An honest unusual discussion about firearms

a reply to: Erno86

Frankly...I think that there would be riots in the streets, if that scenario were to occur.

Just like with my response to bigfatfurrytexan (HERE), using threats of violence only makes your case worse. If responsible gun owners are going to riot in the streets or "have enormous push back that escalates into violence on a national level" (as he put it), then perhaps these aren't exactly responsible gun owners that we're dealing with in the first place.

Nonsense - firearms protect between 500000 and 3 million lives a year, the kinds of weapons talked about by media - kill 400 per year, so it's litterally 1 in a million and without suicide, police action and defensive use it's probably more like 1 in 25 million, unlike arson 1 in 100000 and motorcycles 1 in 100000 soooo STFU about gun control you know nothing about becuase your really just talking about control period insipid socialist troll.

If you want to get into facts Chicago is roughly 1/18th of murders every year by itself, that's how well gun control works.

Also in every country you cited gun violence was way down sometimes less before the bans but capital offenses like murder by hammer and knife and acid attacks are wayyyyyyyy up, so it's not about public safety at all.

Just control.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Fools

But if we just look at the raw data, then there's no real escape from the results.

Sorry mate but that's an ignorant statement. The only thing the raw data shows is very non-specific meaningless data. The majority of gun related deaths in the US are from illegally obtained guns. Meaning the majority of gun deaths in the US are derived from criminals who don't abide by laws.

Therefore it doesn't matter if guns are banned in an area or not. A criminal can more easily obtain a gun than a lawful citizen can because most law abiding citizens do not know how to obtain illegal weapons.

Australia is a really poor example because they are a continent that is also a massive island unto itself. North America (i.e. where the US is located), Europe, and Asia are all bordered by countries with a vast supply of weapons crossing borders in an international weapons trade which never ends. It's much easier to control the supply of weapons when you are on an island. Oh yeah...only 10% of Australia is inhabited so it becomes even easier when you don't have to police 90% of your land mass.

Another poster said it best that the majority of gun related deaths in the US come from very specific zip codes. BTW...Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the US and they have the highest gun related deaths per capita. Oh yeah...99% are from illegal firearms.

Either you are trolling or you simply didn't give any legitimate thought to your OP before posting.

Those that are willing to give up their liberties for security deserver neither liberty or security!!
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
Your utopian thinking will ultimately lead to a dystopian world. THAT IS WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS!!!! As soon as you give up the guns government will surely become abusive and more corrupt. Ask the Native American Indians. They gave up their weapons and BAM were forced to lose their pride, culture, and means to defend themselves. You liberals will never learn from history you just keep trying to reinvent it.

I've taken the stance that I'd be more willing to look at the "gun" problem if we were first willing to address other problems much more adamantly. Mental disorders and disease, bullying, depression and anxiety. Cultural problems - the most dangerous cities in the states have a huge percentage of the population being minorities.

Do we really think we'll end all of these issues if we ban guns? I'd wager we'd see a huge increase in suicide by hanging, overdosing, etc.

Worrying about the issues my daughter will face growing up.. I'd rather funding be spent on mental health including psychiatry for children from messed up homes, or for those kids in the lds cult ( I'm in Utah, teen suicides have gone up a huge amount since this cult essentially waged a war on LGBT persons) , rather than all the attention be placed on guns. She'll be safer, and others will be safer if we address the underlying issues.



On the other hand, I don't think citizens need access to weapons designed to kill humans from a long range. Why there's people pretending they could use their AR against a tank if our government and military decided to go against us is beyond me.

Another country is invading? If they were worth a damn, they'd be supplementing their attacks with all manner of machinery and weaponry that your stupid extended mag isn't going to make a dent in. Not to mention jets, helicopters, etc...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The first article also says

In the 13 states with the fewest restrictions on gun ownership, 40 percent of inmates illegally obtained the gun they used, Webster said. Only about 13 percent purchased the gun from a store or pawn shop.

So it's not simply possessing it, but where the gun came from.

As for ignoring the Quora post, that's fine aside from the fact that it contains citations and sources. It's no different than any other editorial piece that people quote sources. But throwing it out because it's an answer on a message board is a little silly, considering what's contained in the answer.

I hate the way I'm almost always forced to go through extra security checks at airports because my Muslim name catches someone's attention.

A pat down isn't a mental health check. Nor is flying a right. Gun ownership is.

I hate having the cops called on me for doing nothing illegal, literally having them called on me for mundane things like planting trees in my Mom's backyard, walking with my Mom in a park, and looking for apartments that were closer to my workplace.

That's not really remotely the same as being required by force of law to undergo mental health screenings every few months. Yea, it sucks for you and I'm genuinely sorry your mom's neighbors are #ty people, but that's not the government forcing you to do anything, it's having #ty neighbors.

So you can probably understand why the sudden complaints about having to submit to extra security procedures because "somebody I don’t know did something I wasn’t involved in" sound pretty hollow to me.

Not really, no. Flying isn't a constitutional right, it's a choice. Your mom having #ty neighbors isn't a constitutional issue. Gun ownership is a constitutional issue. I'd really much rather the government do the job they already have, which is making sure that people like the Stoneman Douglas shooter, who has a bona fide history of mental health problems, is taken to court and adjudicated mentally incompetent enough that he can't access guns. I'd rather the government do it's job and prevent people like him from having guns, rather than have his social worker show up, medicate him, and say "everything's fine, he's fine, he's a great guy." Which is exactly what happened.

