California mass Shooting

[Jotari]

53 minutes ago, CapnStix said:

But feminism IS cancer. Want equality of the genders? Then call it equality. I'm an egalitarian because feminism is bad now. There's no patriarchy. Men don't succeed just because they happen to be a man. The Wage Gap and Pink Tax have been debunked to hell and back, by women AND men.

Abortion is murder. The baby has different from the mother. The baby can feel pain. So the mother doesn't want it? So put it up for adoption instead of deciding "this doesn't deserve to exist". But what about rape? That's less than 1% of all women in America. It's not 1 in 4. To believe that would be straight up evil. Her body, her choice. Sure, but same to the baby. Hitler killed Jews just because he disliked them, and we condemn that.

Point is, being pro-choice, a feminist, anti-gun...It makes you selfish. In reality, we punish selfish people. Same with criminals. We don't punish tools, we punish the idiot. Come in illegally? You're gonna be deported, if you unlawfully enter a country. You aren't allowed to enter just because you want. There's rules. Follow them, or be punished. The shooter died? He clearly was punished. I don't know if some higher power was involved, but justice triumphed. Death Penalty is moral, you know? Mass shooter kills 20 people. They are no longer human. And, just like barnyard animals, shouldn't and don't have the same rights as the rest of us. Same with rapists. They willingly deserted/gave up their human rights by raping and/or murdering.

It's moral to save a human over an animal. Humans can cure cancer, or end world hunger. A dog, cat, bird, etc. can't.

Come on dude. It's clear you're trolling, but try to at least stay on topic and actually respond to the points people are making.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jotari

[NoirCore]

...yeah, I'm still convinced gun control's the way to go. It's not going to completely remove the issue of mass shootings, but I'm certain it'll decrease it.

I'm not too knowledgeable on what sources have bad reputations or not, but according to this, the US has a staggering number of firearm homicides compared to other countries as well as a large amount of civilian-owned guns compared to the rest of the world. There's also been 1,300 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with mass shootings including incidents where four or more people were specifically shot, excluding the shooter. There's also been 130 studies in 10 countries that in 2016 shows that countries with tighter laws in regards to owning or purchasing guns.

If America's the land of the free, it should allows us to be free to live peaceful lives without worry. Gun control will help with that with the proper laws that make having or getting a gun difficult if people trying to get guns for unhelpful purposes fail to meet the law's standards. Freedom does not necessarily mean chaos.

[CapnStix]

You guys don't understand. Clearly. "control guns" is a euphemism. We haven't "controlled" knives yet. And the government can't get away with that. It's literally tyrannical to "control guns" because they're dangerous. Guess electronics should be controlled, too. Same with lighters. If it can hurt someone, let's get rid of it.

That's a disgusting world view. See how crazy that is? If we judge based on feelings, we'd be a socialist country, or Canada. Take your pick. Traditional values trump "progression". They form the moral compass of a nation. We can get in trouble for saying Merry Christmas, now. All for diversity. Whoever started the "diversity is good" thing should be shot. Hell, there's too much diversity, but almost no diversity of thought. "diversity" is also code for "freedom FROM speech", because inclusion or some other bullhonky. America is a Christian nation. But we can't have that. Why? Because it makes us look good? Pfft, not even close. No one gets help from "inclusion". Just how people work.

They'll have to kill me to even limit guns. Limiting guns is why Germany is in trouble right now. Can't hurt the immigrants, I guess. Because we're "all the same race"...Fuck that. White people are white, black people are black. Both races are equal in America. More white people end dead by cops than black people, but you only hear about black people dying. Yet there's a "police brutality towards black people" in America epidemic. Every dead black person was breaking the law. Resist arrest. They made their decision. All because white people are bad, cops are bad. Because guns are bad. Definitely not the individuals, black or white. Definitely the guns and the cops. That's a stupid movement, like ANTIFA and BLM.

Tools aren't the problem, it's the people. Maybe instead of blaming the tool, try blaming the dumb ass who used the tool. Not too difficult to do, I hope. This is why we need more NRA. Limiting guns only benefits criminals. It punishes good people. Because feelings. Because weak people want freedom and reality gone. That's why gun control is bad. Because it erodes freedom. Look at many dictatorships. No citizenry with guns. Only the party decides what can be said. Just look at Venezuela. It went socialist and now the middle class are poor. They have to line up for food and the like. All because "we gotta be nice to everyone". And what resulted from forced altruism? Venezuela.

