When I hear "gun control" I think pistol twirling and trick shooting.
I have a feeling I might be Texan.
Gun control
Posts
Total:
51
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you haven't shown how gun safety requires a license, btw you don't need a driver's license to drive on your own property, nor do you need a hunting license.You could require a gun safety course designed however is best without any need of a license.safety is important I agree with that and have given ideas how that could easily be accomplished, no license needed.
I've never said that knowledge of gun safety requires a license. However it's simply a fact that If I make 100 people do a gun safety course, they are going to be on average better with gun safety than 100 people who do not. Licenses are evidence that you know your shit. When it comes to my safety, I'm not going to take your solemn oath that you know your shit. No business works like that. It's the entire point behind licenses, degrees and certifications.
in 2018 there were over 26 MILLION NICS checks, you propose to do over 26 million mental health assessments per year? Tell me how that is remotely possible.
The whole point of me mentioning the new group of legal adults per year was because they represented a portion of those eligible to buy a gun, who have not yet done so. The implication being that they can be initially screened for severe psychological defects which are unlikely to change throughout their lives. While 26 million is a lot, a majority of those are owners who already own guns. In which case it would be senseless screening them multiple times.
-->
@dustryder
Licenses are evidence that you know your shit.
LOL I know and see people all the time with a driver's license who can't drive for shit let alone drive safely but still managed to get a license. Tell me, you've been taught right, wrong, safe, unsafe, do/did you follows what you learned 100% did you ever knowingly, foolishly do something you know wasn't safe? Would having a license changed your choice then? Do you see why I think this is absurd, license, not safety.
as you know I think, as part of a driving license you are taught safety and laws as well, specifically using a cell phone while driving, yes?
4,637 people died in car crashes in 2018 due to cell phone use.
accidental gun deaths have been going down generally, most recent I could find was 2015 which was an uptick year, 489 for that year
but sure I'm all for gun safety, however the personal risk is much much higher from a licensed automobile driver than an unlicensed gun owner.
The implication being that they can be initially screened for severe psychological defects which are unlikely to change throughout their lives.
what is the estimate for the number of screening that would be needed per year?
would this be taxpayer funded? or a burden on the would be purchaser, if they can afford it and pass it they can buy one? how would that work?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
LOL I know and see people all the time with a driver's license who can't drive for shit let alone drive safely but still managed to get a license. Tell me, you've been taught right, wrong, safe, unsafe, do/did you follows what you learned 100% did you ever knowingly, foolishly do something you know wasn't safe? Would having a license changed your choice then? Do you see why I think this is absurd, license, not safety.as you know I think, as part of a driving license you are taught safety and laws as well, specifically using a cell phone while driving, yes?4,637 people died in car crashes in 2018 due to cell phone use.
None of this negates my point. I didn't argue that licenses were ironclad. In fact I gave a similar scenario in terms of a biology degree before. The fact remains, having to go through a process of safety or learning in order to obtain a credential in that area puts you above those that do not barring proven and extensive experience as an alternative. When we are speaking of young adults who do not have that experience, a license is the only demonstrable way of determining who has gone through that process of learning. Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant in the face of this.
This applies for every facet of life where some sort of knowledge is required. Your assertion that guns should be the lone exception to this basic rule of society is patently absurd.
accidental gun deaths have been going down generally, most recent I could find was 2015 which was an uptick year, 489 for that year but sure I'm all for gun safety, however the personal risk is much much higher from a licensed automobile driver than an unlicensed gun owner
That's great, but we aren't comparing car deaths to gun deaths. By this logic, the risk for licensed pilots is much less than for licensed drivers, and hence pilots shouldn't need licenses?
what is the estimate for the number of screening that would be needed per year?would this be taxpayer funded? or a burden on the would be purchaser, if they can afford it and pass it they can buy one? how would that work?