When it comes to restricting rights, the onus is, and should always be, on the government to prove why a right should be taken away. The onus should never, ever be on the citizenry to prove why they should be "permitted" to exercise a right.

a reply to: Shamrock6

ETA: I updated a few points in this post so yeah...

The first article also says

So it's not simply possessing it, but where the gun came from.

Might want to re-read my post because I included that quote. It's notable because your article mentioned "illegally possessed" 4 times then "illegally procured" & "illegally obtained", and then back to "illegally possessed". That's literally why I said "The article is mostly talking about illegal possession with several illegally obtained points thrown in for specific places." in the post you just replied to. However, for the sake of discussion, I still conceded the point, which was in agreement with your earlier post (HERE) where you said "However you want to look at, and "interpret" the data, it's hard to argue that illegal guns are used at least as often as legal ones, and probably substantially more so."

A pat down isn't a mental health check. Nor is flying a right. Gun ownership is.

Who said that all they do are pat downs? I never once said that because that's not all they do by a long shot. This is a horrible assumption on your part. And what does that have to do with additional security procedures and delays with the building of mosques? Or with racial profiling, "broken windows" policies, and "stop and frisk" policies? Why don't those count as constitutional issues since they're clearly violating the 14th Amendment's "equal protections" clause? And those "pat downs" would also be violating the 4th Amendment's "unreasonable searches and seizures" clause. Why should our American demographics have to go through these additional security assessments because somebody we don’t know did something we weren’t involved in? Innocence until proven guilty, right?

That's not really remotely the same as being required by force of law to undergo mental health screenings every few months. Yea, it sucks for you and I'm genuinely sorry your mom's neighbors are #ty people, but that's not the government forcing you to do anything, it's having #ty neighbors.

And here's a second horrible assumption, or you simply didn't read what I said. First, the incidents I mentioned also happened at a park (which clearly wouldn't involve neighbors) and when passing through a new neighborhood, where those people clearly weren't my neighbors.

And second, of course the government was forcing me to do something lol. Police are literally law enforcement. It's govt laws that forced me to stand there under questioning every time I'm profiled, despite not committing any crimes. Now, are you denying or agreeing that American society already constantly forces people to undergo additional security measures because "somebody we don’t know did something we weren’t involved in"?

You keep mentioning that gun ownership is a right and not a choice, but every single gun purchase is a choice. And there already exist background checks which literally place additional security assessments to determine whether someone can purchase or maintain possession of a gun, regardless of any rights that you may think they have. And there are plenty of laws that limit or eliminate a person's right to own guns, such as for felons in some places, for medical MJ patients in some places, for sex offenders in some places; etc.

So it's somewhat ridiculous that you're acting as if there aren't already additional security measures in place that determine whether or not someone should be able to obtain or possess guns. You even agreed about background checks in this post, even those literally can limit or eliminate a person's right to obtain or possess guns. This means that you agree w/me that there should be legal methods to disqualify a person from being able to obtain or possess guns; we just don't agree on which methods.

I'd rather the government do it's job and prevent people like him from having guns, rather than have his social worker show up, medicate him, and say "everything's fine, he's fine, he's a great guy." Which is exactly what happened.

Care to explain this? It sounds like you're agreeing with my points about mental health being an additional security risk. If so, that seems to undercut your argument up until now.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It's notable because your article mentioned "illegally possessed" 4 times then "illegally procured" & "illegally obtained", and then back to "illegally possessed".

Probably because the study cited addressed both aspects?

Who said that all they do are pat downs?

Nobody, including me. Might be why I didn't say "all that happens is they pat you down." What I assume is that it's not a full blown mental health check at a TSA screening point. And, assumptions aside, flying isn't a constitutional right. Whatever happens to you in an airport isn't being done to make you prove you should be permitted to exercise a constitutional right.

And here's a second horrible assumption, or you simply didn't read what I said. First, the incidents I mentioned also happened at a park (which clearly wouldn't involve neighbors) and when passing through a new neighborhood, where those people clearly weren't my neighbors.

Which has no bearing whatsoever on the main point in my comment, that nothing you said pertains to exercising a constitutional right but being blocked from doing so by arbitrary government action.

And second, of course the government was forcing me to do something

The police showed up because somebody called them. They weren't waiting for you at your door demanding you prove that you should be allowed to go to the park.

You keep mentioning that gun ownership is a right and not a choice,

Did I? Can you quote me where I said it's a right not a choice? Because I can't for the life of me remember ever, once, saying that it's not a choice to own a firearm, or not to own one. Whether one exercises the right to own a firearm is immaterial to the point that it's still a right.

And there already exist background checks which literally place additional security assessments to determine whether someone can purchase or maintain possession of a gun, regardless of any rights that you may think they have.

Yes, and they're in place to determine whether a person is legally permitted to own a gun. Using legal procedure to do so. The problem is that states aren't required by federal law to disclose mental health proceedings to the FBI database that background checks are run through before a sale. Why is it better to require people with no mental health history to go through repeated testing than it would be to require states to disclose mental health proceedings to the FBI database? It does no good to adjudicate somebody mentally incompetent if their records won't show up in the background check.

So it's somewhat ridiculous that you're acting as if there aren't already additional security measures in place that determine whether or not someone should be able to obtain or possess guns.

I'm not, and thank you for providing the relevant quote of my earlier comment that disproves your claim that I am.

Care to explain this?

It's pretty self explanatory.

It sounds like you're agreeing with my points about mental health being an additional security risk.

Probably because I do.

If so, that seems to undercut your argument up until now.

Not really.