Guns

[Aaronhuang]

How would you know they're a known felon without a background check. It's not like they're going to tell you and it's not like everyone knows every single known felon.

There's a myriad of other things that can be picked up by a background check.

An example of what we have in Australia (NSW precisely): Source

Examples of characteristics for a consumer at heightened risk of self-harm, or violence towards others include:

• previous history of self-harm, suicide attempts or violence towards others
• current suicidal ideation
• evidence of substance intoxication / use
• known to NSW Police and/or other service groups in relation to impulsive or aggressive acts or behaviour
• expressed or implied threats towards self or others
• command hallucinations
• delusions / hallucinations – focused on a person
• delusions of control with a violent theme
• antisocial, explosive, or impulsive traits
• outstanding current legal matters arising from assault, or attempted assault, towards objects or people e.g. Apprehended Violence Orders, Personal Violence Orders, domestic violence charges etc.

There will always by instances of people slipping through the system due to not being classified yet but it doesn't hurt to weed out some of the more obvious cases of people who shouldn't own a gun.

100% agree

 

[R3V]

How would you know they're a known felon without a background check. It's not like they're going to tell you and it's not like everyone knows every single known felon.

That's the point. Private sales are meant for close friends and family members you know well. If you sell to a stranger you risk selling to a "prohibited person" which will get you in trouble. You can always complete the sale at a dealer for a background check for those cases.

There's a myriad of other things that can be picked up by a background check.

An example of what we have in Australia (NSW precisely): Source

Examples of characteristics for a consumer at heightened risk of self-harm, or violence towards others include:

• previous history of self-harm, suicide attempts or violence towards others
• current suicidal ideation
• evidence of substance intoxication / use
• known to NSW Police and/or other service groups in relation to impulsive or aggressive acts or behaviour
• expressed or implied threats towards self or others
• command hallucinations
• delusions / hallucinations – focused on a person
• delusions of control with a violent theme
• antisocial, explosive, or impulsive traits
• outstanding current legal matters arising from assault, or attempted assault, towards objects or people e.g. Apprehended Violence Orders, Personal Violence Orders, domestic violence charges etc.

There will always by instances of people slipping through the system due to not being classified yet but it doesn't hurt to weed out some of the more obvious cases of people who shouldn't own a gun.

I'm not sure if you know what a "background check" is in America. It's nothing like your list so I don't see the relevance at all. Here:

A prohibited person is one who:

May be an honorably discharged military Veteran based on VA mandatory reporting[15]
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))) (broadly, a visa issued for a defined temporary period to allow aliens living outside the US visit, study, live, and/or work in the U.S.[16]);
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed (not admitted) to a mental institution;
Has been discharged from the United States Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[11]

National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

100% agree

I guess I made the mistake of thinking you know about your own gun laws and gun homicide statistics more than someone from halfway across the world 👎

edit

If someone else wants to pick this up, just please tell me how the FBI got hold of Westworld 3's Rehoboam

 

[FPV MIC]

That's the point. Private sales are meant for close friends and family members you know well. If you sell to a stranger you risk selling to a "prohibited person" which will get you in trouble. You can always complete the sale at a dealer for a background check for those cases.

The quote you replied to didn't just mention friends though, it was ''a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show.'' Do you think selling guns at a flea market or gun show where background checks probably wouldn't be done is a good idea?

IMHO it should be illegal to sell any gun without background checks. Even a family member can hide the fact they've been convicted of a felony.

I'm not sure if you know what a "background check" is in America. It's nothing like your list so I don't see the relevance at all. Here:

There's also a lot more involved in ours that isn't in the section I quoted but you were talking about things other than known felons, so I was attempting to show you what's in ours from the health perspective side.

Mental illness, evidence of substance intoxication / use, Apprehended Violence Orders, Personal Violence Orders, domestic violence charges etc were all things other than being a known felon that can be picked up by a background check... and they are all things that are very similar to your background check list, just worded differently.

 

[Aaronhuang]

That's the point. Private sales are meant for close friends and family members you know well. If you sell to a stranger you risk selling to a "prohibited person" which will get you in trouble. You can always complete the sale at a dealer for a background check for those cases.

I'm interpreting that your argument is that your argument is that very few people will want to sell to others they don't know because there are risks you would be selling to a prohibited person. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where everyone buys their guns from a licensed dealer (FFL). Furthermore the people that sell to "prohibited people" are usually unaware or don't care. You cannot stop those on the street that intentionally sell guns without a background check. What you can stop is (in theory) righteous gun show/private event dealers from unintentionally selling guns to prohibited people. As you yourself has stated, these are the people that a background check would flag in the event that their name is run.

For reference:

"Gun show loophole is a political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at guns shows, that do not require the seller to conduct a federal background check of the buyer. This is also called the private sale exemption" - Link
As FPV MIC stated above, private sales do not just include your family.

A prohibited person is one who:

May be an honorably discharged military Veteran based on VA mandatory reporting[15]
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))) (broadly, a visa issued for a defined temporary period to allow aliens living outside the US visit, study, live, and/or work in the U.S.[16]);
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed (not admitted) to a mental institution;
Has been discharged from the United States Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[11]

I guess I made the mistake of thinking you know about your own gun laws and gun homicide statistics more than someone from halfway across the world 👎

I don't believe I made it clear but I was agreeing with the last statement: "There will always by instances of people slipping through the system due to not being classified yet but it doesn't hurt to weed out some of the more obvious cases of people who shouldn't own a gun." Nevertheless, you trying to belittle others in an argument just because they don't agree with you does not make you look any better.

