GUN CONTROL

[David88vert]

True it is not direct proof but really, why would they vote to loosen gun restrictions if there goal was the extreme opposite?



Of course he can try but he can only go so far. I don't think there is any chance he could make enough deals to ban guns no matter how hard he tried.

I''m not saying that they need to loosen restrictions. There is no need to tighten restrictions on legal owners.
Tougher, ENFORCED penalties for criminals would accomplish more.

I agree that Obama does not have the clout to ban them currently. He has stated that he wants to make progress after re-election though, which is a scary thought. He still won't have the deal making power, but could set the groundwork for future presidents. We need to always be vigilant of our government's actions - that is your civic duty.

[David88vert]

What if the second amendment was repealed? Do you think your right to own a gun is a god given right or a constitutional right?

It is a Constitutional right, and would make criminals out of millions. You might possibley see another revolution out of it though.

[David88vert]

Simple concepts seem to be the hardest for people to figure out. Some people just cant grasp the idea that a paper trail with the private transfer of a firearm protects both the seller and buyer.

If you worked in the IT field, you would know that keeping a complete transactional history of this many objects is not simple. Just getting the basic requirements agreed to would take months, not to mention implementation and maintenance.

[David88vert]

They should make every supporter of gun control move into a house in downtown atlanta and put a sign in their front yard that says "i do not own any guns".

Gun control yard sign - snopes.com

[bu villain]

I dont believe in God, but i feel we all have the fundamental right to defend ourselves.

I think most people would agree with the right to defend yourself. However, most would not agree that society shouldn't be able to place any controls or safeguards on things which may be used in the name of self-defense. We all draw the line in different places.

[bu villain]

I''m not saying that they need to loosen restrictions. There is no need to tighten restrictions on legal owners.
Tougher, ENFORCED penalties for criminals would accomplish more.

Now this is a reasonable position to bring to a discussion. What I don't respect is people who immediately dismiss any sort of new regulations out of hand without even considering the pros and cons and use fear of extremes to discredit even the smallest changes.

[BanginJimmy]

If you worked in the IT field, you would know that keeping a complete transactional history of this many objects is not simple. Just getting the basic requirements agreed to would take months, not to mention implementation and maintenance.

Im not saying it would be easy but its far from impossible.

A database that is searchable ONLY by serial number would also be a deterrence for those that try to sell stolen guns.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[David88vert]

Im not saying it would be easy but its far from impossible.

A database that is searchable ONLY by serial number would also be a deterrence for those that try to sell stolen guns.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

No such thing is possible. Any large database, like Oracle, will have DBA's that have access to all information. Unless you only kept a list of serial numbers, everything would have the potential to be exposed. If you had a list without the transactional history, what would be the point of the list?

Anything that you have a collection of information, and it has an outside access point, there is a security risk. Period.

BTW - They already have lists of stolen guns, what the discussion is about is a list of legal owners.

[BanginJimmy]

No such thing is possible. Any large database, like Oracle, will have DBA's that have access to all information. Unless you only kept a list of serial numbers, everything would have the potential to be exposed. If you had a list without the transactional history, what would be the point of the list?

Anything that you have a collection of information, and it has an outside access point, there is a security risk. Period.

BTW - They already have lists of stolen guns, what the discussion is about is a list of legal owners.

Its obvious I'm no IT guru, but I find it hard to believe that users, not talking administrators, cannot have read only access to a database that is searchable by serial number only.

I do understand security risks, I think the risk is minimal if the database is read only to outside users and only searchable with serial number, maybe even make, model, and serial number.

I understand this is about legal guns, but legal guns that are stolen sometimes end up at pawn shops. If you were here for the early part of this thread, I also am in favor of legal penalties if you fail to report a lost/stolen firearm.

