This is how you do a protest

StoneByStone said:
That's why I said "first world." Yeah, we don't have as many gun-related homicides as many third world countries, but we're part of the first world, we should have much higher standards.
Click to expand...

We have higher violence in general than most of the First World. Banning guns wouldn't change that. You have to address the root causes of violence to reduce it. Mental health issues are one of those root causes.

Access to guns can't really be considered a root cause, because the vast majority of gun owners don't commit acts of violence. All you can really apply is psychological background checks to keep guns away from unstable people.
 
Woko Haram said:
What gives the state more power is removing due process from the equation. That's what red flag laws do.

Psychological background checks would help in keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people. Red flag laws would just enable individuals to engage in score settling and the state to engage in selective seizures of weapons.
Click to expand...

But we could have red flag laws without due process. It sounds like right now the way red flag laws are being carried out isn't that good, but that can be changed.
 
Woko Haram said:
And if that's the rationale, then you're going to have gun control advocates continue to push for smaller and smaller magazines. If 10 becomes the standard, then 5 will be next. If 5 becomes the standard, then maybe they'll push for 1 after that.

Virginia shows us that lobbyists are willing to expand the definition of assault weapons to all semiauto weapons, so magazines can easily be subjected to the same expansion of control.

This is why gun rights advocates don't typically give any ground to magazine limits. We've already seen certain states create a slippery slope situation.
Click to expand...

The "slippery slope" usually doesn't actually happen, though. Most European countries have stricter gun control and it hasn't led to a ban on guns, or even just guns holding more than one bullet.
 
StoneByStone said:
But we could have red flag laws without due process. It sounds like right now the way red flag laws are being carried out isn't that good, but that can be changed.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you meant to type "red flag laws with due process." What I'm wondering is why we need them at all. As I said, every state had procedures in place for seizing weapons before red flag laws. I don't see any reason why we need them. It just is a way that activists have tried to shortcut due process.

It's no different from how we've given the surveillance state too much power. There was no reason to pass the Patriot Act. Intelligence agencies had plenty of power before 9/11. There was no need to give them more power, but we did, because we were sold this idea that we'd be safer if we just gave government more power.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thinking that both sides use to grab power rather than providing any actual improvements in safety.
 
StoneByStone said:
The "slippery slope" usually doesn't actually happen, though. Most European countries have stricter gun control and it hasn't led to a ban on guns, or even just guns holding more than one bullet.
Click to expand...

Most European nations don't typically have all-out bans, but in a practical sense, they function almost as such. In a lot of countries, both in Europe and outside of it, you have to explain to law enforcement why you need a gun. At their discretion, you either are allowed to have a gun or not. In effect, these systems favor the elite, cronies, and those who bribe officials.

It's definitely not a good model to follow.
 
Woko Haram said:
Most European nations don't typically have all-out bans, but in a practical sense, they function almost as such. In a lot of countries, both in Europe and outside of it, you have to explain to law enforcement why you need a gun. At their discretion, you either are allowed to have a gun or not. In effect, these systems favor the elite, cronies, and those who bribe officials.

It's definitely not a good model to follow.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's easier for people with money to get guns in those countries, since no matter what the service is, a rich person will have the option of bribery. But there are plenty of working-class Europeans with guns too, especially in Switzerland. So this system of giving guns to people who can make a coherent argument might not be a bad one.
 
StoneByStone said:
I'm sure it's easier for people with money to get guns in those countries, since no matter what the service is, a rich person will have the option of bribery. But there are plenty of working-class Europeans with guns too, especially in Switzerland. So this system of giving guns to people who can make a coherent argument might not be a bad one.
Click to expand...

Switzerland is kind of a joke regarding guns. You can get a gun easier than in many other nations there, but your ammo has to be locked away. You're basically just allowed to have a paperweight.
 
StoneByStone said:
When a gun can hold less ammo, the shooter is forced to reload more often, thus giving more people time to escape. And if you think those few seconds don't matter, look at the Dayton shooting. Police stopped the shooter in thirty seconds, which is very commendable, but in those thirty seconds, he killed fourteen people. A few seconds to stop and reload really do matter.

You're right, the number is pretty arbitrary, but I'd rather have a low but arbitrary limit than no limit. Should a gun be able to hold six bullets or ten bullets? I don't know, but either number is better than fifty bullets.

Which is why I think we shouldn't stop at rifles. Much of the focus, when it comes to gun control, is on guns when we should also be talking more about gun accessories and the screening process.
Click to expand...

And we're back to that just being your dumbass opinion, that you have been and still are unable to post a single FACT that supports your stupidity.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
Woko Haram said:
I'm guessing you meant to type "red flag laws with due process." What I'm wondering is why we need them at all. As I said, every state had procedures in place for seizing weapons before red flag laws. I don't see any reason why we need them. It just is a way that activists have tried to shortcut due process.

It's no different from how we've given the surveillance state too much power. There was no reason to pass the Patriot Act. Intelligence agencies had plenty of power before 9/11. There was no need to give them more power, but we did, because we were sold this idea that we'd be safer if we just gave government more power.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thinking that both sides use to grab power rather than providing any actual improvements in safety.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Stone would agree with "red flag laws" that pertain to motor vehicles!!

Just call in on people who you feel are a danger, while driving, and have all their vehicles confiscated, until they go to Court and PROVE that their not a danger. :good4u:
 
Woko Haram said:
Switzerland is kind of a joke regarding guns. You can get a gun easier than in many other nations there, but your ammo has to be locked away. You're basically just allowed to have a paperweight.
Click to expand...

But you are allowed to take out your ammo to defend yourself if someone is breaking into your house.
 
StoneByStone said:
But you are allowed to take out your ammo to defend yourself if someone is breaking into your house.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you can't have an armed weapon outside of your home. That kind of defeats about half of the purpose of having a gun.

Defending your home is important, but it's also good to be able to defend yourself outside of it, if that becomes necessary.
 
Woko Haram said:
Sure, but you can't have an armed weapon outside of your home. That kind of defeats about half of the purpose of having a gun.

Defending your home is important, but it's also good to be able to defend yourself outside of it, if that becomes necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's legal to carry a loaded gun, it just can't be loaded with the state-issued bullets from military service. Which is kinda weird.
 
StoneByStone said:
I'm pretty sure it's legal to carry a loaded gun, it just can't be loaded with the state-issued bullets from military service. Which is kinda weird.
Click to expand...

In most cases, you're not allowed to carry a loaded gun in public. It's generally limited to people working in security there. They do have a significant cultural history of hunting, so presumably, you could walk around with a hunting rifle, but only on the way to a hunt.

This explains some of the details of how it's handled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns
 
StoneByStone said:
Yeah, and the percentage of people killed by immigrants is minuscule, but we still screen immigrants before we let them in. We're a country of progress, we should be always trying to improve things.
Click to expand...

and if improving things infringes on the rights of people???? oh, wait...you don't believe in muh constitution.......never mind
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and if improving things infringes on the rights of people???? oh, wait...you don't believe in muh constitution.......never mind
Click to expand...

Owning a gun shouldn't be considered a right. I'm fine with people who pass a background check owning certain types of guns, but I don't think owning a gun should be on the same level as free speech.
 
StoneByStone said:
I don't hate freedom, I just know that muh constitution doesn't make or keep us free.
Click to expand...

well, you do have that right........at the least. as i stated before, the only thing that enforces the constitution is an armed populace...........pity that folks like you think that the populace can't fight the government
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top