If you limit guns, you choke freedom. End of discussion. We "live in a pretty tyrannical country"? Where? Anywhere where you can AND will be jailed for "hate speech", which is protected BY freedom of speech. Count Dankula went to trial, over a pug doing a Nazi salute. That's not freedom. That's tyranny. Operating purely on emotion is tyranny. Want out? Stop being a damn slave to your goddamn feelings like a fucking weak person! Fair isn't bad. Giving special treatment because "me-so-gyny" and "system racism" is bad. You only want that because you're afraid of being seen as a coward. Plain and simple. Sometimes, helping is bad, especially on a national level.

Deal with it.

[Jotari]

34 minutes ago, CapnStix said:

You guys don't understand. Clearly. "control guns" is a euphemism. We haven't "controlled" knives yet. And the government can't get away with that. It's literally tyrannical to "control guns" because they're dangerous. Guess electronics should be controlled, too. Same with lighters. If it can hurt someone, let's get rid of it.

That's a disgusting world view. See how crazy that is? If we judge based on feelings, we'd be a socialist country, or Canada. Take your pick. Traditional values trump "progression". They form the moral compass of a nation. We can get in trouble for saying Merry Christmas, now. All for diversity. Whoever started the "diversity is good" thing should be shot. Hell, there's too much diversity, but almost no diversity of thought. "diversity" is also code for "freedom FROM speech", because inclusion or some other bullhonky. America is a Christian nation. But we can't have that. Why? Because it makes us look good? Pfft, not even close. No one gets help from "inclusion". Just how people work.

They'll have to kill me to even limit guns. Limiting guns is why Germany is in trouble right now. Can't hurt the immigrants, I guess. Because we're "all the same race"...Fuck that. White people are white, black people are black. Both races are equal in America. More white people end dead by cops than black people, but you only hear about black people dying. Yet there's a "police brutality towards black people" in America epidemic. Every dead black person was breaking the law. Resist arrest. They made their decision. All because white people are bad, cops are bad. Because guns are bad. Definitely not the individuals, black or white. Definitely the guns and the cops. That's a stupid movement, like ANTIFA and BLM.

Tools aren't the problem, it's the people. Maybe instead of blaming the tool, try blaming the dumb ass who used the tool. Not too difficult to do, I hope. This is why we need more NRA. Limiting guns only benefits criminals. It punishes good people. Because feelings. Because weak people want freedom and reality gone. That's why gun control is bad. Because it erodes freedom. Look at many dictatorships. No citizenry with guns. Only the party decides what can be said. Just look at Venezuela. It went socialist and now the middle class are poor. They have to line up for food and the like. All because "we gotta be nice to everyone". And what resulted from forced altruism? Venezuela.

If you limit guns, you choke freedom. End of discussion. We "live in a pretty tyrannical country"? Where? Anywhere where you can AND will be jailed for "hate speech", which is protected BY freedom of speech. Count Dankula went to trial, over a pug doing a Nazi salute. That's not freedom. That's tyranny. Operating purely on emotion is tyranny. Want out? Stop being a damn slave to your goddamn feelings like a fucking weak person! Fair isn't bad. Giving special treatment because "me-so-gyny" and "system racism" is bad. You only want that because you're afraid of being seen as a coward. Plain and simple. Sometimes, helping is bad, especially on a national level.

Deal with it.

If you truly believe this then it stands to reason that Americans are just objectively worse than the rest of the world, because this is exclusively an American problem (disclaimer, I don't believe this, it's just the logical conclusion of stating gun laws have absolutely no impact on the situation).

[CapnStix]

The California people put fines on people USE plastic straws. The wokeness makes me wanna die, but whatever...It's always far-lefties who want guns gone. "think of the children"...But I don't care. I will never risk jail again. Unless freedom is being eroded for emotions sake.

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, CapnStix said:

The California people put fines on people USE plastic straws. The wokeness makes me wanna die, but whatever...It's always far-lefties who want guns gone. "think of the children"...But I don't care. I will never risk jail again. Unless freedom is being eroded for emotions sake.