Again, I'm not advocating for any particular implementation of screening, just the concept of screening itself
-->
@dustryder
That's great, but we aren't comparing car deaths to gun deaths. By this logic, the risk for licensed pilots is much less than for licensed drivers, and hence pilots shouldn't need licenses?
it proves a license doesn't prove what you think it does. and even with a license accidents happen. Given the extremely small number of accidental gun deaths, voluntary, no cost safety and training would have a better outcome than forced licensing.
a license is the only demonstrable way of determining who has gone through that process of learning.
um, no a certificate of completion, but regardless a license is meaningless in this context, these accidents are super rare, the burden and infringement of a license will never be implemented, nor should it. How about making it mandatory in school, like a health class, needed for graduation?
let's see things that accidentally kill people which no license is required.....
In 2015 in the United States, over 1,000 bicyclists died
- From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day.1 An additional 332 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2
licenses for bicycles and pools too?
drowning is the number one cause of unintentional death for children between the ages of 1 and 4.
I can't help but think you advocate for gun licensing because you think it will have some kind of control factor, you even saidWhen it comes to my safety, I'm not going to take your solemn oath that you know your shit.
yet you are at much more risk for so many other things hurting you than a firearm accident. Of those accidental gun deaths the % of the person other than the one who has the gun being killed is probably much smaller than the already small rate of accidental gun deaths. You'd probably have a better chance of being stuck by lightning, don't go outside.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Not at all. It's common sense that accidents will happen whether licensed or not. The key point that I've made which you've yet to respond to is that those who have acquired the knowledge necessary to obtain a license are on average "better" than those who are not.it proves a license doesn't prove what you think it does. and even with a license accidents happen.
Given the extremely small number of accidental gun deaths, voluntary, no cost safety and training would have a better outcome than forced licensing.
I disagree. People who undergo voluntary training can only ever be a subset of the set of all those who undergo mandatory training. Hence the outcome of mandatory training can only ever be better than voluntary training.
um, no a certificate of completion, but regardless a license is meaningless in this context, these accidents are super rare, the burden and infringement of a license will never be implemented, nor should it.
The argument that an event occurs rarely, and therefore we should not care about it is an incredibly weak argument and just begs the question what threshold is large enough that cannot be ignored and why?
licenses for bicycles and pools too?
There are already such licenses. For bikes, cars require licenses because by and large, they are the causes of fatalities involving bikes. Public pools, as businesses obviously require licenses.
I can't help but think you advocate for gun licensing because you think it will have some kind of control factor, you even saidWhen it comes to my safety, I'm not going to take your solemn oath that you know your shit.yet you are at much more risk for so many other things hurting you than a firearm accident. Of those accidental gun deaths the % of the person other than the one who has the gun being killed is probably much smaller than the already small rate of accidental gun deaths. You'd probably have a better chance of being stuck by lightning, don't go outside.
The argument x is more probable than y, therefore ignore y is obviously not a valid argument.
-->
@dustryder
The key point that I've made which you've yet to respond to is that those who have acquired the knowledge necessary to obtain a license are on average "better" than those who are not.
I have suggested many ways to increase education which doesn't require a license, which is useless for the reasons I've given. Again a license is not require, many things gain you a certificate of completion, a license is an obvious step for confiscation which is why you push it so hard.
Currently some states have requirements that a course is completed to get a concealed carry permit (not a license), and obviously hunting licenses require a course and a big part of that is safety.
There are already such licenses. For bikes, cars require licenses because by and large, they are the causes of fatalities involving bikes. Public pools, as businesses obviously require licenses.
there is no bicycle license requirement in the U.S., as far as pools go they are personal ones that people own on their property, I never mentioned cars, you are simply trying to muddy the issue, it won't work.
The argument x is more probable than y, therefore ignore y is obviously not a valid argument.
my position is this isn't about safety but rather a veiled attempt at gun control, obviously if it was about safety then there would be focus and concern about the very things which cause much more death, especially to children, or at the very least safety in schools, no cost training etc
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I have suggested many ways to increase education which doesn't require a license
Which are all inferior to mandatory licensing
which is useless for the reasons I've given.
I believe your only reasoning was that accidental gunshots (on the basis of lack of gun safety knowledge) are relatively rare. Which is pretty poor reasoning and doesn't make licenses useless at all. If you had any other reasonings, perhaps summarize them.
Again a license is not require, many things gain you a certificate of completion, a license is an obvious step for confiscation which is why you push it so hard.
