completely separate matter) - it should be very clear that I am not actually saying that we should break the rules of the constitution. People would still have the opportunity to bear arms in certain situations.

 

1.) If they are in the military or police. They are citizens and are bearing arms.

2.) If they have their hunting licence and are using a state approved (safety shut-off switch) gun hired by an organisation.

3.) they will be allowed to hold decommissioned arms at museums and public gatherings.

 

Bearing arms does not mean wandering around with them on the street, people will still have a right to bear arms in safer conditions.

[Z_Berenice]

So you believe in disarment, genocide/mutilation and imprisonment of those who don't share the same views as you? Sounds like the 3rd Reich, thanks God you're so afraid of guns and aren't allowed one, please, stay out of their reach.

 

P.S. I actually found it hard to read all that again, I'll just block you as I fear you might actually post something worse, and I don't want to know what's worse than that...

[Omar]

"The constitution is outdated and irrelevant."

It's timeless, you just don't understand what it's for.

 

"Home defence and hunting are not legitimate reasons to own a gun, the rate of gun crime in the US is far higher than countries without gun crime. Guns are implements designed for murder, there is no reason a person should own a gun. People do not need to worry about these sorts of things without guns."

 

Yes they are. Norway and Iceland don't have this gun crime problem and they have comparable laws. No they're not, they're implements designed to injure or kill people; that is not the same as murder; yes, there is a reason, and that's self-defence, collecting, and anything else you can do with a gun; you're right, but the guns are there, and making them illegal will just create a black market. Drugs are illegal, but they're far from having disappeared, aren't they? You'd think we'd understand that prohibition doesn't work by now. Speaking of which, maybe if you allowed people to put whatever they want into their own bodies, people wouldn't be shooting each other for control of a crack market.

 

"After guns are made illegal, there will be a three week grace period where people will be given the opportunity to dispose of their guns. They will be sold to a different nation, which will gladly take the US's second hand guns and then that money will be then used to fund American Charities."

Yay for theft!

 

"Anybody who has not handed in a gun will be punished severely. The jails are overcrowded anyway so the options are:

• Execution (little extreme but the death penalty is acceptable in the US)
  
• Amputation of hands (sounds severe, however: less severe with death penalty, ensures that troublemakers cannot use firearms, makes it known the to public that the person is dangerous, acts as a good deterrent)
  
• Deportation."
  

You want people to get shot for having something to shoot with? Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that the state gets its power from guns? If you're against murder, injury, and deportation in private interactions, then you can't be in favour of them in interactions with the government.

 

"These are rather extreme punishments, I accept that but I feel that it is necessary for the government to help make guns illegal which will prevent A LOT more murders in the future. In a way it's sort of like utilitarianism."

 

Utilitarianism is the dominant moral philosophy behind economics, and that science tells us your idea is going to blow up in your face. Something tells me "China" will just sell the guns on the US black market.

[sees_all1]

My views on the 2nd amendment are primarily about tyranny, and secondly self defense. The "solution" presented above really just reinforces my view.

 

I'll concede the point that guns are designed to kill. But so are slingshots, bows and arrows, swords, spears, knives, poison, and many other weapons.

The argument keeps getting brought up after mass shootings, but why aren't we calling to ban all these weapons? They're only designed to kill.

There's also the argument that only large amounts of people are hurt with guns, which is far from accurate. Just two weeks ago a crazy in Texas stabbed 14 people, and would've stabbed more if his knife didn't break.

That argument also conveniently ignores that improvised explosives can be made from common household items pretty easily, as be even more devastating as shown in Boston last week.

 

 

Liked this article a lot:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/guns_are_designed_to_kill.html

[obfuscator]

My views on the 2nd amendment are primarily about tyranny, and secondly self defense. The "solution" presented above really just reinforces my view.

 

I'll concede the point that guns are designed to kill. But so are slingshots, bows and arrows, swords, spears, knives, poison, and many other weapons.

The argument keeps getting brought up after mass shootings, but why aren't we calling to ban all these weapons? They're only designed to kill.

There's also the argument that only large amounts of people are hurt with guns, which is far from accurate. Just two weeks ago a crazy in Texas stabbed 14 people, and would've stabbed more if his knife didn't break.

That argument also conveniently ignores that improvised explosives can be made from common household items pretty easily, as be even more devastating as shown in Boston last week.

 

 

Liked this article a lot:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/guns_are_designed_to_kill.html

 

I agree with you, but I do take issue with saying knives are designed to kill in the same way that guns are. Swords, spears, bows and arrows, sure.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not sure why you agree with him, unless you're also trying to insinuate that the guy who uses a gun as leverage when robbing a store is doing so for comparable reasons than the guy who decides to make a homemade bomb to kill or maim as many people as possible at a mass event. It's a clearly hyperbolic argument.

 

Technically, I could throw a stick at someone and it could kill them. Let's ban trees, I guess.

[obfuscator]

I'm not sure why you agree with him, unless you're also trying to insinuate that the guy who uses a gun as leverage when robbing a store is doing so for comparable reasons than the guy who decides to make a homemade bomb to kill or maim as many people as possible at a mass event. It's a clearly hyperbolic argument.

 

Technically, I could throw a stick at someone and it could kill them. Let's ban trees, I guess.

 

What I agree with is that guns are not the only tool created for killing, yet they seem to be the only one people are in a hurry to ban.

[Ginger_Warrior]

It surprises me that a lot of them aren't already banned, but then a lot of them pre-date the US constitution. On the knives point, of course technically any knife can stab someone, but there's a cut-off point between a knife that's used for domestic purposes and a knife that's specifically designed to be a weapon. Furthermore, in my country at least, you need to be 18+ to buy even a kitchen knife.