If you're not going to stay on topic and react to points people make against you, then you should probably just stop posting on this thread.

[Rei Rei]

Bolsonaro, our elected president, wants the flexibilization of gun ownership, so that the brazilian citizens can "defend themselves" from crime. at the same time, he wants our already violent military police to be even more violent - and there are no few cases of police officers mistaking umbrellas, powerdrills and other objects for rifles.

let's just say that those two facts won't go well together, as he's trying so hard to become a brazilian trump (albeit he's way dumber and is even more authoritarian)

private property is theft and all gun owners are insecure manbabies

[NoirCore]

45 minutes ago, CapnStix said:

You guys don't understand. Clearly. "control guns" is a euphemism. We haven't "controlled" knives yet. And the government can't get away with that. It's literally tyrannical to "control guns" because they're dangerous. Guess electronics should be controlled, too. Same with lighters. If it can hurt someone, let's get rid of it.

That's a disgusting world view. See how crazy that is? If we judge based on feelings, we'd be a socialist country, or Canada. Take your pick. Traditional values trump "progression". They form the moral compass of a nation. We can get in trouble for saying Merry Christmas, now. All for diversity. Whoever started the "diversity is good" thing should be shot. Hell, there's too much diversity, but almost no diversity of thought. "diversity" is also code for "freedom FROM speech", because inclusion or some other bullhonky. America is a Christian nation. But we can't have that. Why? Because it makes us look good? Pfft, not even close. No one gets help from "inclusion". Just how people work.

They'll have to kill me to even limit guns. Limiting guns is why Germany is in trouble right now. Can't hurt the immigrants, I guess. Because we're "all the same race"...Fuck that. White people are white, black people are black. Both races are equal in America. More white people end dead by cops than black people, but you only hear about black people dying. Yet there's a "police brutality towards black people" in America epidemic. Every dead black person was breaking the law. Resist arrest. They made their decision. All because white people are bad, cops are bad. Because guns are bad. Definitely not the individuals, black or white. Definitely the guns and the cops. That's a stupid movement, like ANTIFA and BLM.

Tools aren't the problem, it's the people. Maybe instead of blaming the tool, try blaming the dumb ass who used the tool. Not too difficult to do, I hope. This is why we need more NRA. Limiting guns only benefits criminals. It punishes good people. Because feelings. Because weak people want freedom and reality gone. That's why gun control is bad. Because it erodes freedom. Look at many dictatorships. No citizenry with guns. Only the party decides what can be said. Just look at Venezuela. It went socialist and now the middle class are poor. They have to line up for food and the like. All because "we gotta be nice to everyone". And what resulted from forced altruism? Venezuela.

If you limit guns, you choke freedom. End of discussion. We "live in a pretty tyrannical country"? Where? Anywhere where you can AND will be jailed for "hate speech", which is protected BY freedom of speech. Count Dankula went to trial, over a pug doing a Nazi salute. That's not freedom. That's tyranny. Operating purely on emotion is tyranny. Want out? Stop being a damn slave to your goddamn feelings like a fucking weak person! Fair isn't bad. Giving special treatment because "me-so-gyny" and "system racism" is bad. You only want that because you're afraid of being seen as a coward. Plain and simple. Sometimes, helping is bad, especially on a national level.

Deal with it.

You keep preaching "freedom", but that's the thing: too much freedom leads to chaos and discord, and that's why the US has the reputation for its guns for the worse. Yes, the person is the problem, but the problem is intensified by giving the problem a weapon that can sneakily kill multiple people in seconds from any range, or at least allowing the problem to easily obtain said weapon. Knives, baseball bats, etc. can't kill from range and are unlikely to be effective to murder multiples. Cars aren't easy to grab off the ground or even allow you to pilot them. Guns are.

Ironic you talk about diversity being a bad thing; I thought you were all for freedom? (And it's very unsettling that you specifically state that whoever started the idea that diversity is good should be "shot"; we're trying to stop gun-related murder.) You seem to be ranting about how being nice means being weak and all that, but it sounds, ironically enough, emotionally driven by you, with how much you claim we rely on our emotions for pro-gun control as a hasty generalization. If you want us to believe these claims, then give reliable sources benefitting these claims, because so far I see minimal reason to believe this.