While a certificate of completion would be similar to a license in many regards, in that it would indicate that one has completed training, it would be just a weaker form of licensing. For example, if someone were caught with guns in their car, with a license or lack thereof you could very easily check if that person should or should not possess guns.
there is no bicycle license requirement in the U.S., as far as pools go they are personal ones that people own on their property, I never mentioned cars, you are simply trying to muddy the issue, it won't work.
So when things require licenses, it's important to understand why things require licenses. When you are driving a car, you are essentially piloting a block of metal that very easily has the potential to kill. As you've noted, a license is often not required when you are on private property. So clearly licenses are focused around the safety of those around you rather than your own personal safety.
When you mention bike fatalities, it is not the bikes riders and their responsibilities that are killing people. In the vast majority of cases it is the cars which bike riders share the road with that are killing bike riders. So clearly in bike fatalities, it is the cars which need to be licensed. Which of course, they are. This isn't a case of me muddying the issue, it's a case of you fundamentally misunderstanding why sometimes licenses are required and why sometimes not.
As far as pools go, private pools fall under the personal safety bit.
my position is this isn't about safety but rather a veiled attempt at gun control, obviously if it was about safety then there would be focus and concern about the very things which cause much more death, especially to children, or at the very least safety in schools, no cost training etc
Let me put your mind at ease. It's a rather unveiled proposition for a light form of gun control that is heavily focused around gun safety and has been ever since I responded to your spiel about gun control.
And to reiterate, x causes more death than y, therefore ignore y is not a valid form of reasoning. It is you throwing dirt onto a wall and seeing what sticks because your position is completely indefensible.
-->
@dustryder
While a certificate of completion would be similar to a license in many regards, in that it would indicate that one has completed training, it would be just a weaker form of licensing. For example, if someone were caught with guns in their car, with a license or lack thereof you could very easily check if that person should or should not possess guns.
yeah weaker as in you couldn't go to someone's house and confiscate it, I know exactly why people want licensing lol, why would people be caught, with a gun unless they were already doing something illegal?
"a light form of gun control" lol that's rich
If you go to a private indoor range you must sit through a safety course and take a test before purchasing range time and or renting guns. The NRA ranges give you a card, like a membership card so you don't have to do it every time. Before you fill out the background check from for places who use the electronic version you have to watch a short video first about it being a crime to purchase a gun for someone else, 10 years jail time etc, safety instructions could easily be incorporated with that process as well. A hybrid of these ideas accomplishes everything you said a license would without haven't an actual registry, if in fact it's about safety which you try to use as an argument but be honest it's really about control and for confiscation/registration.
many important jobs do not require a license just a certificate, nurse's aids and medical assistants just to name a couple so the importance of a license is not what as you say and in some cases they are about tracking, controlling and or taxing.
I'm try this again in hopes you understand, it's not "x causes more death than y, therefore ignore y" it's you don't care with the same level of passion about x which causes more death because they aren't caused by guns, therefore I don't believe you actually care about deaths but rather disguise it to push for more gun control which can't be proven to have any statistical impact. People who make these gun grabbing arguments aren't concerned about lowering preventable deaths because they never put any attention or effort into those things which kill far more people, especially children than guns do, selective moral outrage.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yeah weaker as in you couldn't go to someone's house and confiscate it, I know exactly why people want licensing lol, why would people be caught, with a gun unless they were already doing something illegal?"a light form of gun control" lol that's richIf you go to a private indoor range you must sit through a safety course and take a test before purchasing range time and or renting guns. The NRA ranges give you a card, like a membership card so you don't have to do it every time. Before you fill out the background check from for places who use the electronic version you have to watch a short video first about it being a crime to purchase a gun for someone else, 10 years jail time etc, safety instructions could easily be incorporated with that process as well. A hybrid of these ideas accomplishes everything you said a license would without haven't an actual registry, if in fact it's about safety which you try to use as an argument but be honest it's really about control and for confiscation/registration.
Wrong. Only licenses would achieve what I said licenses would achieve. I can and have pointed out holes in every single one of your ideas. You seem to be going into tinfoil hat territory and going "Please no licenses, just no licenses, muh guns". This position is not backed up by sort of reasonable logic and is completely irrational on your part.