 

[R3V]

The quote you replied to didn't just mention friends though, it was ''a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show.''

I saw this as a concession that there are no public numbers about the percentage of homicides committed with guns sold privately. I'm pretty sure if it was favorable towards gun control we'd be seeing those numbers. The unnecessary padding is the biggest telltale sign. It's similar to padding 12-19 year olds dying by guns then saying guns are the leading cause of children's death. There are many more examples of this.

Not having solid numbers which should be easy to to get, should make any subsequent law a non-starter.

Do you think selling guns at a flea market or gun show where background checks probably wouldn't be done is a good idea?

No person outside of a prison cell of any country should be restricted from purchaisng guns from anywhere or anyone they like. If you're going to impose any restriction, you need to do a meaningful study showing a direct causal effect of a great harm to the public. If I had it my way from scratch I'd have mandatory basic training during/after high school with a license granted upon completion. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with.

As you yourself has stated, these are the people that a background check would flag in the event that their name is run.

And those same people aren't stupid enough to buy a gun from a "gun show" or someone they know well. They typically buy stolen guns off the black market, but since neither of us have any solid studies it's a moot point.

private sales do not just include your family

I said meant to be for family friends. That doesn't mean exclusively. The laws that hold you responsible for selling a gun to a prohibited person are enough of a deterrent. The limited numbers I've come across seem to support this. Oh and the majority of mass shootings I've read about would not have been prevented by new gun laws. Either no laws would've prevented them, or existing laws may have but they slipped through.

 

[Shaun]

If I had it my way from scratch I'd have mandatory basic training during/after high school with a license granted upon completion

You surely can't be serious?
There's not many things in this world that should be mandatory and learning how to shoot and handle a gun certainly isn't one of them.

Re-read the paragraph you wrote that this was contained in, if you can't see the massive contradiction from the first and last sentences, I simply don't know what to say to you.

 

[Liquid]

I can understand mandatory basic training if you want a gun but not to be forced upon anyone and everyone and probably not at such a young age.

 

[GBO Possum]

And those same people aren't stupid enough to buy a gun from a "gun show" or someone they know well. They typically buy stolen guns off the black market, but since neither of us have any solid studies it's a moot point.

Not having solid numbers which should be easy to to get

I'll see myself out.

 

[TexRex]

You surely can't be serious?
There's not many things in this world that should be mandatory and learning how to shoot and handle a gun certainly isn't one of them.

Consent is good, actually. Absolutely wild that these rats hate it so.

 

[Aaronhuang]

No person outside of a prison cell of any country should be restricted from purchaisng guns from anywhere or anyone they like. If you're going to impose any restriction, you need to do a meaningful study showing a direct causal effect of a great harm to the public. If I had it my way from scratch I'd have mandatory basic training during/after high school with a license granted upon completion. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with.

There are probably a lot of people out of jail in the U.S. that probably shouldn't have a gun and don't have one. Just because someone has committed a petty crime and COULD possibly use a gun if they continue to pursue that career doesn't mean that they can't be free. This is where a it gets foggy. A background check could (in theory) help weed out some cases of people who shouldn't have guns. Even if it doesn't completely turn things around, it doesn't have any significant drawbacks. If the U.S. locked up everyone who committed a felony/misdemeanor and gave them life just because "they had the possibility of committing a firearm related crime and can't be trusted", a lot of good (and some bad) people would get unfairly locked up.

Expanding on your first sentence in this paragraph, you said that anyone in the country who is outside of a prison cell should purchase a gun. In your list "prohibited people" you produced a few posts back it includes people under court orders for stalking intimate partners and people who have mental issues to name a few. What you're saying is that because they're not locked up in the dungeon, they should be allowed to purchase any gun without restrictions or background checks (You know, 'cause they're totally not at risk of doing anything malicious).

Lastly, your argument on mandatory gun training has nothing to do with background checks (which is what we were originally talking about). How would a gun training affect people who have bad intentions? Gun training helps normal everyday citizens by educating them on different ways to responsibly use firearms. I'm not completely against your point, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with background checks. Hell, I would be willing to have high schools offer an OPTIONAL firearms training class if students planned on responsibly owning a firearm in the future.

 

[FPV MIC]

No person outside of a prison cell of any country should be restricted from purchaisng guns from anywhere or anyone they like.

Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with.

So everyone should have access to guns except for those that shouldn't? They should just be locked up somewhere? Wow!

How do you propose to weed out those who ''can't be trusted with a gun'' and therefore ''shouldn't be on the street to begin with''? Background checks maybe?

 

[Imari]

No person outside of a prison cell of any country should be restricted from purchaisng guns from anywhere or anyone they like. If you're going to impose any restriction, you need to do a meaningful study showing a direct causal effect of a great harm to the public. If I had it my way from scratch I'd have mandatory basic training during/after high school with a license granted upon completion. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with.

This is an aggressively stupid thing to say. Cars are less dangerous than guns, and there are plenty of people we don't trust with cars.