Speaking of which, I'm curious as to what you think of the source I've shown. There is minimal emotion behind the studies' results and such; the numbers are objective. If you want us to believe otherwise, tell me why the source's information is unreliable enough that you feel compelled to outright ignore it.

[CapnStix]

Diversity isn't a virtue. Not in the "hire less x group and hire more y group". Just like affirmative action. Meritocracy goes out the window for that inclusivity and diversity toxicity. The best person for the job, not based on skin color.

So we should control guns? Why? The "showroom loophole"? There's no loophole to legally obtaining firearms. "no one needs an AK to hunt" so? Let the badass hunt with his AK. Even though fully automatic firearms are prohibited from being sold in America. AR-15? Semi-Auto. Like a handgun. "silencer" nope, not a real thing. They mean suppressor but I am anal about technicality. Consider it a strength, I do.

If not that, then because danger is scary? And guns are dangerous? Screw everyone because a few crazy people used the dangerous thing to harm people. Okay there, Mother Theresa. Guns are equally capable of harming and helping. There was a shooting in Texas this year. It didn't go fatal because of a "good guy with a gun that totally doesn't exist" happened to be near. That man is a real hero. We should arm all who are capable and mentally sound, not punish everyone for total failure situations that happen. That's only making the problem worse. And no, the gun criminal is the total failure. That's just mean.

If guns are bad, how come America has the best military, by far? It's an unspoken law that "he with biggest stick wins". Without America, who knows what the world would be like. I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, the state of the world would be far worse off.

[NoirCore]

12 minutes ago, CapnStix said:

Diversity isn't a virtue. Not in the "hire less x group and hire more y group". Just like affirmative action. Meritocracy goes out the window for that inclusivity and diversity toxicity. The best person for the job, not based on skin color.

So we should control guns? Why? The "showroom loophole"? There's no loophole to legally obtaining firearms. "no one needs an AK to hunt" so? Let the badass hunt with his AK. Even though fully automatic firearms are prohibited from being sold in America. AR-15? Semi-Auto. Like a handgun. "silencer" nope, not a real thing. They mean suppressor but I am anal about technicality. Consider it a strength, I do.

If not that, then because danger is scary? And guns are dangerous? Screw everyone because a few crazy people used the dangerous thing to harm people. Okay there, Mother Theresa. Guns are equally capable of harming and helping. There was a shooting in Texas this year. It didn't go fatal because of a "good guy with a gun that totally doesn't exist" happened to be near. That man is a real hero. We should arm all who are capable and mentally sound, not punish everyone for total failure situations that happen. That's only making the problem worse. And no, the gun criminal is the total failure. That's just mean.

If guns are bad, how come America has the best military, by far? It's an unspoken law that "he with biggest stick wins". Without America, who knows what the world would be like. I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, the state of the world would be far worse off.

Links to sources, please.

To be honest, it looks blatantly like you're ignoring our arguments and assuming that they are what they aren't. You've failed to address my source with all the mass shooting information and my point about how easy it is to kill with a gun, among other things, not to mention assumed we want all guns to be banned. I merely want control, not an outright banning of all guns. Yes, there was a gun hero there, but there have been many more gun villains than the few we've heard about. In fact, you don't need to use a gun to be a hero.

[Shoblongoo]

On 11/8/2018 at 12:05 PM, Res said:

Other countries have similarly high levels of mental ill health in their populations, yet don’t see the mass shootings that the US does.

^^^
This. Come on guys--this isn't hard.

 

2 hours ago, CapnStix said:

They'll have to kill me to even limit guns. Limiting guns is why Germany is in trouble right now. Can't hurt the immigrants, I guess. Because we're "all the same race"...Fuck that. 

...I smell a ban incoming...

But before @eclipse gives you the boot, to the point of the matter asserted:

 

33 minutes ago, CapnStix said:

So we should control guns? Why?

...for the same reason we control food and drugs, automobiles, commercial airlines, and--well--everything.

Civil order means you give up the state-of-nature existence of pure freedom to limit certain predatory, socially undesirable behaviors.

