|
|
|
|
#92
12-31-2012
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban There is no “usually” when it comes to gun owners and crimes. The Aurora and Sandy shooters both owned or had guns in their homes. They had full and open legal access to the arsenals. 
|
|
#94
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
1. Historical weapons 2. Entertainment shoots As to point 1, many historical weapons (MG42, MP40, Thompson, STEN, Vickers ect...) are fully automatic. banning all full auto guns would mean these guns would either have to be destroyed, or altered in such a way that it damages their historical value. Too many times in the UK, stashes of rare weapons have been totally destroyed by overzealous police forces. Surely some consideration must be taken for these too? And to point 2, I direct you to this video. this is generally classified as a Shitload of fun. These people plan to hurt nobody, and in relation to point 1 many of the guns they shoot are historic. These people collect them and like to show them off at gatherings like this. Where else will you see a German WW2 MG34 anti-air mount shooting down RC planes? Again, do you turn round and demand these people hand in their entertainment and passions, on the off chance that it MIGHT save peoples lives later down the line? At the end of the day what are the majority of gun crimes in the US committed with? Handguns. Not miniguns, or anti-tank rifles, or sub-machine guns. Handguns. If anything needs to be regulated more, it's handgun ownership. THAT is the gun law that would make the most impact. On top of that, US society needs to change too. It's not the only change that is needed, but it is essential if we want to see a reduction in these sorts of heinous crimes.
|
|
#95
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
It is of my opinion that liberals in the United States are interested in changing laws asap because they see a problem, and the easiest way to fix the problem is to pass a law that involves more regulation the the government.
I will give a local example. Much to Europeans' surprise, there are cities that have liberal culture. I live near a few of those cities. One of them is the kind of liberal that has a bunch of white people who proclaim diversity, have artistic and scientific elitists, the university students are your typical "I am enlightened and that makes my opinion worth something" types, they think that all conservatives are gun-loving gay bashing idiots, and, well, you get the picture. Anyways. Last year or so, they decided to pass a law that required cars to stop at all crosswalks (that are not connected to regular traffic lights) if there was at least one person who needed to cross. When the law was first established, there were no crosswalk signs or lights or anything. So naturally, police gave tickets to a crap load of people for not remembering their stupid and impractical law. Granted, now for the most part they have the proper lights and signals to indicate crosswalks and when people will be crossing. But they passed the law before they had the proper equipment to make the law practical. So why did they pass it in such a rush? Well, because in the progressive mindset, if you see a problem, a law needs to be passed about it right away, even if it doesn't make sense to pass it. They saw that people couldn't cross crosswalks in a reasonable amount of time, so instead of taking the time to build traffic lights at those crosswalks, they decided to blame the big mean cars and punish them for being big mean cars. For liberals, passing a law like that is "fixing the problem," except all that it is doing is putting a bandaid on the problem, which doesn't do a whole lot of good for anyone. At least since it was a local law, it was easier to actually perform the surgery needed after a while, but I think that if people didn't complain about it, the city would have just kept the bandaid. So in regards to this topic, regulating gun control even more in a society that has several other problems, such as: Lack of awareness of mental health treatment The expense of treating mental health issues The lack of a significant father figure in the CT shooter's life Broken families and divorce rates Violent movies and video games (now before you yell at me, I think that banning these things is stupid. However, moms need to stop buying their angelic sons Call of Duty when they are only 10). The media's reaction to shooters - the way that they become famous after committing such a horrible crime Perhaps there are more factors that I am not taking into consideration. Also, requiring that guns be locked up would not be a bad idea. Not sure how many people are going to obey that law and how they are going to regulate it, but at least encouraging people to do that might make a difference.
|
|
#96
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
As you state in your last line sally, about obeying and regulating more gun bans. In the UK Guns have been fairly limited since the early 20th century. And as such it's very easy to control who has what and where, as it's not as common.
In the US there's over 200 million firearms, many of which are ALREADY illegal. Policing such a ban would be highly impractical, expensive, and likely would make little impact on the overall numbers.
|
|
#97
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
I actually do not mean banning the guns, I mean that owners keep their personal guns locked up in their own homes so that others do not easily have access to them.
|
|
#98
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm hopefully getting a gun safe soon. I sent off my shotgun application today. I know what you mean, I was simply extrapolating a point you made into a "why banning is mostly useless" example :)
|
|
#99
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good point sally. While not related on guns that is a pretty good explanation of the problems of both sides. The right (at least here) generally is overly traditional or generalises heavilly (My dad thinks Thatcher was the greatest prime minister of all time, but they all miss out the failures of here policies in te first few years, such as doubling the unemployment figures) and ignore situational differences, while the more leftest or liberal sides will see the issues as they are but not put in a significant counterbalance for long term benefit, which is why we saw labour encouraging the banks to lend heavilly under Blair but that lead to the credit crunch. When trying to think of my own policies, I try to look at the situation, the idea, what the idea will do, and how to avoid the problems. Sadly politics currently doesnt seem to do that very well.
|
|
#100
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#101
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
First, I have already rebutted all this and it would have saved you a lot of time to have just read that, rather rehashing the same tired and ill-thoughtout defences of what really is a massive problem for the US, which it really needs to sort out.