It is amusing how you manage to contradict yourself by saying that nobody should be restricted, and then saying that there should be mandatory training with a licence only granted on completion. That's not unrestricted. That's a restriction. The training and licence is a restriction. You're proposing restricted possession and use of guns. You, personally, are advocating for the restriction of guns to people who are appropriately trained and licenced.

Why should anyone pay any attention to what you say when you can't even understand what you think yourself?

How would a gun training affect people who have bad intentions?

It helps them get better at using a gun so that they can... uh, do bad things better than before, I guess. That seems like a solid plan. I can see nothing that would go wrong with that. This guy is really onto something.

 

[R3V]

I'm not sure if you're all trolling or what. Quote mining things out of context to make my statements seem contradictory is too cheap. Wasn't expecting that.

For the benefit of the doubt:

There are two separate topics here. Gun control in America, which was the original discussion, and my own imaginary system I'd implement if I had a magic wand and my own country. Neither of those are contradicory either way, if you bother to think about it for longer than 5 seconds.

You surely can't be serious?
There's not many things in this world that should be mandatory and learning how to shoot and handle a gun certainly isn't one of them.

Nearly half the countries in the world have mandatory conscription. Why are you acting like this is some sort of a crazy idea?

I can understand mandatory basic training if you want a gun but not to be forced upon anyone and everyone and probably not at such a young age.

If your flag and my quick search are accurate, your own country had conscriptions until 2006. If you disagree that's fine but I'm quite shocked at the response.

How do you propose to weed out those who ''can't be trusted with a gun'' and therefore ''shouldn't be on the street to begin with''?

I don't. That's the point. I can't believe you're not seeing how dystopian your argument is. Do you want minority report irl? Or westworld season 3's plot? I wouldn't even think about taking someone's rights until they've actually abused them.

In your list "prohibited people" you produced a few posts back

In case that wasn't clear, it is NOT my list. It's what the US background check system searches for (NICS).

Just because someone has committed a petty crime and COULD possibly use a gun if they continue to pursue that career doesn't mean that they can't be free. This is where a it gets foggy. A background check could (in theory) help weed out some cases of people who shouldn't have guns. Even if it doesn't completely turn things around, it doesn't have any significant drawbacks. If the U.S. locked up everyone who committed a felony/misdemeanor and gave them life just because "they had the possibility of committing a firearm related crime and can't be trusted", a lot of good (and some bad) people would get unfairly locked up.

I'm not arguing people should be imprisoned forever. I'm arguing that by freeing them, whenever that may be, we're trusting them not to harm society again. It's morally ****ed up how America's system treats convincts. Either keep them in or restore all their rights. Self defense (with a gun) included.

Lastly, your argument on mandatory gun training has nothing to do with background checks (which is what we were originally talking about).

It doesn't. I was answering a question directed at me, what "restrictions" I'd impose.

Cars are less dangerous than guns, and there are plenty of people we don't trust with cars.

And the way to determine that is training/licensing, right? Anyone who passes the test is able to buy and drive a car with no questions asked, right? Or are you suggesting there's drivers with licenses and a clean record who should have their license revoked because their ex girlfriends allege they're dangerous?

That's not unrestricted. That's a restriction.

Not really. If it's on a shall-issue basis it isn't really a restriction, just a one-time formality. It's no more of a restriction than having to pay any amount of money to buy a gun from a store.

Why should anyone pay any attention to what you say when you can't even understand what you think yourself?

No one's forcing you. If you'd like to keep misunderstanding my words, why shouold I pay attention to your responses?

It helps them get better at using a gun so that they can... uh, do bad things better than before, I guess.

Speaking of an aggressively stupid thing to say

In your mind the only people who want to own guns are bad guys and the only use of a gun is for doing bad things. That says it all about your stance on this.

 

[Shaun]

Why are you acting like this is some sort of a crazy idea?

Choice, it's about choice and not having something forced upon you.

 

[FPV MIC]

I don't. That's the point. I can't believe you're not seeing how dystopian your argument is.

It was your point, not mine. I only said background checks should be mandatory. Background checks only affects those who can't legally carry a gun, and then you came back with...

No person outside of a prison cell of any country should be restricted from purchaisng guns from anywhere or anyone they like. If you're going to impose any restriction, you need to do a meaningful study showing a direct causal effect of a great harm to the public. If I had it my way from scratch I'd have mandatory basic training during/after high school with a license granted upon completion. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with.

That's far worse isn't it?

Do you want minority report irl? Or westworld season 3's plot?

I haven't seen either of them so I have no idea on the plot.

I wouldn't even think about taking someone's rights until they've actually abused them.

That's not how you said it before. It may be what you meant but it's not how it reads.

So it's fine by you that someone else's right to live can be taken away just because someone else's rights to carry a gun are somehow more important... even though some gun toting ****wit has threatened to shoot that person dead.

There's many, many people that shouldn't have access to firearms that should still be allowed on the street.

 

[UKMikey]

Speaking of an aggressively stupid thing to say

In your mind the only people who want to own guns are bad guys and the only use of a gun is for doing bad things. That says it all about your stance on this.

How would a gun training affect people who have bad intentions?

It helps them get better at using a gun so that they can... uh, do bad things better than before, I guess.

---

If I had it my way from scratch I'd have mandatory basic training during/after high school with a license granted upon completion. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with.

