Near Future & Gun Control

Lets look at an example of the effectivness of 'gun' bans. Mexico where it is illegal to own a 'military' styled firearm (definition is varied and yet inclusive, look at the case of the imprisoned ex US Marine and the antique firearm he was in possetion of)should be by 'progressive' logic as one of the safest countries on earth with very limited legal firearm possetion.

Now who owns, uses and controls the majority of the military styled weapons in Mexico, and no it is not the Mexican military,or the law abiding citizen, it is the CRIMINAL drug Cartels, and look American exceptionalism meant that we had to supply them with even more 'assault weapons' (Fast and Furious).

This whole arguement of gun control is flawed and a political agenda. Nancy Fienstien (D-CA) was in talks with BATF of bringing back her 'gun' bans even prior to Newtown, why was this not an issue in 2009, 2010, because Obama knew he could not 'win' if he and his wanted to continue this avenuse to gun control.
2-300m guns already out there, so the 'simple' solution s to target the legal owner for he/she will not put up the resistance the illegal owner (criminal) will, and does anyone here really, really believe that 'infringing' on the gun 'rights' of legal citizens will really curb gun violence.

The comman denominator in all this is the 'human' operator of the tool, whether he abuses the tool or uses it responsibly.

Again where does a criminal feel safer committing his illegal act with a tool he is going to abuse. An area with a 'Gun Free Zone' sign placed prominantly, or near a 'cop' bar with no sign but well known.

Now let's look at another slant, there are advocates that state the 1st Amendment 'free speech' right can and does leads to violent reaction and violence towards others. Now if the 1st Amendment was deemed to be illegal unless you were permitted by the government whould you abide or question the governments assault on your right.

What is your definition of 'infringed'? "as in the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This article is from 1995 but it is very worth reading now, the argument that the second amendment seeks to secure the right of private ownership of guns is deeply flawed. Not that I think intent should be the prime mover of law, but since it is a favorite of the NRA and gun advocates, it's worth examining the weak ground the claim is made on.

If these people are so unstable, that they shouldn't be around firearms. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed in society?

If criminals are deemed incapable of owning firearms. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed in society?

The first amendment IS subject to restrictions. You need a permit for an organized protest, since it affects the public. They can't tell the KKK to piss off when they apply to march, but, they still need a permit. I don't seem to see the harm in needing a permit for an AR (which I would argue effects the public) or to carry, providing they aren't arbitrarily denied.

Places that have high ownership and low crime like Switzerland are places with compulsory military service and training, along with registration and storage requirements. Background checks aren't an infringement because they don't deny you to purchase a firearm unless you have been stripped of that right through legal due process. Non-infringement doesn't mean no regulation, it means you're allowed to have a gun and keep one in your house. I wouldn't argue like some have lately and vocally that this means you're allowed to have a flintlock musket only anymore than I would claim free speech doesn't apply to mediums that didn't exist in 1787, though as it stands, what types of guns can be regulated according to the SCOTUS.

I keep digging through that giant link I put up earlier, and it seems that by conservative estimates, firearms are used in the prevention of crime somewhere between a half-million and a million times a year, and "military style assault weapons" are used in about 2% of crimes involving firearms (this stat includes SKS rifles which have never been classified as assault rifles, and real-deal select-fire firearms and machineguns) . There are no statistics I can find showing how often "military style semi-automatics"  are used in defense against a crime, anecdotally, I've only used them in the process of defending domestic animals from other animals (which is when the mini-14 was declared potentially dangerous garbage). The amount of firearms retrievals in defense far, far, surpasses murders with firearms and firearms accidents, fatal and non-fatal, so yes, you are theoretically not more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than to use a firearm defensively.

To BB, since his concepts interest me, should police officers be allowed to keep guns in their homes since it would seem that would keep them from killing their wives in a domestic dispute?

Let's say they live outside their jurisdiction. Your stance against having a gun in a home seems to indicate that you would be against police doing so, since domestic violence happens even in the homes of police officers. I'd like to talk a little more about your scenario of gun crimes in domestic situations and specifically allow small people to defend against larger people, or against more than one attacker, or someone with a baseball bat etc. I firmly believe taking a gun out of the options for self defense really takes us farther away from equal rights in those cases.

There are plenty of female officers. What are self-defense options when there's a disparity of force (let's pretend the attacker or attackers do not have firearms in this situation)that a civilian case use? (Many states ban tazers and carrying of large knives, all states theoretically allow civilians to carry firearms). Tazers are useless if there's more than one attacker, and pepper spray just pisses some people off. Until we have phasers with a stun setting, the firearm still shines in this regard. A Tazer/Derringer comparison is a better example of a permanent V. temporary solution.

Rofl_Mao wrote: And just because it is long-gun registry does not change anything.

Rofl_Mao wrote:   HOW IS THAT? Guns are guns. They all shoot bullets. One looks scarier than the other. Whats the difference?

agentwhale007 wrote:  <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;"> <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;">So your hampering is a wait and about $300? <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;"> <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;">tinyviolin.jpg

Yes. Your argument is because I am rich I should have more rights than the poor? Good one.

Those are ancillary costs. The actual cost of a license is up from R50 when I first applied in 1999 to R174 now. That isn't a bad increase. But if that is all you do, the application will get rejected because it needs to be written in legalease. I can afford the ~R1000 per application. I happen to live in a nice part of town, have a secure house with armed response and use a reliable car for transport. I actually have a very small need for a self defense firearm. But I can afford it, so I deserve it, right? Those costs are also excluding the R180 for a competency certificate and the ~R400 for the competency course. But hey, costs are immaterial because I'm rich.

The wait? Like I said, it is a hamper. It means I have not shot the firearm I legally own in 2 years. I can buy an illegal firearm in about an hour. THAT is the key point. There is 17000% more obstacles in the way of a legal firearm owner than there are for illegal ones. The law does not make it harder for criminals to buy one. It does mean as a legal firearm owner I have to jump through many many hoops and pay a lot of money to meet arbitrary requirements.

I know they are different. I was using it as proof that laws don't prevent anything. Criminals can get what they want.  <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;"> The idea that criminals exist therefore laws don't work is something you're a big fan of repeating, despite the inherent legal and philosophical fallacies inherent.

Actually, it is true. Case in point it is illegal to murder a class room full of children. The laws in place did nothing to stop it. How will adding MORE laws work? Oh wait. It won't.

Preparation will mitigate the effects when it happens, laws allow you to punish the transgressor. That is all they ever do. Honestly.

Laws didn't stop Rosa Louise McCauley Parks from breaking them.

All laws are is a bunch of rules we have agreed to follow as a society. They can be changed to suit the general wishes, but they don't actually stop someone doing something they want to. Sometimes for good, often for "bad".

Effective policing of current laws will always be more effective than passing new ones, albeit more expensive and often less "flashy". If people cared about doing their jobs properly instead of grabbing headlines there would be less need for new laws.

Ironically enough I agree with stricter gun control. I'm of the opinion it should be like a driver license though. There isn't anything preventing you buying what you want or need once you have proven to be safe and sound (sometimes not even that) from an auto dealership.

KBK

Edited by Kayback - 22 December 2012 at 1:24am