• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Centrist's Take On Guns [W: #282]

Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

That is the law
No... the law states that any person engaged in the business of
selling firearms at wholesale or retail needs a license.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download
You can sell "a lot" of firearms and still not be in the business of doing so.
And so, we're back to your opinion, not the law.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

The problem is that registration makes it possible for government to target you. This would be especially the case, when a given government wanted to misuse its other powers.

And government abuse of firearms owners in California alone, is rampant!
They banned many AR15/AK47 rifles and handguns
They banned magazines with more than 10 round capacity in LA and they are trying to make it statewide.
They banned some lead ammunition...and all of it by 2019.

S&W and Ruger have stopped selling handguns in Ca. because of the list of restrictions and that idiot micro stamping, another liberal wet dream, that doesn't work.

You weren't supposed to make that argument because he doesn't know how to counter it rather than to suggest that the government would NEVER do such a thing. Any concerns about government overreach is just crazy CT stuff, y'know.

What's crazy is that ever thinking registration is a good thing. Doesn't get any crazier than that!

"The problem is that (insert virtually anything) let's the government target you. That would especially be the case...."
Yep, the less any government agency knows about my business, the better off I am! The better off anyone is.....

They already know who has the guns. It's not rocket science.

You don't know wtf you are talking about...plain and simple!

What part of the government knowing who does or doesn't have guns are you not understanding?

The part where you actually think they do....:screwy
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

No... the law states that any person engaged in the business of
selling firearms at wholesale or retail needs a license.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download
You can sell "a lot" of firearms and still not be in the business of doing so.
And so, we're back to your opinion, not the law.

No you cannot. Lots by nature are business. I pointed you to a specific case where the ATF burned someone using your interpretation of the law.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

The vast majority of deaths are suicide followed by criminal on criminal homicides. Seeing as I am neither suicidal nor an inner city thug, how is my chance of being the victim of a firearms homicide any greater than in the EU? Your stats leave out pertinent risk factors. s

You're right and thank you for noting the correction necessary.

Counting only homicides, the average "percentage per capita" of homicides for the EU is 0.204, whilst that for the US remains, of course, unchanged at 3.43.

Thus the difference is NOT 9 to 1 but 16.5 to 1.

Feel better now ... or are there other "exceptions"?

If you want to comfort yourself in the notion that you are "special", and therefore do not fall into the general statistical grouping, then that is your comfort-fallacy and yours alone.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

You're right and thank you for noting the correction necessary.

Counting only homicides, the average "percentage per capita" of homicides for the EU is 0.204, whilst that for the US remains, of course, unchanged at 3.43.

Thus the difference is NOT 9 to 1 but 16.5 to 1.

Feel better now ... or are there other "exceptions"?

If you want to comfort yourself in the notion that you are "special", and therefore do not fall into the general statistical grouping, then that is your comfort-fallacy and yours alone.

what is the homicide rates for whites who don't engage in the narcotics trade or drug abuse?

not any difference than whites in Europe who don't either?
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

You're right and thank you for noting the correction necessary.

Counting only homicides, the average "percentage per capita" of homicides for the EU is 0.204, whilst that for the US remains, of course, unchanged at 3.43.

Thus the difference is NOT 9 to 1 but 16.5 to 1.

Feel better now ... or are there other "exceptions"?

If you want to comfort yourself in the notion that you are "special", and therefore do not fall into the general statistical grouping, then that is your comfort-fallacy and yours alone.
Nope. No more exceptions,. I think you have ignored them all. Btw, suicides are counted as homicides. Well Captain Fallacy, my comfort " fallacy" also happens to apply to everyone else who does not fall into those subsets you conveniently ignore. A suggestion though, while you may believe otherwise, your willfull ignorance is not an admirable trait.
Ignoring other stats while basing your entire argument on the stats that support your own is willful ignorance. As the saying goes, "We can fix ignorance, but you can't fix stupid".
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

No you cannot. Lots by nature are business.
Wholesale or retail?
Do they have a local business permit?
Do they collect sales tax?
No? No? No? Then they are not a business.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

If you want to comfort yourself in the notion that you are "special", and therefore do not fall into the general statistical grouping, then that is your comfort-fallacy and yours alone.
Still trying to peddle your correlation = causation nonsense, eh?
:roll:
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Still trying to peddle your correlation = causation nonsense, eh?
:roll:

Nope, not to dud-heads.