 

[Imari]

And the way to determine that is training/licensing, right? Anyone who passes the test is able to buy and drive a car with no questions asked, right? Or are you suggesting there's drivers with licenses and a clean record who should have their license revoked because their ex girlfriends allege they're dangerous?

Nope. But there's people with a clean driving record who can't get a licence because of medical or mental health issues.

I certainly have no problem if people with domestic violence convictions are unable to get a gun licence, or at the very least have to jump through significant additional hoops to do so. That just seems sensible. But feel free to handwave it as "ex-girlfriends think they're dangerous" if you want. It shows which side of the domestic abuser issue you think is most important.

Not really. If it's on a shall-issue basis it isn't really a restriction, just a one-time formality. It's no more of a restriction than having to pay any amount of money to buy a gun from a store.

Oh, so your "licence" isn't actually a licence that tests ability to safely use a gun and understand the rules around gun ownership, it's just a revenue raising exercise for the state to issue you a meaningless piece of paper. Woo.

In that case no, it's not really a restriction at all. But it's also entirely pointless. It might as well be a receipt for the fee you paid, and in many ways it's worse than not having it at all. I'm not sure why you'd suggest something like this as beneficial to the system in any way whatsoever.

My bad for assuming that your proposed "solution" was actually intended to improve gun ownership standards instead of just enriching the government, I guess. In future I'll try to remember to assume that any solutions you propose are meaningless bureaucratic wastes of everyone's time and money.

No one's forcing you. If you'd like to keep misunderstanding my words, why shouold I pay attention to your responses?

Maybe you might like to rub two brain cells together and try to generate a coherent argument, but no one's forcing you.

Speaking of an aggressively stupid thing to say

In your mind the only people who want to own guns are bad guys and the only use of a gun is for doing bad things. That says it all about your stance on this.

Lol, as if the response wasn't to a question explicitly about people with bad intentions. And you accuse other people of quote mining? Pull the other one, it has bells on.

 

[Danoff]

Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with.

I'm a gun owner. I have both long guns and handguns, and I know how to use them effectively. I started training in marksmanship when I was about 11. Your above statement is beyond ridiculous, and you should think on it for a second and recant.

For one, it says that all children below a certain age shouldn't be "on the street". Whatever exactly that means. I presume it was intended to mean behind bars, but even if it wasn't, it should be apparent that a 13 year old who can't be trusted with a gun should still be allowed to move through public.

Second, it means that you cannot release anyone from prison with a firearm restriction intact, which is a LOT of people for a lot of small crimes. Including the crime we just convicted our ex-president of. Donald Trump by your rationale should not be "on the street" because he cannot legally own a gun in New York. So if he is sentenced to parole, you presumably will be outraged, and presumably already are since parole is a viable sentence. (The idea of someone being banned from owning a gun but being put in charge of the US military is just... mind exploding)

Third, there are a wide variety of mental handicaps that may prevent someone from safely using a firearm, you're talking about the elimination of civil liberties for whole swaths of the population.

I'm sure you hadn't fully thought through your position, and just made an off-the-cuff remark that moments from now you'll be civilly apologizing for and recanting. Aaaany second now.

 

[R3V]

Choice, it's about choice and not having something forced upon you.

I don't think so. Let's test this idea. Do you believe mandatory elementary education is a bad idea as well?

Background checks only affects those who can't legally carry a gun

This is just false. It affects everyone who wants to buy a gun. You're adding an extra step plus some cost as well. That's also assuming there's no registry but that's its own discussion.

That's far worse isn't it?

If by worse you mean looser "gun control", yes.

That's not how you said it before. It may be what you meant but it's not how it reads.

That's fine. Wouldn't be the first time my words are read as something entirely different here.

So it's fine by you that someone else's right to live can be taken away just because someone else's rights to carry a gun are somehow more important...

Of course not but a strawman like this without a question mark is where I'm stopping.

Nope. But there's people with a clean driving record who can't get a licence because of medical or mental health issues.

Okay Mr. Pedant.

Blind people shouldn't be able to buy guns unless you're in a John Wick movie. There. Happy? Not like they would've been able to pass the test anyway.

I certainly have no problem if people with domestic violence convictions are unable to get a gun licence

Wait

It shows which side of the domestic abuser issue you think is most important.

So are you okay with letting them out to re-offend and potentially kill their SO but letting them have a gun is a big no no? But I'm the one on their side? This is actually funny.

I wonder how many wife beaters think to themselves "oh wait I don't have a gun. I guess I'll just be nice".

, or at the very least have to jump through significant additional hoops to do so.

Please link me any study that shows a causal relationship demonstrating how effective that is.

it's just a revenue raising exercise for the state to issue you a meaningless piece of paper. Woo.

It would be done at no cost* and proper training saves lives. Both in normal times or during unrest.

*Don't bother explaining that nothing is at no cost and the tax payers are paying for it bla bla bla. I know.

understand the rules around gun ownership

You'd be surprised how ignorant most people are concerning self defense and gun laws. They also vary place to place.

So no, this isn't pointless and it's not revenue generation.

Lol, as if the response wasn't to a question explicitly about people with bad intentions. And you accuse other people of quote mining? Pull the other one, it has bells on.