[Sinfix_15]

Gun control yard sign - snopes.com

that is epic. Made my day

[Sinfix_15]

I think most people would agree with the right to defend yourself. However, most would not agree that society shouldn't be able to place any controls or safeguards on things which may be used in the name of self-defense. We all draw the line in different places.

We live in a country controlled by a government that has enough bombs to destroy the planet we live on, that sells billions of dollars of guns to conflict nations a year, that spends more than 50% of our taxes on military and they want to tell me that my AR15 is not suitable for self defense.

[bu villain]

We live in a country controlled by a government that has enough bombs to destroy the planet we live on, that sells billions of dollars of guns to conflict nations a year, that spends more than 50% of our taxes on military and they want to tell me that my AR15 is not suitable for self defense.

I don't understand your argument. How does having a huge national military translate into private citizens needing AR-15s? If anything, our huge standing army is a reason you don't need an AR-15.

[RL...]

I know the right to bear arms is in the constitution, but I think our country would be better off if it were illegal for anyone other than military/police to obtain them. If your average joe shmoe couldn't buy a gun than murder, rape, burglary, all of that stuff would drastically be reduced. Most people wouldn't commit the crimes they do if they weren't able to hide behind a gun. We wouldn't have to worry about columbine shootings, movie theater shootings, someone breaking into our house and shooting us or robbing us at gunpoint.

Would this stop all crime? No. And I'm sure some people would still manage to get guns here and there, but by and far I think the greatly reduced crime rates would justify breaking this constitutional rule.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't understand your argument. How does having a huge national military translate into private citizens needing AR-15s? If anything, our huge standing army is a reason you don't need an AR-15.

if our huge standing army was standing on our own soil, i probably wouldnt. But having a massive army guarding the boarders of Pakistan doesnt make me feel any safer in Georgia.

[Sinfix_15]

I know the right to bear arms is in the constitution, but I think our country would be better off if it were illegal for anyone other than military/police to obtain them. If your average joe shmoe couldn't buy a gun than murder, rape, burglary, all of that stuff would drastically be reduced. Most people wouldn't commit the crimes they do if they weren't able to hide behind a gun. We wouldn't have to worry about columbine shootings, movie theater shootings, someone breaking into our house and shooting us or robbing us at gunpoint.

Would this stop all crime? No. And I'm sure some people would still manage to get guns here and there, but by and far I think the greatly reduced crime rates would justify breaking this constitutional rule.

with all do respect....... you are a fucking moron. I hope i never live to see the day that you get your wish.

[RL...]

with all do respect....... you are a fucking moron. I hope i never live to see the day that you get your wish.

You're the guy who got pissed off and felt violated because people going to a funeral were holding up traffic. It's obvious you have no idea of what decency is nor how to be a respectful person so what do you know? You're as emotional as a girl going through puberty.





Back on topic...yes more gun control like having titles associated with them makes sense. People would be less likely to do stupid shit if it was easy to trace guns back to the last owner.

[Sinfix_15]

You're the guy who got pissed off and felt violated because people going to a funeral were holding up traffic. It's obvious you have no idea of what decency is nor how to be a respectful person so what do you know? You're as emotional as a girl going through puberty.





Back on topic...yes more gun control like having titles associated with them makes sense. People would be less likely to do stupid shit if it was easy to trace guns back to the last owner.

Rape is illegal. doesnt stop rape.
Murder is illegal. doesnt stop murder.
Theft is illegal. doesnt stop theft.

8,000 home invasions happen a day in the US. 60% of all rapes happen during home invasion.

Making guns illegal would only take the gun out of your hand, not the criminal. If the government ever decides to ban guns.... then i suggest we all round up our guns..............................





























and use them on the government.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ily/index.html

read this article about a family that was killed during a home invasion. A man who witnessed his wife and daughters get raped and murdered, then beat and left for dead. No law will ever protect you. No matter how good the police ever become, they will never be at every single house every single hour of the day. You're welcome to leave your life up to chance if you want, i respect your decision. If someone breaks into your house, call the police. If they break into mine, call a coroner.