It is socially undesirable behavior to give unrestricted access to guns to anyone regardless of age, maturity, training, criminal history, and mental state. 

We recognize this with other potentially dangerous instrumentalities. (i.e. fireworks, whiskey, tylenol)

Other countries recognize the same public policy rationale applies to guns. 

America is unique only in that it has a 200+ year old founding charter stating that a fundamental right to  gun ownership is part-and-parcel of America's national identity and can never be infringed, which we perpetually refuse to update or revisit or otherwise treat as a historic relic.

So we have to make a square peg fit a round hole and go through these mental gymnastics everytime someone shoots up a school or a bar-scene or a house-of-worship, to explain why unrestricted access to guns is a good thing and actually makes us all safer. (those "immigrants" though...they're gonna get ya...)   


 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[CapnStix]

Again with the pathetic "guns are bad" rhetoric. I've already addressed your point. You just haven't realized it yet. No control. Fuck how Europe or Australia do it. This is America, home of the free. America is also the best country in the world. I don't view fake news, sorry. The news channels and some sites do this. It's sickening. They only report what fits their stupid, little progressive agenda. But that progressive stuff...it doesn't work. Redistribution doesn't work. "inclusion" only separates people. Free health care isn't free. "birth control", aka abortion, is legitimately murder. That stuff is wrong.

This globalization is the problem. Can't have hostile people, we can't take over. Betcha Soros is behind this anti-America, anti-gun bullshit.

[CapnStix]

I don't care. "socially undesirable" that's stupid. Guns aren't any less undesirable than walking.

Oh, and Islam? Truly the mother of all bad, regressive, no brain ideas. Ever. In human history. No smart person would want Sharia Law, especially if they were a feminist or egalitarian.

Edited November 13, 2018 by CapnStix

[Tryhard]

stop responding to the guy who clearly wants attention

26 minutes ago, NoirCore said:

In fact, you don't need to use a gun to be a hero.

[Lord Raven]

LMAO dude you are the best, when the Soros accusations come, (((I))) flex my Sorosbucks. I'm a very rich man, astroturfing the internet.

 

Anyway, I'm gonna try to drag this back on topic with some questions for people.

 

If you lean towards gun control:

What kinds of guns specifically do you feel we should ban? What regulations do we need?

Would you agree there are parts of the nation that need guns to live more or better?

How would you propose implementing bans on guns that have been commercially available for years?

How long do you believe gun reform will actually take?

Do you believe the media posting manifestos and pictures of the gunmen (in other words, ideology) is more of a motivating factor than guns?

 

If you lean against gun control:

How much gun regulation do you actually believe there should be? If so, can you name specifics?

If guns are used for self defense and more should arm themselves, do you believe the government should take initiative? What prevents this from making a "Mexican standoff" society so to speak? Where everyone is paranoid because everyone has a gun -- is such an anxious society desirable? If not, then what do you propose we do about this?

What do you think of the argument that we need guns to form a militia against a tyrannical government?

How much would a gun buyback program have to give you in order for you to relinquish rifles?

What do you think of the mental illness argument? In what ways should mental illness be addressed to prevent shootings? Which mental illnesses are targeted? What mental illness did the Vegas shooter have?

 

I think based on my questions asked it's clear where I lean, but anyone's free to answer. I'm not really expecting anything specific, I'm just gonna take whatever answers in good faith.

[Julius Nepos]

5 hours ago, CapnStix said:

America is free because of free speech, where you can say racial slurs or promote bad ideas and not be put in jail for that. We have freedom of speech, or 1A, because we have freedom to bear arms, or 2A. Limiting arms destroys any semblance of freedom, and screw that...I sure ain't down for that.

Most countries in the world have freedom of speech. Only the US has the right to bear firearms. They are not related.

4 hours ago, CapnStix said:

We ban guns, we ban every basic human right, and become a tyranny. 

Tell me where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the right to bear firearms is defined.

I'll link it for your convenience: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

4 hours ago, CapnStix said:

And, just like barnyard animals, shouldn't and don't have the same rights as the rest of us. Same with rapists. They willingly deserted/gave up their human rights by raping and/or murdering.

It is impossible to forfeit your human rights in any way. You see, the thing with human rights is that every human being has them. That's why they're called human rights.