 

It doesn't necessarily stop people using them to stab people, but the point to retailers is there: "This is a dangerous item, we're not letting you sell it like double glazing".

[Saradomin_Mage]

I'm not sure why you agree with him, unless you're also trying to insinuate that the guy who uses a gun as leverage when robbing a store is doing so for comparable reasons than the guy who decides to make a homemade bomb to kill or maim as many people as possible at a mass event. It's a clearly hyperbolic argument.

 

Technically, I could throw a stick at someone and it could kill them. Let's ban trees, I guess.

 

What I agree with is that guns are not the only tool created for killing, yet they seem to be the only one people are in a hurry to ban.

I don't have any personal experience, but wouldn't it be much easier/quicker to kill someone with a gun than a spear or slingshot?

[obfuscator]

I don't have any personal experience, but wouldn't it be much easier/quicker to kill someone with a gun than a spear or slingshot?

 

It depends, probably yes in more cases than not..

 

It surprises me that a lot of them aren't already banned, but then a lot of them pre-date the US constitution. On the knives point, of course technically any knife can stab someone, but there's a cut-off point between a knife that's used for domestic purposes and a knife that's specifically designed to be a weapon. Furthermore, in my country at least, you need to be 18+ to buy even a kitchen knife.

 

It doesn't necessarily stop people using them to stab people, but the point to retailers is there: "This is a dangerous item, we're not letting you sell it like double glazing".

 

I did say knives were different....

 

And you have to be 18 to buy a kitchen knife? That's completely ridiculous. Wow.....

[Ginger_Warrior]

Give me a good reason someone under the age of 18 would need a kitchen knife of their own, given they have to use it under adult supervision if they're in a classroom anyway.

[obfuscator]

Give me a good reason someone under the age of 18 would need a kitchen knife of their own, given they have to use it under adult supervision if they're in a classroom anyway.

 

Uh...to cut vegetables? Or do they need to be 18 to do that too?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Presumably while living in a house that contains an adult who can buy a knife for the kitchen anyway, as the vast majority of under-18s do.

[obfuscator]

Presumably while living in a house that contains an adult who can buy a knife for the kitchen anyway, as the vast majority of under-18s do.

 

That must suck for the parents, not being able to send their teenager out shopping when their kitchen knife breaks. That's nanny government for you.

 

I suppose under-18s are allowed to drive, right? And I thought I had it bad being 18 here (able to drive but not drink legally (I'm not 18 anymore, but it annoyed me when I was)).

[sees_all1]

I'm not sure why you agree with him, unless you're also trying to insinuate that the guy who uses a gun as leverage when robbing a store is doing so for comparable reasons than the guy who decides to make a homemade bomb to kill or maim as many people as possible at a mass event. It's a clearly hyperbolic argument.

The Boston Bombers used what appeared to be suicide vests to rob a convenience store and steal a car in the same way that many people would use a knife or handgun.

 

edit:

I agree with you, but I do take issue with saying knives are designed to kill in the same way that guns are.

Certain knives are designed first and foremost as weapons, such as switchblades. Others are designed first and foremost as tools, such as meat cleavers or machetes.

 

Also, the major difference between a spear and a knife is a pole.

[Ginger_Warrior]

That must suck for the parents, not being able to send their teenager out shopping when their kitchen knife breaks. That's nanny government for you.

 

I suppose under-18s are allowed to drive, right? And I thought I had it bad being 18 here (able to drive but not drink legally (I'm not 18 anymore, but it annoyed me when I was)).

All governments interfere with the lives of citizens, even the US and Canada. By this reasoning, all governments are "nanny states". Yes, they're allowed to drive under 18. Drinking age is effectively 18, but there's some quirky laws about drinking with a meal or drinking with family. If you can die fighting in the Army for your country, you should surely be allowed all the vices that come with adulthood.

 

I'd stress that the law is against anyone who sells a knife to an under-18 year old, not necessarily against the under-18 year old. The aim was to reduce the widespread availability of knives to that age group, given its association with gang culture, not demonize that social group as knife-wielding maniacs.

[obfuscator]

All governments interfere with the lives of citizens, even the US and Canada. By this reasoning, all governments are "nanny states".

 

Of course, but making purchasing knives illegal crosses the line in my opinion.

 

Yes, they're allowed to drive under 18. Drinking age is effectively 18, but there's some quirky laws about drinking with a meal or drinking with family. If you can die fighting in the Army for your country, you should surely be allowed all the vices that come with adulthood.

 

I agree, including purchasing knives and guns.

 

I'd stress that the law is against anyone who sells a knife to an under-18 year old, not necessarily against the under-18 year old. The aim was to reduce the widespread availability of knives to that age group, given its association with gang culture, not demonize that social group as knife-wielding maniacs.

 

Still bad. Would be less so if it was just hunting knives, for instance, but I gather from your post it's all knives?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Again, the law isn't against the purchasing of knives, it's against the irresponsible selling of knives. We can both agree on the finer points of emancipation, but surely we can also agree that anyone who sells dangerous weapons to under-18 year olds in a reckless and clearly unethical fashion to meet their own financial ends should be subjected to much greater scrutiny from government.

 

I'd have thought that would be common sense, regardless of political ideology.

[Ember]

.

[Omar]

I'd stress that the law is against anyone who sells a knife to an under-18 year old, not necessarily against the under-18 year old. The aim was to reduce the widespread availability of knives to that age group, given its association with gang culture, not demonize that social group as knife-wielding maniacs.

Gang violence is largely the result of paternalistic interventions in the drug market; when you make something people want to consume illegal, you create a black market in which people have to enforce their own contracts. You need to stop giving people reasons to commit crimes, not take away their weapons.

[Ember]

.