[Vteckidd]

I know the right to bear arms is in the constitution, but I think our country would be better off if it were illegal for anyone other than military/police to obtain them. If your average joe shmoe couldn't buy a gun than murder, rape, burglary, all of that stuff would drastically be reduced. Most people wouldn't commit the crimes they do if they weren't able to hide behind a gun. We wouldn't have to worry about columbine shootings, movie theater shootings, someone breaking into our house and shooting us or robbing us at gunpoint.

You cant UNINVENT the firearm. Its been around for 300+ years? Some form of a projectile firing mechanism has been around since the dark ages (catapults, etc). Banning guns would only enable the criminals. Look at the crime rates in the UK , a place that bans firearms, or NY, or DC. If they outlawed Gasoline engines tomorrow do you think no one would ever make another gas engine ever again? Hell no.

The answer to stopping crime is making it more efficient for LEO to fight crime, hence why i said the ban on all private sales unless its through a dealer, and keep updated records of the owners of the weapons. Its just responsible.

[RL...]

I already said the banning on guns isn't going to happen and I i know we can't uninvent the firearm. It's far too late to ban firearms at this point. BUT I think the world would be a better place without them. Just like I think the world would be a better place without religion, but that's for another thread.

The answer to stopping crime is you can't. As long as guns are in existence people are going to get shot, and that fact will never change. But adding more protective and security measures to the sale and ownership would be a good start.

[RL...]

Rape is illegal. doesnt stop rape.
Murder is illegal. doesnt stop murder.
Theft is illegal. doesnt stop theft.

8,000 home invasions happen a day in the US. 60% of all rapes happen during home invasion.

Making guns illegal would only take the gun out of your hand, not the criminal. If the government ever decides to ban guns.... then i suggest we all round up our guns..............................


and use them on the government
Petit Family Killings News - The New York Times

read this article about a family that was killed during a home invasion. A man who witnessed his wife and daughters get raped and murdered, then beat and left for dead. No law will ever protect you. No matter how good the police ever become, they will never be at every single house every single hour of the day. You're welcome to leave your life up to chance if you want, i respect your decision. If someone breaks into your house, call the police. If they break into mine, call a coroner.

lol
You and your wife have a much higher chance of dying from heart disease than getting raped or murdered in your house. In my 24 years of life I have never had my place of residence been broken into, and I've lived in more than 5 different homes, in more than 5 states. So think your "1 in 5" stats are little off.

In regards to that article, it's truly tragic, but its hard to say if a gun would've saved them. If they break in and shove their gun to your face, you won't have time to get your gun. Even if you did, most people who buy guns aren't trained to use them properly.

[ahabion]

So to your own admission, putting more regulation or promoting gun control will not stop crime. Crimes will continue to happen with or without gun control... So what is the point of it?

It's not guns that kill people... it's people who kill other people. Guns are amoral.

[.blank cd]

So to your own admission, putting more regulation or promoting gun control will not stop crime. Crimes will continue to happen with or without gun control... So what is the point of it?

It's not guns that kill people... it's people who kill other people. Guns are amoral.

If a little extra regulation saved one human life, would you consider that a success?

[RL...]

So to your own admission, putting more regulation or promoting gun control will not stop crime. Crimes will continue to happen with or without gun control... So what is the point of it?

It's not guns that kill people... it's people who kill other people. Guns are amoral.

I also said it's a good start, a step in the right direction. Of course gun control can't stop crime. No one can be so obtuse as to think like that. The point is that it should help deter some, not all, some criminals from doing heinous acts.

[Vteckidd]

So to your own admission, putting more regulation or promoting gun control will not stop crime. Crimes will continue to happen with or without gun control... So what is the point of it?

It's not guns that kill people... it's people who kill other people. Guns are amoral.