The premise of your argument and his question are absurd to begin with. Laws for the most part exist to stop law abiding people from doing bad things and to have a legal excuse to punish the bad ones. It's quite sad seeing the responses here from "left leaning" people whatever that means on this site. Gun control falls squarely under the "tough on crime" ******** right wingers typically spew.

For one, it says that all children below a certain age shouldn't be "on the street". Whatever exactly that means. I presume it was intended to mean behind bars, but even if it wasn't, it should be apparent that a 13 year old who can't be trusted with a gun should still be allowed to move through public.

More pedantic stuff. You could ask me to clarify instead of just going there, you know? I was obviously talking about "responsible adults".

Second, it means that you cannot release anyone from prison with a firearm restriction intact,

As I've said in in my previous post, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be released. If you (or a judge) think a convincted felon will do harm with a gun if released from prison, keep him there. Once he's out, he's a free man.

I hope you're not Catholic. Stripping rights away, even voting rights, from convicts sounds very vengeful. The entire US criminal justice system looks like it's based on "punishment" and revenge rather than keeping bad apples away from harming society or rehabilitation.

Third, there are a wide variety of mental handicaps that may prevent someone from safely using a firearm, you're talking about the elimination of civil liberties for whole swaths of the population.

What?! Now you're arguing about civil liberties? You'd rather have someone who can't safely use a gun, have a gun, but not someone competent who may have done something stupid in the past and now a free man? Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm sure you hadn't fully thought through your position, and just made an off-the-cuff remark that moments from now you'll be civilly apologizing for and recanting. Aaaany second now.

I've thought about it for a long, long time. My mistake was answering a baity strawman question about my own position without fleshing out all the details like I'm in a courtroom. I thought the main topic was background checks but suddenly it's my position on gun ownership.

I've said it in this thread a long time ago I believe. People in the west will find out the hard way what the cost of gun control is.

 

[Joey D]

Gun control falls squarely under the "tough on crime" ******** right wingers typically spew.

You're going to find very few right-wing people who believe in gun control in the US.

 

[TexRex]

mandatory conscription

 

[R3V]

You're going to find very few right-wing people who believe in gun control in the US.

The politicians are but yeah. You guys (the voters) are split down the middle. On exactly half the issues, republicans are mostly right (and technically left leaning). On the other half, democrats are. It's a bit meaningless to call them left wing or right wing tbh but I was going along with your labels. Anyway I digress.

edit

I'm aware that Republican politicians pander to gun owners and pretend to be anti gun control. My earlier post about tough on crime stands. It's the same stupid idea right wingers had about drugs. This reminds me.

Gun control guys, how did banning drugs work out in America? What happened with all those restrictions?

 

[Danoff]

More pedantic stuff. You could ask me to clarify instead of just going there, you know? I was obviously talking about "responsible adults".

It wasn't obvious, but also children are an important factor to consider in your new rule. You seem to not want to do that. Please tell me whether a 13-year-old who cannot be trusted with a gun should be free to move through public in your view, and if the answer is that they should, why - it contracts your rule in principle, not pedantically.

As I've said in in my previous post, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be released. If you (or a judge) think a convincted felon will do harm with a gun if released from prison, keep him there. Once he's out, he's a free man.

Ok so you just contradicted yourself. You're not going to argue that they shouldn't be released (double negative, let's clear that up - you think they SHOULD be released), but then you go on to say they shouldn't released. Once they're out, they get guns (for some reason), so if they're not to be trusted they can't be let out. That's exactly what I was saying was your untenable position. Precisely because it requires locking up huge swaths of society.

I hope you're not Catholic. Stripping rights away, even voting rights, from convicts sounds very vengeful. The entire US criminal justice system looks like it's based on "punishment" and revenge rather than keeping bad apples away from harming society or rehabilitation.

The US criminal justice system was invented at a time when punishment was an important part of law. Since then punishment has fallen out of popularity, and the criminal justice system has had to kinda limp along and adapt as it can.

But it is not vengeful to "strip rights away", it is a recognition of what the person can be trusted to do - this is why we incarcerate (which you're a fan of) in the first place. Your whole premise here is that we should strip all of their rights away. My argument is that you're advocating stripping too many rights away, when the person could be trusted to move through society but not own a gun. It's not a thought experiment, I can name people in my life that I think should not be trusted with a gun and yet who can be trusted to do other things like drive a car and own knives.

So let's not pretend that I'm the one advocating for stripping rights, you want these people behind bars entirely.

What?! Now you're arguing about civil liberties? You'd rather have someone who can't safely use a gun, have a gun, but not someone competent who may have done something stupid in the past and now a free man? Am I understanding this correctly?

No, I don't want someone who can't safely use a gun to have a gun. And this is not a fringe position, this is the current US government's position. If you demonstrate that you're unsafe with a gun, you should not legally be allowed to have one. Full stop. I don't think this automatically means that person should be in jail.

The blind person is an excellent example here (not pedantic). That person can be trusted to do many things in public, but owning a gun is not one of them. I don't think they deserve to be in jail. Brain function (not just eye function) can find this middle ground as well, including brain function when it comes to behavioral control.

I've thought about it for a long, long time. My mistake was answering a baity strawman question about my own position without fleshing out all the details like I'm in a courtroom. I thought the main topic was background checks but suddenly it's my position on gun ownership.

Well you said something that is clearly wrong, and you (surprise!) won't back down from it. So that's what the conversation is about now.