Moving right along ...
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Moving right along ...
... and ignoring the fact that you're arguing correlation = causation.
Why do you refuse to understand this is a fallacy?
 
I used to think we should simply have different categories for guns.

Basically we'd start our on level 1 "guns". No registration, permits, nothing. Anyone can buy, including 16 and older. That would be painball guns, air guns (bb/airsoft,etc) replica guns, basically every non-actual "firearm" would be allowed. Similar to how it is now. Idk if it should even be on a "level" So maybe just skip even having that on a level. But I know some countries regulate those so that's why I have it as a level.

Level 2 guns would be rifles. and any .22 caliber guns. In my opinion anyone should be able to buy one of those except for violent felons, gang members, and people who are deemed dangerously mentally ill only checking mental health records for the last 5 years and you'd really have to be crazy. Like you'd have to be able to have your other rights taken from you to lose this right. So that means non-violent felons could own these non violent in the sense of you didn't physically hurt anyone and other victimless crimes. In my opinion lying on your tax forms, stealing 3 times out of WalMart or making a bad check doesn't mean you're dangerous. Not trustworthy sure, but how does it make you dangerous?

Level 3 guns would be basically all other handguns larger than .22lr and semi auto rifles. Those would require more extensive history screens. Checking mental health (Not really sure who should be on a ban list) all criminal records including misdemeanors (long as you haven't had a conviction in the last 5 years for misdemeanors and have not been convicted with a felony in the last 10 years) you can own these. Also drug tests and any arrest for a drug charge would be investigated. There would be a semi registration in the sense of FFL dealers would have to keep gun sale records on file available for local police forces for the sole purpose of solving crimes. No federal database. Silencers included on here. Just buy a silencer like you would a gun.

Level 4 guns would be machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, AOWs (then again I think, etc. You'd go through very extensive background checks, interviews with family members, etc. Requires a license to purchase which would also act as the registration for the gun. So you can have machine guns and rocket launchers but it would be difficult to get and you'd have to have never been in trouble with the law or have had any mental illnesses, etc. My reasoning being is we trust our soldiers with this stuff, they're people too. So why not regular civilians if they meet the requirements. No 200 dollar tax stamps for this stuff.

Oh and I should also mention I've always seen gun ownership as an individual right.
 
Just like driver’s licenses are tiered I see no reason why gun licenses can’t be as well. As you step up in the classes of guns you wish to own, you take more qualification tests. You want a simple bolt action, single shot 22 you take a relatively simple qualification test. You want a semi-auto tactical rifle, the test would be more rigorous and detailed. Just like if you wanted a driver’s license to drive a tractor & trailer.

Now I know full well that criminals, intent on doing very bad things, won’t follow the law. We all know that. Thing is, lots of gun deaths and shootings are not just hard-core criminals/terrorists. Many are full-on accidents due to stupidity. Many are regular people who just snap one day. Some are passionate crimes by distraught lovers. Some are kids who haven’t been taught proper safety.

We’ve seen what a highly “motivated” group of people can do with something as simple as a box cutter. We’ve seen what some people can do with pressure cookers, nails, and gun powder. There’s plenty of stats to show that hammers, knives, baseball bats, and even just bare hands can accomplish the same end results as a bullet. Much more difficult for a hammer to accomplish what a semi-auto can accomplish though. When's the last time a 4 year old killed his 5 year old sister because he was playing with his dad's hammer and dropped it?