BANNING GUNS WONT SOLVE CRIME, SO WE SHOULD JUST GIVE MACHINE GUNS TO EVERYONE, FUCK IT



AMUURRRICA

[bu villain]

if our huge standing army was standing on our own soil, i probably wouldnt. But having a massive army guarding the boarders of Pakistan doesnt make me feel any safer in Georgia.

Feeling safer is not the same as being safer and unless you are worried about a foreign invasion, I still don't see what the military has to do with this. Do you have any evidence that shows gun owners are actually safer? How about data showing assault rifle owners are safer than handgun owners? While it wouldn't end the debate, those would be good reasons to allow assault rifles.

[bu villain]

Rape is illegal. doesnt stop rape.
Murder is illegal. doesnt stop murder.
Theft is illegal. doesnt stop theft.

So legalise rape, murder, and theft because the laws don't completely stop bad things from happening? Or are you agreeing that laws can still be a good idea even if they don't stop all related crime?

[Vteckidd]

So legalise rape, murder, and theft because the laws don't completely stop bad things from happening? Or are you agreeing that laws can still be a good idea even if they don't stop all related crime?

its a bad comparison, because no one offers RAPE as a product that you can purchase and then use at your own free will to commit a crime. RAPE doesnt have multi billion dollar lobbying firms in DC.

Rape is Illegal, but Sex is not. The only thing that makes RAPE illegal is a person not wanting to have sex and its forced on them. Comparing that to firearms just doesnt make any sense.

Again the point everyone keeps missing is that i never once said guns should be banned. I never once said that registering used weapons would prevent massacres or gun violence. I never said that was the only answer. So stop thinking in broad 1 action strokes.

I dont think anyone can logically argue that USED firearms shouldnt be treated just like NEW firearms. They cause the same damage, they demand the same respect, they should be registered JUST LIKE A NEW WEAPON ANYTIME YOU BUY ONE.

Its irrational to think otherwise. It no more presents a GUN GRAB than the current NEW weapons being sold are subject to the same kind of tactics a VERY VERy small minority in congress may want to see happen. It changes nothing. It does however allow LEO to operate more efficiently.

WHere is all the bleeding heart GOP "DONT WASTE MY TAX DOLLARS" BULLSHIT NOW? Dont you agree that LEO chasing down gun owners through 3-4 people is a waste of resources?

Imagine if we didnt recquire any registration on cars? No bill of sale, no title transfer, and we didnt care? Dont you think hit and run accidents would be almost impossible to control?

[.blank cd]

its a bad comparison, because no one offers RAPE as a product that you can purchase and then use at your own free will.

Speak for yourself, I sell rape.

[Vteckidd]

Speak for yourself, I sell rape.

do you offer monthly installment plans?

[.blank cd]

do you offer monthly installment plans?

I accept all major credit cards and EBT/SNAP

[ahabion]

I already said the banning on guns isn't going to happen and I i know we can't uninvent the firearm. It's far too late to ban firearms at this point. BUT I think the world would be a better place without them. Just like I think the world would be a better place without religion, but that's for another thread.

The answer to stopping crime is you can't. As long as guns are in existence people are going to get shot, and that fact will never change. But adding more protective and security measures to the sale and ownership would be a good start.

Don't we already have protective and security measures in place?

BANNING GUNS WONT SOLVE CRIME, SO WE SHOULD JUST GIVE MACHINE GUNS TO EVERYONE, FUCK IT



AMUURRRICA

knowing that the people have machine guns and everyone around them has guns... I'd say that would deter the feint of heart or atleast the wannabes. Very extreme case but not suggesting no regulation either. Would people still get killed? Of course but I'm not saying banning guns completely is an option either. What I am saying is that if we got smarter about it, we could fnd a much better solution instead of guns or no guns. There are current laws in place, why punish law abiding citizens by making them the bad guys?