It's completely fine to say you don't want licenses because you think they'll infringe on your freedoms to use and own guns. However it's utterly dishonest to pretend that not having licenses achieves the same thing as having licenses.
many important jobs do not require a license just a certificate, nurse's aids and medical assistants just to name a couple so the importance of a license is not what as you say and in some cases they are about tracking, controlling and or taxing.
You can dredge up as many examples as you like. The overwhelming majority of examples where you are personally in charge of lives around you where some fuck up you make costs lives requires a license. I don't know about the specifics of the two examples you brought up, but I would imagine that 1, their scope of medical is extremely limited 2, some sort of certification is available for them and 3, that certification is overwhelming preferred to those who do not have that certification. This is not a reasonable objection to having gun licenses when guns are demonstrably a threat to people when improperly used.
I'm try this again in hopes you understand, it's not "x causes more death than y, therefore ignore y" it's you don't care with the same level of passion about x which causes more death because they aren't caused by guns, therefore I don't believe you actually care about deaths but rather disguise it to push for more gun control which can't be proven to have any statistical impact. People who make these gun grabbing arguments aren't concerned about lowering preventable deaths because they never put any attention or effort into those things which kill far more people, especially children than guns do, selective moral outrage.
The reason I'm talking about guns and not any other sort of deaths is because this is a thread about gun control. As for why gun control is an often talked about topic, it's because it's one topic that you for instance are completely and irrationally unable to bend on. If you were to discuss any other preventable deaths with me, I would probably say that they are also bad and should be also lowered, just like with gun deaths.
This is a terrible attempt at rationalising why gun control should not be talked about.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Most democrats either work for the government, or have a sycophantic trust of the government, so they won't believe you when you say we need guns to keep the government from taking advantage of us.
-->
@dustryder
ok I think I understand you now as to why you want licenses. With a license you think it will increase safety AND the government can keep track of who has them for eventual confiscation or whatever. You started out focusing primary on the accidental gun deaths which is covered by a hybrid of safety in school, no cost training, pre purchase safety + test etc, but that doesn't give you the tracking and big brother control a license would.
you can save your childish condescending comments btw.
-->
@Greyparrot
did you hear the story about 3 teens who broke into a house, guy defends himself, kills all 3 with his ar15
more recent 5 guys break into a home to rob him, maybe worse, kills 3 of them wounds the other 2 with his ak47
you have to look for those stories since you won't hear about them in the fake news networks.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
ok I think I understand you now as to why you want licenses. With a license you think it will increase safety AND the government can keep track of who has them for eventual confiscation or whatever. You started out focusing primary on the accidental gun deaths which is covered by a hybrid of safety in school, no cost training, pre purchase safety + test etc, but that doesn't give you the tracking and big brother control a license would.
I mean.. my position hasn't changed at all since the start of the conversion. I've been pretty clear that licensing will be effective in increasing safety. Obviously I don't think the government will be confiscating guns for whatever reason. That's purely your imagination at work.
My thoughts on what the government would do with licensing information is for example, determining whether a particular gun found at a location actually belongs to a person. Or perhaps determining who the owns the gun found at the crime scene. Or whether or not a person is eligible to possess the gun found in his car boot. It's really not all that dissimilar to car licenses and I can't understand why you've formulated these crackpot scenarios when you already basically have the same thing with cars.
you can save your childish condescending comments btw.
You want and enjoy a greater separation between government and individuals and that's perfectly fine. However if you spout out drivel that isn't based in reality and use it to justify bad policy, I'm going to call it out like it is.
-->
@dustryder
licensing will be effective in increasing safety.
sure but for safety it's not needed because it could be accomplished without an actual license, you haven't proven the other methods wouldn't accomplish the same safety requirements because the other methods or combination of would be just as effective.
determining whether a particular gun found at a location actually belongs to a person.
how is that useful? You are given a bill of sale along with the serial number so should it be stolen or lost you already have all the info needed.
Or perhaps determining who the owns the gun found at the crime scene.
the usefulness of that is questionable at best, much like Maryland's bullet casing data base, similar idea, never solved one crime, cost tax payers 5 million + before they stopped that completely stupid idea.
you don't have a constitutional right to own a car, but you do a gun, so that comparison isn't valid unless you first abolish the 2a which is a different topic altogether.