Quote:
PS You will find that most Americans actually come under the banding of pure liberals or classic liberals and despite your remarks about 'Europeans' beliefs, that is how they are mostly seen. It is just most Europeans think classic liberalism belongs in the past. Quote:
PS Again, please for your own sake, look up Liberalism, you are only making yourself look foolish when you talk about Liberalism without even the smallest amount of appreciation for what it is. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Fat1Fared; 01-05-2013 at 04:30 PM.
|
|
#102
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Your points on liberalism are correct fared that the liberals in America are hardly even liberal, really they are just a confused emss of ideology. However for the liberal democrat party of America that is sadly about right, they aim for progression but do not think about consequence, though thats mainly due to having no single political aim. Some in the liberal party are socialis, some classical liberal, some neo-liberal, some conservative and they have to please everyone thus causing negative consequences.
The republicans have an idea of what they are doing and have a more united ideology however the ideology is too much based on tradition and inequallity. And yeah, Americans, classical liberalism (which the republicans support) has been shown on many occasions to completely fail compared to modern liberalism and scialist policies. Such examples are the conditions in industrial revolution era England and the great depression, while modern liberalism and socialism have been shown to succeed with keynesianism and greater government contribution to peoples livelyhoods.
|
|
#104
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Collectors Sportspeople Entertainment [ +++fared I know you make good points, but pleaaaaaase calm down in your replies. Don't go getting a stroke over an internet argument. ]
|
|
#105
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think what was meant more when sally was talking about crime and mental health, is that Crimes such as those committed in newtown and other places are never committed by sane, healthy individuals. Most crime in general is committed with handguns, by criminals looking to make a quick $ from robbery and theft in various forms. Most are committed by people who are, for all intents and purposes, sane. That is why they don't commit crimes such as those in newtown. Because they KNOW it's either prison or suicide, there is no other way out. So really sally is not wrong, just not differentiating between normal crime and mass murder crime, and between sane criminals and insane criminals. + While 45% of people in the US will suffer mental problems in their life, the vast majority will be age related (alzheimers, ect...). Those with mental problems which lead them to commit mass crimes are often born with these leanings towards such acts, OR have them instilled into them in childhood. The reasons can be complex and deeply hidden, but the result is the same. Better ways to spot this early on would help significantly.
|
|
#106
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
oh for the love of god
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20923201 I'm not sure if all the psycho's decided NOW was their time to act, or the media is just jumping on every multiple gun killing in the US.
|
|
#107
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#108
01-05-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Even if laws had been DRAFTED the same day as Newtown, they still wouldn't have been able to debate, pass, sign off and then enforce any kind of ban or limitations before now.
|
|
#109
01-06-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Australia got it passed in 12 days and it's worked over there. If you blame a particular group of people what do you think will happen? People can be really cruel :( It's easy to say 'that person was obviously not sane' but there are a lot of people who just like to be horrible to others and you'd be painting innocent vulnerable people with the same brush, people who are far more likely to be victims then hurt others. Regulations is not banning, it just makes it harder for people to get guns and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that D: People should have to prove above and beyond that they're responsible enough to own a gun. There have already been a lot of good ideas in previous posts, such as maybe people can go to a place run by professionals instead if they want to use guns that they normally wouldn't be able to buy (such as that really big gun biggles posted) but it seems people don't want to change or do anything that could affect them in any way (again though if you're responsible with guns it wouldn't really affect you). A lot of people want whats easier for them personally and what happens to others is someone else's problem. If it works in several different countries then why not try it? It's better than doing nothing
|
|
#110
01-06-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
ANY law on guns will take a long time to get through the US government, because of the opposition it would have. Also, passing laws quickly is actually usually a bad idea. Not always, but it leaves doors open to bad decisions. As to the rest, Quote:
|
|
#111
01-06-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In answer to your previous question, the truth is crime with death trolls of up 10...etc has been very common in the USA since the 80's (the same time it Liberalised its gun laws...hmmm.) However, now it is white middle American's who are dying and not those doomed to a life in the slums of the big cities. This means people in the media, and thus soceity at large, take more notice. I know that is a cruel thing to say, but it does not make it less true. Quote:
Also, there is a difference between rushed and quick, as I said. An example of rushed law is the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was simply passed without full consultation, another example however is the Theft Act, now this went through the full parliamentary review process and took a long time to get sort, but unfortunately those given the job of drafting it rushed their final draft for reasons I cannot disclose and so what we were left with was one of the worst pieces of law ever made. A law which meant that a man who took an battered door which someone was going to fell out anyway got arrested for theft, while the judiciary were left tying themselves in nots to try and sentence obvious fraudsters and thieves. This shows that something can be rushed and still take a long time. I think she means that just because you are a criminal or do a bad thing does not mean you are mentally unwell, which if that is what she means, I agree with. Last edited by Fat1Fared; 01-06-2013 at 07:00 AM.
|
|
#112
01-06-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#113
01-06-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
obviously there are exceptions, but it seem to me that such a wide-reaching and important law needs more than 12 days to be shown to be the best course of action. Of course not all criminals are mentally unwell, and not all the mentally unwell are criminals. BUT, the people who commit mass murders, have you ever found one who wasn't a sociopath? Didn't have some kind of unstable mental background? As I have said before, the people who commit such crimes are never sane people. Criminal or otherwise. Because sane people know such action is certain death, one way or another.
|
|
#114
01-06-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