I've said it in this thread a long time ago I believe. People in the west will find out the hard way what the cost of gun control is.

We're already finding out what the cost of a lack of gun control is.


Edit:

In terms of finding out the hard way, the 2nd amendment group is the same group that is behind attempts to overthrow democracy. Lax gun control seems well poised to help them do exactly that. If there is a side that poses a threat to the US government and civilization right now, it's the lax gun control side. Their argument since forever has been that the 2nd amendment is required to prevent a tyrannical government, it turns out that their definition of tyrannical can be extended to include democratic representation.

 

[R3V]

It wasn't obvious, but also children are an important factor to consider in your new rule. You seem to not want to do that. Please tell me whether a 13-year-old who cannot be trusted with a gun should be free to move through public in your view, and if the answer is that they should, why - it contracts your rule in principle, not pedantically.

I cannot believe I have to say this again. Yes 13 year olds can walk free. So can 3 year olds.

I'm going to explain my principle one last time:

Anyone who was found guilty of harming society and went to jail for it, a place where he/she can no longer harm others, should stay there until a judge or jury determine they're trustworthy again. Once that determination is made, whether by sentencing or any other mechanism, and the convinct is back in the wild, he/she should have ALL their rights restored. This includes gun ownership, voting and whatever else.

Ok so you just contradicted yourself. You're not going to argue that they shouldn't be released (double negative, let's clear that up - you think they SHOULD be released), but then you go on to say they shouldn't released. Once they're out, they get guns (for some reason), so if they're not to be trusted they can't be let out. That's exactly what I was saying was your untenable position. Precisely because it requires locking up huge swaths of society.

There's no contradiction. I'm not a judge or jury. Not all crimes, and not all criminals who have committed a crime are the same. Some should stay in forever, others are ought to be released at some point with all their rights restored. I really don't understand the black and white reading of my words.

My argument is that you're advocating stripping too many rights away

Where did this come from? I only said that you think someone is going to buy a gun to commit a crime with it, you're admitting this person shouldn't be set loose in the first place.

I can name people in my life that I think should not be trusted with a gun and yet who can be trusted to do other things like drive a car and own knives.

So can I. I also think most people vote against their interest. Does it mean I should unilaterally decide to take their voting rights away?!

No, I don't want someone who can't safely use a gun to have a gun. And this is not a fringe position, this is the current US government's position. If you demonstrate that you're unsafe with a gun, you should not legally be allowed to have one. Full stop. I don't think this automatically means that person should be in jail.

Ability to use the gun safely and trusting someone not to commit a crime with it are two separate things.

To clarify once more, when I said "someone who can't be trusted with a gun", I wasn't talking about their ability to use it safely. I was referring to (some) convicted criminals.

Well you said something that is clearly wrong, and you (surprise!) won't back down from it. So that's what the conversation is about now.

Clearly wrong..?

Either way I'm not backing down from my position or attempts to twist it into something else.

We're already finding out what the cost of a lack of gun control is.

No you're not. The spike in school shootings took place after social media became a thing. Around the same time teen suicides spiked (females more than males). Why weren't school shootings a thing when you could buy a brand new machine gun with a tax stamp? Or when you could get an AR15 in the mail?

I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that gun control reduces gun homicides in America. All I see are padded studies, misleading charts and logical fallacies.

In terms of finding out the hard way, the 2nd amendment group is the same group that is behind attempts to overthrow democracy. Lax gun control seems well poised to help them do exactly that. If there is a side that poses a threat to the US government and civilization right now, it's the lax gun control side. Their argument since forever has been that the 2nd amendment is required to prevent a tyrannical government, it turns out that their definition of tyrannical can be extended to include democratic representation.

If you're such a fan of democratic representation and don't like the 2nd amendment, get it repealed democratically


edit

f I had it my way from scratch I'd have mandatory basic training during/after high school with a license granted upon completion. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with.

I went back and read what I said. I can see why the confusion started, but it's still ridiculous to actually read in what you read in. As I said now multiple times, those two sentences are not talking about the same poeple. The first is a general population thing, the second sentence is about convicted criminals and background checks.

 

[Danoff]

I cannot believe I have to say this again. Yes 13 year olds can walk free. So can 3 year olds.

Can a 3 year old have a gun?

I'm going to explain my principle one last time:

Anyone who was found guilty of harming society and went to jail for it, a place where he/she can no longer harm others, should stay there until a judge or jury determine they're trustworthy again. Once that determination is made, whether by sentencing or any other mechanism, and the convinct is back in the wild, he/she should have ALL their rights restored. This includes gun ownership, voting and whatever else.

Why? Why is the condition upon not being fully incarcerated that you must be fully trustworthy in every respect. This seems like a recipe for never letting anyone out ever.

There's no contradiction. I'm not a judge or jury. Not all crimes, and not all criminals who have committed a crime are the same. Some should stay in forever, others are ought to be released at some point with all their rights restored. I really don't understand the black and white reading of my words.

The words were pretty black and white. I'm reading what was written and exploring the edges - this is what is usually done to show someone that they overstepped in their speech and need to reconsider.

You seem to have reconsidered a little... you dropped much of what made the original statement ridiculous and are now focusing it only on people who have been incarcerated for a crime. I'll take this as BIG progress, even if I didn't get an open and clear recant and apology for the wasted time.