[Sinfix_15]

lol
You and your wife have a much higher chance of dying from heart disease than getting raped or murdered in your house. In my 24 years of life I have never had my place of residence been broken into, and I've lived in more than 5 different homes, in more than 5 states. So think your "1 in 5" stats are little off.

In regards to that article, it's truly tragic, but its hard to say if a gun would've saved them. If they break in and shove their gun to your face, you won't have time to get your gun. Even if you did, most people who buy guns aren't trained to use them properly.

Clearly you dont understand statistics.

I've had 3 incidents in my lifetime that required me to pull a gun on my property. More importantly than any of those 3, my fiance deterred someone attempting to break in the house when she was home alone by grabbing my shotgun. Strangely......... yelling "im calling the police" had no effect.... but cocking and aiming a shotgun made them run away. She wasnt properly trained to use a gun and didnt even have to fire a gun, the presence of a gun prevented an attack.

8000 home invasions happen a day in the US. That is not a made up statistic. If you wish to play the odds and say "it'll never happen to me". good for you, someone breaks into my house while i am here, they will die. I wont shed one tear for them. I'll attend their funeral for the sole purpose of telling their parents that they did a shitty job raising a criminal. After that, i'll treat myself to a steak dinner to celebrate the fact that the world has 1 less scumbag in it.

[Sinfix_15]

Feeling safer is not the same as being safer and unless you are worried about a foreign invasion, I still don't see what the military has to do with this. Do you have any evidence that shows gun owners are actually safer? How about data showing assault rifle owners are safer than handgun owners? While it wouldn't end the debate, those would be good reasons to allow assault rifles.

What makes one rifle any more dangerous than the next? should we ban AR15s because they simply look more dangerous? A rifle is a rifle. People use rifles in a variety of ways. In my own personal opinion, a shotgun is the single most effective home defense weapon.

[Sinfix_15]

BANNING GUNS WONT SOLVE CRIME, SO WE SHOULD JUST GIVE MACHINE GUNS TO EVERYONE, FUCK IT



AMUURRRICA

I'll be stocking up just in case. WTB AR15s!

[bu villain]

its a bad comparison, because no one offers RAPE as a product that you can purchase and then use at your own free will to commit a crime. RAPE doesnt have multi billion dollar lobbying firms in DC.

I agree. It was Sinflix who made that comparison. I was merely pointing out that his assumption that the only purpose of a law is to stop crime is not entirely correct.

[bu villain]

What makes one rifle any more dangerous than the next? should we ban AR15s because they simply look more dangerous? A rifle is a rifle. People use rifles in a variety of ways. In my own personal opinion, a shotgun is the single most effective home defense weapon.

I agree, one rifle isn't that different than the next. Actually handguns are probably more dangerous than semi-auto AR-15s. Now full autos are a different story. Our disagreement isn't whether AR-15s are crossing the line of what individuals should be allowed to own, it's that you say there should be no line drawn at all for any weapon.

[Sinfix_15]

If a little extra regulation saved one human life, would you consider that a success?

if a little extra regulation allowed one person to be raped or murdered, would you consider that a failure?

[Sinfix_15]

I agree. It was Sinflix who made that comparison. I was merely pointing out that his assumption that the only purpose of a law is to stop crime is not entirely correct.

My point is that laws have no effect on criminals. Banning guns will not remove guns from the hands of a criminal.

[Vteckidd]

So heres another stupid fact.

If you pawn your gun at a pawn shop, did you know that when you pick it up, YOU MUST PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK AGAIN? This is FEDERAL LAW.

So we recquire you to pass a background check to reclaim your used gun, but we dont require used guns to have a background check. SMART.

/sarcasm

[bu villain]

My point is that laws have no effect on criminals. Banning guns will not remove guns from the hands of a criminal.

1. No one here is proposing an all out gun ban.
2. Gun regulation is still a good idea even if criminals can still get their hands on one
3. Laws do have effects on criminals. We can argue if the effects are good/bad or effective/inneffective but there are effects.