2 hours ago, CapnStix said:

They'll have to kill me to even limit guns. Limiting guns is why Germany is in trouble right now. Can't hurt the immigrants, I guess.

That's right. You can't hurt the immigrants, in any country. Physical abuse is a criminal offense. Gun control has nothing to do with this.

5 hours ago, CapnStix said:

That's your defense? Constitution means naught then. Just let everyone do what they want, because the constitution is just a piece of paper. Guns will never be controlled in America, like or not. So, calling a black person the n-word is a verbal threat now? What else is bad, rating people you've never talked to before based on appearance?

Please don't talk about law if you don't even understand the basics of law.

[eclipse]

6 hours ago, CapnStix said:

No gun control. I swear, people are anti-gun just to look good. In America, it's the right of every citizen to possess firearms. To stop tyranny and/or crazy/bad people. Less government is good. It's not their job to take care of us. Their job is to keep the country running. The legislative is to make laws, the judicial to enforce those rules with the help of cops, whom I wholeheartedly support, regardless of circumstance, and the executive branch basically just lets the laws become laws.

America is free because of free speech, where you can say racial slurs or promote bad ideas and not be put in jail for that. We have freedom of speech, or 1A, because we have freedom to bear arms, or 2A. Limiting arms destroys any semblance of freedom, and screw that...I sure ain't down for that.

That isn't how the first amendment works.

4 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

my best friend is a car, dude. have some respect.

My sides.  How dare you do this to my sides!

4 hours ago, CapnStix said:

But feminism IS cancer. Want equality of the genders? Then call it equality. I'm an egalitarian because feminism is bad now. There's no patriarchy. Men don't succeed just because they happen to be a man. The Wage Gap and Pink Tax have been debunked to hell and back, by women AND men.

Abortion is murder. The baby has different from the mother. The baby can feel pain. So the mother doesn't want it? So put it up for adoption instead of deciding "this doesn't deserve to exist". But what about rape? That's less than 1% of all women in America. It's not 1 in 4. To believe that would be straight up evil. Her body, her choice. Sure, but same to the baby. Hitler killed Jews just because he disliked them, and we condemn that.

Point is, being pro-choice, a feminist, anti-gun...It makes you selfish. In reality, we punish selfish people. Same with criminals. We don't punish tools, we punish the idiot. Come in illegally? You're gonna be deported, if you unlawfully enter a country. You aren't allowed to enter just because you want. There's rules. Follow them, or be punished. The shooter died? He clearly was punished. I don't know if some higher power was involved, but justice triumphed. Death Penalty is moral, you know? Mass shooter kills 20 people. They are no longer human. And, just like barnyard animals, shouldn't and don't have the same rights as the rest of us. Same with rapists. They willingly deserted/gave up their human rights by raping and/or murdering.

It's moral to save a human over an animal. Humans can cure cancer, or end world hunger. A dog, cat, bird, etc. can't.

And what in the hell does this have to do with the shooting?

[Shoblongoo]

16 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

If you lean towards gun control:

What kinds of guns specifically do you feel we should ban? What regulations do we need?

Would you agree there are parts of the nation that need guns to live more or better?

How would you propose implementing bans on guns that have been commercially available for years?

How long do you believe gun reform will actually take?

Do you believe the media posting manifestos and pictures of the gunmen (in other words, ideology) is more of a motivating factor than guns?

 

If you lean against gun control:

How much gun regulation do you actually believe there should be? If so, can you name specifics?

If guns are used for self defense and more should arm themselves, do you believe the government should take initiative? What prevents this from making a "Mexican standoff" society so to speak? Where everyone is paranoid because everyone has a gun -- is such an anxious society desirable? If not, then what do you propose we do about this?

What do you think of the argument that we need guns to form a militia against a tyrannical government?

How much would a gun buyback program have to give you in order for you to relinquish rifles?

What do you think of the mental illness argument? In what ways should mental illness be addressed to prevent shootings? Which mental illnesses are targeted? What mental illness did the Vegas shooter have?

I've outlined this in other threads, but I'll say it again here just to put a concrete proposal on the table and see if we can get some meeting-of-the-minds on common ground here.

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

• License needed to own and operate.
• Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
• All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner
• All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records
• Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, and unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.
  