So focusing now on this new rule... Someone who beats up his wife once should probably never be allowed to buy a gun ever again. So we're talking life in prison for assault? Why should he never be allowed to buy a gun again? Because if has beaten a spouse there is too high a chance that he will use it in that kind of scenario.

Where did this come from? I only said that you think someone is going to buy a gun to commit a crime with it, you're admitting this person shouldn't be set loose in the first place.

No, you're saying they shouldn't be "set loose" in the first place.

So can I. I also think most people vote against their interest. Does it mean I should unilaterally decide to take their voting rights away?!

What on Earth? I cannot even begin to follow this. It means I don't think they should be in jail.

Ability to use the gun safely and trusting someone not to commit a crime with it are two separate things.

To clarify once more, when I said "someone who can't be trusted with a gun", I wasn't talking about their ability to use it safely. I was referring to (some) convicted criminals.

You were talking about all walks of people who can't be trusted with a gun. I see that you're rephrasing, and I take that as progress.

Clearly wrong..?

Either way I'm not backing down from my position or attempts to twist it into something else.

Well you are actually in this post. You're backing down from the "someone who can't be trusted with a gun" position into an "anyone who was found guilty of harming society and went to jail for it, a place where he/she can no longer harm others, should stay there until a judge or jury determine they're trustworthy again", position. That's a MUCH more defensible position, and won't get you examples of blind people. It's still a bad idea, and I've tried to start that conversation above. But this "backing down" and "twisting into another position" is a big step in the right direction.

No you're not. The spike in school shootings took place after social media became a thing. Around the same time teen suicides spiked (females more than males). Why weren't school shootings a thing when you could buy a brand new machine gun with a tax stamp? Or when you could get an AR15 in the mail?

I don't know. But I do know that guns make school shootings easier to carry out and more deadly in many cases. So loose gun control is a problem in that respect. Mass shootings go back pretty far, but they are on the rise and loose gun control makes all of them easier to carry out.

Loose gun control may not influence people to attack their classmates and teachers, but it is a problem none-the-less. This is easy to see, trivial even, and so it seems like you're trying hard not to see it. If you look at my participation in this thread, you'll see that I generally take the side of defending the 2nd amendment and criticizing gun control. But I don't like unconvincing or bad faith arguments.

I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that gun control reduces gun homicides in America. All I see are padded studies, misleading charts and logical fallacies.

We don't have much gun control in America so... yea you won't be seeing those studies. What made you think you'd see them?

If you're such a fan of democratic representation and don't like the 2nd amendment, get it repealed democratically

This is a bad faith argument. You took my post, ignored the point, twisted it around and tried to give me a "gotcha". You missed the mark bigtime because I don't want the 2nd amendment repealed. You made assumptions about me you probably shouldn't have. I pointed out, correctly, in response to your "learn the hard way" post, that the very people who want loose gun control are turning against the country. This is not an argument in favor of trusting them or of giving them more guns. It's a very old argument, and it's rooted in the idea that you can overthrow your tyrannical government. But what's actually happening is those people are trying to INSTALL a tyrannical government, and want loose gun control to help them out.

 

[McLaren]

No you're not. The spike in school shootings took place after social media became a thing. Around the same time teen suicides spiked (females more than males). Why weren't school shootings a thing when you could buy a brand new machine gun with a tax stamp? Or when you could get an AR15 in the mail?

Social Media came into the fray in the late 1990's/early 2000's with noted platforms like Six Degrees in 1997 as the first. Post social media introduction (2000-Present), Wiki notes there being 546 recorded school shootings in the US. Pre-2000 & just in the 1900's only, there were 351 recorded school shootings, so they were definitely "a thing" for the last hundred years & then some (because there are multiple noted shootings in the 1800's as well).

When discussing spikes in school shootings, there was a spike in school shootings from 1940s (8) to the 1950s (32). There was another spike from the 1960s (20) to the 1970s (48). And again in the 1980s (73). And once more in the 1990s (121). Keep that last number in mind because in the age of social media's beginnings (the 2000s), recorded school shootings dropped to 83. Only from 2010-2019, did school shootings spike dramatically to 265 noted situations.

 

[Shaun]

I don't think so. Let's test this idea. Do you believe mandatory elementary education is a bad idea as well?

There's a difference between something being a good (or bad idea) and being forced to do something against your will. Unless you are infringing on someone's rights you should be allowed to go about your business and choose what you want to do, not be told what to do.

To answer your question an elementary education at minimum is a great idea but no it shouldn't be mandatory to have one especially if it's forced upon you to gain that education at school.

How is having personal choice such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

 

[R3V]

from 2010-2019, did school shootings spike dramatically to 265 noted situations.

This is the one I was referring to. I mentioned the teen suicide spike and thought you'd know which "spike" I'm talking about. Everyone sort of agrees that the social media age started with facebook (not even myspace) and the first iphone. Figured you'd understand what I meant. You guys make it really difficult to have a conversation here. I don't need to make 100 citations for every word I say.

As for school shootings prior, I remember looking up the incidents and finding that they're mostly just targeted homicides that happened to have taken place in a school. When people talk about school shootings, they mean the indiscriminate, heavy casualty ones like Columbine. Filter for that and the picture becomes even clearer.

Can a 3 year old have a gun?

No.