Let's see... Licensing. Nope, don't agree with that at all. You're trying to reduce death right? That's not going to do anything. Most gun deaths are the result of crime. Then suicide. Hardly any is due to the result of I accidently shot someone. You can also keep a car at your home with no license, you just can't drive it on the road. It happens, but taking a class isn't going to do much. These people know not to point loaded guns at people. Someone would would play with loaded guns would just take the class, pass the test, and then play with it loaded at home in private. Yeah no.
Also Who's gonna pay for these "classes" oh yeah the person wanting to buy the gun. If someone is stupid enough to shoot themselves with a gun on accident then so be it.

Reminds me of the people who came up with the most ridiculous idea of gun insurance? Like paying money every month to the NRA (since they already offer gun insurance, they would be the ones to offer if it it became mandatory) is going to keep someone safe. That's a really stupid idea.The reason we have high gun deaths via gun homicide is due to criminals. And allegedly most criminals get their guns through gun show loopholes. Just fix that and gun homicides will decline.

Now before I you think I'm totally just dismissing every notion of what you said. I might be okay with tests for if you want to carry your gun places. The reason we make people take DL tests is because we drive on public roads. To just keep your gun at your house is your right. Also screw classes, just take a test for it. Lots of people (like myself) have been taught gun safety for a really long time. It would be redundant, just take a test to see that you know what you're doing and know the laws and such. Pass the background check and test and you get to carry your gun with you places. Simple as that. Fail the test, take it again, if you need classes to pass the test then you can go do it. Requiring everyone to take classes is unnecessary.
 
I used to think we should simply have different categories for guns.
Why? What necessary purpose does this fill?
The 2nd protects the right to own and use any firearm in common use for traditional lawful purposes; the level of said protection doe snot depend on the nature of the firearms themselves.
 
snip

Now before I you think I'm totally just dismissing every notion of what you said. I might be okay with tests for if you want to carry your gun places. The reason we make people take DL tests is because we drive on public roads. To just keep your gun at your house is your right. Also screw classes, just take a test for it. Lots of people (like myself) have been taught gun safety for a really long time. It would be redundant, just take a test to see that you know what you're doing and know the laws and such. Pass the background check and test and you get to carry your gun with you places. Simple as that. Fail the test, take it again, if you need classes to pass the test then you can go do it. Requiring everyone to take classes is unnecessary.

The result of not knowing how to handle a gun or vehicle safely is ACCIDENTS. Since we have around 500..600 accidental firearm deaths per year I'm going to ask how much do you think training every buyer will reduce that? A gun has at most three independent controls easily learnt in minutes. Safe shooting and handling is much the same. Few rules and easily learnt and taught by the seller or friends and relatives. Heck I taught myself and did a little bit of reading. A vehicle is a totally different case.
 
Why? What necessary purpose does this fill?
The 2nd protects the right to own and use any firearm in common use for traditional lawful purposes; the level of said protection doe snot depend on the nature of the firearms themselves.

Yes it's the right of the people to bear arms. But who gets to have this right? Everyone? Would we let violent felons or dangerously mentally ill people own guns?

The current system os so absolutist. It's basically either you can own a gun, any gun you want, or you permanently can never own any gun. I see no reason why this should be. Why is it everything or nothing?

If someone has some mental illnesses, it doesn't mean they're going to mass murder everyone, so that alone is no reason to take away their rights. But would we trust a severely depressed maybe sucidal person who is pisssed off and vehemently hates society to go buy an AR-15? I know, the AR-15 is no different than any other semi auto rifle. Lots of people would say that person shouldn't be able to own any guns. Why is that? If that person hasn't broken a law, his/her feelings are just that, feelings. We can't take away that persons constitutional right just because of the way they feel right? However how comfortable would you be to sell that person a gun?
 
The result of not knowing how to handle a gun or vehicle safely is ACCIDENTS. Since we have around 500..600 accidental firearm deaths per year I'm going to ask how much do you think training every buyer will reduce that? A gun has at most three independent controls easily learnt in minutes. Safe shooting and handling is much the same. Few rules and easily learnt and taught by the seller or friends and relatives. Heck I taught myself and did a little bit of reading. A vehicle is a totally different case.