Licensure: A process by which a governmental agency grants time-limited permission to an individual to engage in a given occupation after verifying that he or she has met predetermined and standardized criteria (usually education, experience, and examination).
Certification: A voluntary process by which a nongovernmental agency grants a time-limited recognition to an individual after verifying that he or she has met predetermined and standardized criteria.
Certificate: A voluntary process by which a person or organization acquires a document serving as evidence, or as written testimony, of status, qualifications, privileges, or the truth of something.
Accreditation: A voluntary process by which a nongovernmental entity grants a time-limited recognition or credentials to an organization after verifying that predetermined and standardized criteria are met.
I think those definitions apply and show the differences, so obviously a license is unconstitutional and is not needed to prove completion of a safety program.
when firearms are sold the serial number is recorded and is actually put into a data base which can only be accessed under certain circumstances like crime scenes. You don't hear about it much because it is rarely useful, but it can be done.generally speaking.
they only thing a license would that isn't or can't already be done is allowing the government to "grant permission", rights are not granted.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
sure but for safety it's not needed because it could be accomplished without an actual license, you haven't proven the other methods wouldn't accomplish the same safety requirements because the other methods or combination of would be just as effective.
So let's be clear here. Licensing is a comprehensive and effective method for increasing gun safety. You are proposing a combination of roundabout methods that may not be as effective or comprehensive, simply because you have delusions that your government is out to get you. Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
how is that useful? You are given a bill of sale along with the serial number so should it be stolen or lost you already have all the info needed.the usefulness of that is questionable at best, much like Maryland's bullet casing data base, similar idea, never solved one crime, cost tax payers 5 million + before they stopped that completely stupid idea.
I would imagine that authorities find car licenses and registrations to be pretty useful. Given that gun licensing would be literally the same system transplanted onto guns, I find your objections to be bullshit.
you don't have a constitutional right to own a car, but you do a gun, so that comparison isn't valid unless you first abolish the 2a which is a different topic altogether.
Constitutional rights aren't unlimited and needing to obtaining a license first doesn't prevent one from owning a gun in any-case.
I think those definitions apply and show the differences, so obviously a license is unconstitutional and is not needed to prove completion of a safety program.
Showing definitions, waving your hands around and then concluding that therefore it's unconstitutional does not actually make it unconstitutional.
when firearms are sold the serial number is recorded and is actually put into a data base which can only be accessed under certain circumstances like crime scenes. You don't hear about it much because it is rarely useful, but it can be done.generally speaking.
Then why is it a problem for you if supposedly this information is already available to the government? They've already got your information. They could be coming for your guns right now. Perhaps you should take to the streets in protest.
they only thing a license would that isn't or can't already be done is allowing the government to "grant permission", rights are not granted.
Yeah.. except for holding it up to the officer when you are stopped so you can prove that it is your gun and that you are eligible to own guns. Basic stuff like that.
-->
@dustryder
Some states require a permit to conceal or open carry, if you want to call that a license it doesn't matter to me. However you are advocating for a federal license because of some irrational fear and irrational trust that the federal government is going to save you in the extremely remote chance you'd need their protection. Even though it would be state police and not federal that would come and investigate the crime. They only show up in the nick of time on tv. Driver's licenses vary from state to state and is not a federal license.
you can pull up some old threads about rights, rights are not granted they are recognized even if they are not absolute, if you have to apply or get a license for one that is not a right, you are asking permission which may or may not be granted. I'm not interested in taking the time to explain it to you further because it's already been discussed many times.
You are proposing a combination of roundabout methods that may not be as effective or comprehensive, simply because you have delusions that your government is out to get you.
I disagree with your opinion that it may not be as effective or comprehensive, simply because you have delusions that your government is going to save you.
licensing and registration schemes are in part up to the states, often they just get tied up in court and most thrown out, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf
page 41 NY state is a good example of all the schemes they have tried and are trying to really not avail or effect on crime.
there are states with almost no laws or regulations other than required by the NICS checks and they have some of the lowest or lowest murder rates which shouldn't be the case if laws work and the absence of laws/licenses decrease murders.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
However you are advocating for a federal license
This is incorrect. State level licensing would achieve the same goal.
because of some irrational fear and irrational trust that the federal government is going to save you in the extremely remote chance you'd need their protection. Even though it would be state police and not federal that would come and investigate the crime. They only show up in the nick of time on tv.