Why? Why is the condition upon not being fully incarcerated that you must be fully trustworthy in every respect. This seems like a recipe for never letting anyone out ever.

It's 3 AM where I live so I'll try my best again.

You have two "killers". One is a guy who accidentally reversed into a grandma. The other is a gun for hire who has killed many before in cold blood, confessed to it, volunteered to provide evidence, and was convincted. Why would you take away the rights from the first after he'd served his sentence, and why on earth would you let loose the latter?

You seem to have reconsidered a little... you dropped much of what made the original statement ridiculous and are now focusing it only on people who have been incarcerated for a crime. I'll take this as BIG progress, even if I didn't get an open and clear recant and apology for the wasted time.

I'm not reconsidering anything. You guys jumped to a crazy conclusion just from having two somewhat unrelated sentences in succession. The word "trust" should've cleared any doubt and you could've/should've asked for a clarification. I've wasted just as much if not more time so if we're giving away apologies I'll take some too.

Someone who beats up his wife once should probably never be allowed to buy a gun ever again. So we're talking life in prison for assault? Why should he never be allowed to buy a gun again? Because if has beaten a spouse there is too high a chance that he will use it in that kind of scenario.

One of two things should happen to that person:

A) You trust that he learned his lesson and will no longer beat women, then he's released from prison with all his rights restored.
B) A judge or jury think he's an irredeemable POS who will offend again and therefore should rot in a prison cell.

What on Earth? I cannot even begin to follow this. It means I don't think they should be in jail.

I'm guessing you're in favor an option C? Where a wife beater isn't sent to jail but instead walks freely with limited rights? Sorry, no. I don't like that. You can't rehab someone like that in the wild or with a ******** restraining order or whatever. Also, voting rights aside, denying someone a right to defend himself using a gun could be worse than sending him to prison.

Well you are actually in this post. You're backing down from the "someone who can't be trusted with a gun" position into an "anyone who was found guilty of harming society and went to jail for it, a place where he/she can no longer harm others, should stay there until a judge or jury determine they're trustworthy again", position.

I'm going to write this again because it's so absurd. I'm not backing down from anything. Trust has nothing to do with training or licensing. It's CLEARLY in reference to the original topic, which is background checks. I mentioned the training thing in the middle (which btw, I'm almost certain mentioned a long time ago) as an off-hand just to answer the guy's question and immediately went back to background checks.

You guys are just primed to jump people who disagree with you, or maybe it's just me.

I don't know. But I do know that guns make school shootings easier to carry out and more deadly in many cases.

Every piece of technology that can make life better will also make it more dangerous. You have to live with the risks.

We don't have much gun control in America so... yea you won't be seeing those studies. What made you think you'd see them?

They're not difficult to produce. They just wouldn't show what your government wants them to show. That's why we're not seeing them.

Not going to comment on whether your gun control is too much or too little atm. I'll just tell you that Saudi Arabia is far less strict than the US federal law when it comes to firearms, let alone states like Cali/NY.

This is a bad faith argument. You took my post, ignored the point, twisted it around and tried to give me a "gotcha".

Not really. What I understood is that you don't like "2nd amendment people" and the 2nd amendment. This is a tangent in any case I'd rather not get into.

because I don't want the 2nd amendment repealed

Banning private sales is* the first step towards that. You already have a defacto gun registry. You know what comes next, right?

I pointed out, correctly, in response to your "learn the hard way" post, that the very people who want loose gun control are turning against the country. You made assumptions about me you probably shouldn't have.This is not an argument in favor of trusting them or of giving them more guns. It's a very old argument, and it's rooted in the idea that you can overthrow your tyrannical government. But what's actually happening is those people are trying to INSTALL a tyrannical government, and want loose gun control to help them out.

I don't really care which group is in favor of guns and which one isn't. I also don't like what this sounds like, if I understood you correctly. It sounds like you're saying Trump bad, Trump voters bad, Trump voters want guns, therefore gun control good?

For the record, I'm not a US citizen nor have I ever visited. I'm also not a fan of Trump being president despite him being so good to us and making US politics the most entertaining part of my life for about 6 years. Oh and I'm politically very far left. Bernie is almost a right winger compared to me. So please, do not confuse me with MTG and other morons you have larping as politicians.

 

[FPV MIC]

Banning private sales is* the first step towards that.

Not one person responding to you has advocated for banning private sales. Not one!

 

[McLaren]

This is the one I was referring to. I mentioned the teen suicide spike and thought you'd know which "spike" I'm talking about.

It doesn't matter what you think you were talking about. You were wrong. School shootings were a thing before whatever relaxed gun regulations you decided to reference & the spike in school shootings didn't just happen after social media became a thing; they actually went down in the decade following it. Spikes in school shootings were a thing before social media.

Everyone sort of agrees that the social media age started with facebook (not even myspace) and the first iphone.

"Everyone" would be wrong, then.

Timeline of social media - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Figured you'd understand what I meant. You guys make it really difficult to have a conversation here. I don't need to make 100 citations for every word I say.

Cue the Principal Skinner meme

It isn't anyone's fault but your own that you make a statement like above that's wrong & then act like someone citing the correct information is the one at fault for making the conversation "difficult".

Perhaps you should stop relying on the misguided belief that "everyone else" knows whatever point it is you're attempting to make but the people conveniently in this thread.