  Acceptable? Unacceptable? 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

That's more or less where I lean, Shob. They're just meant to be talking points rather than strict questions, I don't really mind how people answer it.

Increasing bureaucracy is an excellent way to control things without banning them imo

Edited November 13, 2018 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I've outlined this in other threads, but I'll say it again here just to put a concrete proposal on the table and see if we can get some meeting-of-the-minds on common ground here.

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

• License needed to own and operate.
• Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
• All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner
• All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records
• Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, and unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.
  
  Acceptable? Unacceptable? 

Not enough insurance policies.

There'd definitely need to be a national database of sorts, since I think there's some circumstances where people should straight-up not even be allowed to apply for a license.  Also, licenses should be varied, like vehicle licenses.  I might be able to operate a handgun, but I probably have no business firing a sniper rifle.

[Karimlan]

14 minutes ago, eclipse said:

There'd definitely need to be a national database of sorts, since I think there's some circumstances where people should straight-up not even be allowed to apply for a license.  Also, licenses should be varied, like vehicle licenses.  I might be able to operate a handgun, but I probably have no business firing a sniper rifle.

Agree with this 100%, in order to somehow limit the likelihood of some unscrupulous person to move to a state where he "does not appear to be in the books," so to speak. Ditto for the second point; certain firearms should be limited to military/law enforcement, and should also include the modifications for such weaponry.

[Balcerzak]

35 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I've outlined this in other threads, but I'll say it again here just to put a concrete proposal on the table and see if we can get some meeting-of-the-minds on common ground here.

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

• License needed to own and operate.
• Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
• All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner
• All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records
• Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, and unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.
  
  Acceptable? Unacceptable? 

The problem with licensing is if not done carefully it essentially establishes a gun registry*, which has properly been cause for concern (and is currently illegal, if memory serves).  However, I think it is fair to say that all items in your second bullet point are eminently reasonable precursors toward firearm ownership. The same holds for serial numbers or other identifying codes, but again, a database linking gun to owner in the hands of the government provides avenue for abuse.

The right answer might be that rather than getting a license per se, every time the individual wishes to purchase, they must go through all checks for competence in bullet point two, and the vendor assume responsibility if the steps are skimped on or not properly documented. Every time. It would certainly be an inconvenience, as it's more time consuming than the eye test you take every time you renew your driver's license to be sure, but it might alleviate some concerns about the government having a list of everyone who has a gun.

*Edit: Thinking on it some more, maybe an operating license could be sufficiently differentiated than an owning license. For example, not everyone with a driver's license owns a car. If acceptable compromise could be worked out, licensing in that form might be a good possibility.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Balcerzak

[DarthR0xas]

3 hours ago, CapnStix said:

You guys don't understand. Clearly. "control guns" is a euphemism. We haven't "controlled" knives yet. And the government can't get away with that. It's literally tyrannical to "control guns" because they're dangerous. Guess electronics should be controlled, too. Same with lighters. If it can hurt someone, let's get rid of it.

Well there are government agencies for controlling a lot of electronic based things, and regulations on specific electronic things. Also, there are laws on lighters. While a generic BIC lighter can be sold to essentially anyone (although many people wouldn't sell one to anyone under 12), however certain states, like Virginia, have laws against selling novelty lighters to minors (Va. Code s 18.2-371.4.). 

3 hours ago, CapnStix said:

If we judge based on feelings

So you say this, but then go onto say

3 hours ago, CapnStix said:

Traditional values trump "progression"

Which is an opinion, or feeling, and isn't necessarily true. 

3 hours ago, CapnStix said:

Hell, there's too much diversity, but almost no diversity of thought. "diversity" is also code for "freedom FROM speech", because inclusion or some other bullhonky.

I agree with you here, partially. The amount of diversity is fine in my opinion, but we are in dire need of diversity of thought. And no, diversity isn't "Freedom from speech", it's a way to ensure that America remains the melting pot of cultures and societies that it has been for most of it's existence.

3 hours ago, CapnStix said:

America is a Christian nation. But we can't have that. Why? Because it makes us look good?