Never asserted this.
Driver's licenses vary from state to state and is not a federal license.
Which is irrelevant because it doesn't change the impact of drivers license utility
you can pull up some old threads about rights, rights are not granted they are recognized even if they are not absolute, if you have to apply or get a license for one that is not a right, you are asking permission which may or may not be granted. I'm not interested in taking the time to explain it to you further because it's already been discussed many times.
We both know this argument is a crock of shit, because you'd still probably say no to licensing even if they were granted absolutely. Apart from this, there is already such behaviour in other amendments. For example protest permits.
I disagree with your opinion that it may not be as effective or comprehensive, simply because you have delusions that your government is going to save you.
They may not be as effective or comprehensive simply because the bar is set to comprehensive and complete licensing for new owners of guns. Anything less than that is not as effective or comprehensive. Since you have not shown your collection of schemes to be as such, they may not be as effective or comprehensive. This has nothing to do with government, it's just pure logic.
licensing and registration schemes are in part up to the states, often they just get tied up in court and most thrown out, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdfpage 41 NY state is a good example of all the schemes they have tried and are trying to really not avail or effect on crime.
Amazing. But this isn't an argument against the efficacy of licensing
there are states with almost no laws or regulations other than required by the NICS checks and they have some of the lowest or lowest murder rates which shouldn't be the case if laws work and the absence of laws/licenses decrease murders.
Amazing, but irrelevant.
-->
@dustryder
This is incorrect. State level licensing would achieve the same goal.
You can't make every state use a licensing scheme unless it's federally mandated, so that makes no sense.
there is already such behaviour in other amendments. For example protest permits.
wait I thought you were talking about licenses, make up your mind.
They may not be as effective or comprehensive simply because the bar is set to comprehensive and complete licensing for new owners of guns.
lol right it's the completeness, comprehensive whatever of the control scheme, so whether it's a license or permit, certificate etc based is irrelevant, since the criteria for any of those can be set to whatever level is decided, what form or piece of paper is required isn't important.
what license do you just need to get once and never renew or reapply for?
I don't believe you ever indicated it was something to be renewed or retested but rather a one and done process.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can't have it both ways. Either you are talking about a federal license as in your previous post, or you are talking about a federally mandated state level license. That said I don't see why it matters because both would do the same thing.You can't make every state use a licensing scheme unless it's federally mandated, so that makes no sense.
wait I thought you were talking about licenses, make up your mind.
So when determining the constitutionality of the 2nd to a mandated license, your argument is "Well you have to ask for permission, which may or may not be granted. Since rights are not granted this makes it unconstitutional". Leaving aside whether this line of argument actually has any merit, the protest permit example is a similar situation. Protesting is covered under the 1st amendment, and yet a permit must be granted or denied in many cases.
In this case, it's irrelevant what the permission is, whether license or permit. It's the underlining concept of "This is my right and yet it can be blocked by government rubber stamping".
lol right it's the completeness, comprehensive whatever of the control scheme, so whether it's a license or permit, certificate etc based is irrelevant, since the criteria for any of those can be set to whatever level is decided, what form or piece of paper is required isn't important.what license do you just need to get once and never renew or reapply for?I don't believe you ever indicated it was something to be renewed or retested but rather a one and done process.
If you don't have any better arguments than "Muh guns. Pls not muh guns. Evil government bad!" followed by shitty red herrings, I'll take my leave.
-->
@dustryder
did you even read about protest permits?
there are many, many ways to protest, many of which do not require any permit.
protest permits restrict or put limits in certain areas, certain circumstances, NOTHING like your gun license, apples and oranges
permits to protest are SOMETIMES needed your license would ALWAYS be needed.
too much of a stretch.
given that you can't deny that safety requirements can be accomplished without any need for license it makes you angry and brings out the child in you, typical lol.