How much would it reduce it? I don't think very much. I'm willing to bet most people who accidentally shoot themselves or others probably aren't even supposed to have a gun. I'm imagining the gang bangers who stick guns in their saggy pants who shoot their balls off. Others from kids who get a hold of a gun. Asking a few questions involving safety on the form 4473 would do the trick.

If only 400 people die a year, and there are hundreds of millions of guns in the US. I'd say 99% legal gun owners are probably responsible and know about basic safety.
 
Yes it's the right of the people to bear arms. But who gets to have this right? Everyone? Would we let violent felons or dangerously mentally ill people own guns?
Federal law already addresses this, as do the laws of each of the 50 states.
And so, again: What necessary purpose does this fill?
 
Federal law already addresses this, as do the laws of each of the 50 states.
And so, again: What necessary purpose does this fill?

Federal law is absolutist. Like I said, if you can own a gun you can own any gun you want, if not then you get none. That's BS, and in my opinion unconstitutional. Once you go to prison, serve your time, finish parol/your debt to society you should be able to protect your family, go hunting, all of the above. Otherwise why are we letting people who we think are dangerous out into society?
 
Yes it's the right of the people to bear arms. But who gets to have this right? Everyone? Would we let violent felons or dangerously mentally ill people own guns?

In England up to 1920 anyone could own and buy as many guns as they wanted, be they criminal, lunatic or child. The crime rate in UK has never been that low again. In fact chief inspector (ret) Collin Greenwood produced a nice graph in Gun Review of how well crime an increasingly restrictive gun laws followed each other.

Violent felons should be a matter for the courts to process as should mental people. Nobody should be deprived of rights by some blanket law. You have heard of due process have you not? It guarantees a fair hearing and our rights may not be removed with some government brush UNLESS the public allow it. It is still unconstitutional.

The current system os so absolutist. It's basically either you can own a gun, any gun you want, or you permanently can never own any gun. I see no reason why this should be. Why is it everything or nothing?

Once again this should be a matter for the courts, every criminal is sentenced based on merit, are people now second class citizens of lesser value than criminals who can have their rights denied?

If someone has some mental illnesses, it doesn't mean they're going to mass murder everyone, so that alone is no reason to take away their rights. But would we trust a severely depressed maybe sucidal person who is pisssed off and vehemently hates society to go buy an AR-15? I know, the AR-15 is no different than any other semi auto rifle. Lots of people would say that person shouldn't be able to own any guns. Why is that? If that person hasn't broken a law, his/her feelings are just that, feelings. We can't take away that persons constitutional right just because of the way they feel right? However how comfortable would you be to sell that person a gun?

That is the way the constitution is written. It also protects the supremacy of the people and not government but if the people are to bone idle or stupid to do their duty and keep government in check, they get the government they deserve.
 
Federal law is absolutist. Like I said, if you can own a gun you can own any gun you want, if not then you get none. That's BS, and in my opinion unconstitutional. Once you go to prison, serve your time, finish parol/your debt to society you should be able to protect your family, go hunting, all of the above. Otherwise why are we letting people who we think are dangerous out into society?

The necessity is that blanket punishments are not constitutional and such laws are for government expedience and not citizens rights. Nobody can say all felons deserve to be deprived after serving their sentence. Nor can this be said of high functional mental problems. Not even all socio-paths are violent.

That to me is wrong and due process has not been served.
 
Federal law is absolutist. Like I said, if you can own a gun you can own any gun you want, if not then you get none. That's BS, and in my opinion unconstitutional. Once you go to prison, serve your time, finish parol/your debt to society you should be able to protect your family, go hunting, all of the above. Otherwise why are we letting people who we think are dangerous out into society?
Sounds to me like your efforts should be focused on changing those laws on the state and federal level rather than laying federal regulations on the law abiding.
 
Back
Top Bottom