We can't say "America is a Christian nation" because it isn't. America has no national religion. Are many Americans Christians? Absolutely, I know I am, but there's a reason that church is separate from state. America isn't a Christian nation because Christianity is not a part of the government, and religion itself is, for the most part, kept out of governance entirely. Or at least it should be. Counter Arguments did a pretty good video on this a while back, I'll link it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC3melpcQHI

3 hours ago, CapnStix said:

Every dead black person was breaking the law.

That is easily disproven. First, taken out of context that is false because some could die of natural causes. Back into context, plenty of blacks were shot, or beat for no reason even when they were complying with the officers. https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/21/17149092/stephon-clark-police-shooting-sacramento is the first one I grabbed from a quick Google search.

3 hours ago, CapnStix said:

Anywhere where you can AND will be jailed for "hate speech", which is protected BY freedom of speech. Count Dankula went to trial, over a pug doing a Nazi salute.

Just saying, your example doesn't really show the whole "jailed" part of your statement. Count Dankula specifically DIDN'T go to jail.

1 hour ago, CapnStix said:

"silencer" nope, not a real thing. They mean suppressor but I am anal about technicality. Consider it a strength, I do.

Silencer is a term that has been used by many people and gun users for a bit of time, there is literally a shop where you can buy them called the Silencer Shop  https://www.silencershop.com/why-silencer-shop, so yeah, they're a real thing. Having a different name doesn't mean that the first thing doesn't exist. "Oh, you can call a chicken a fowl, therefore chickens aren't a real thing"

1 hour ago, CapnStix said:

"birth control", aka abortion, is legitimately murder.

Birth control and abortion aren't that same thing. Birth control is before the fetus is even made, abortion occurs after the fetus has been made. "Controlling birth" is abortion.

1 hour ago, CapnStix said:

Oh, and Islam? Truly the mother of all bad, regressive, no brain ideas. Ever. In human history. No smart person would want Sharia Law, especially if they were a feminist or egalitarian.

You do realize that Islam and Muslim thinkers are often the catalyst for modern miracles. Algebra, and many other advanced fields of mathematics? All made and thought of by Muslims. Often times Islam and Christianity helped each other grow. Not every idea they have thought of was good, neither was literally every other person, religion, or culture in Human History. It is far from the "mother of all bad, regressive, no brain ideas", as plenty of bad ideas were spread by other things or people.

 

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

 

Truly, the hero we all need, but don't deserve.

44 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

• License needed to own and operate.
• Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
• All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner. 
• All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records.
• Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.

I'll go through these ideas bullet by bullet.

First one: I'd say you only need one to operate a gun, not necessarily own one.

Second: Yep, no problems here.

Third: I thought all guns already had an identification number. Either way, I don't think we should have a data base on all gun owners, that goes against the second amendment. How could they rise against a tyrannical government if the government knows exactly who to take out first?

Fourth: Same as the third one.

Fifth: Again, no problems with this one.

I'd say there should just be extensive tests, not a whole database. Maybe have a card or license that shows you passed the test, perhaps you need to redo it every 5 or so years.

[Parrhesia]

3 hours ago, CapnStix said:

The California people put fines on people USE plastic straws. The wokeness makes me wanna die, but whatever...It's always far-lefties who want guns gone. "think of the children"...But I don't care. I will never risk jail again. Unless freedom is being eroded for emotions sake.

gun control was put in place in australia by a centre-right government under a notably conservative PM

[XRay]

17 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I've outlined this in other threads, but I'll say it again here just to put a concrete proposal on the table and see if we can get some meeting-of-the-minds on common ground here.

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

• License needed to own and operate.
• Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
• All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner
• All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records
• Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, and unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.
  
  Acceptable? Unacceptable? 

I find it acceptable. But I would throw in unbanning machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. to appeal to conservative and middle voters. I am in the middle politically for guns, so while I agree with having licensing regulations, I want something in return for increasing bureaucracy.

10 minutes ago, Parrhesia said:

gun control was put in place in australia by a centre-right government under a notably conservative PM

Right wing is not the same around the world. As far as I know, America seems to be the main nation where gun ownership is heavily politicized and is engraved in our national identity, particularly on the right. Similarly, the right in Eastern Europe are pretty anti Russia while the right in the rest of the world is either indifferent or on pretty friendly terms with Putin.