-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There are many cases of active shooters stopped by a civilian with a gun and the active shooter was wounded, not killed. Does that mean all guns designed for "killing humans" are faulty?
California Assault Weapons Ban
Posts
Total:
97
-->
@Greyparrot
Stop and frisk has confiscated more guns than any other legislation in the history of the USA, and the NRA wasn't even the ones to remove that ban.
Stop and frisk was a massive abuse of government power where they got to suspend your rights because they felt like it. It had virtually no effect on the crime rate at all. It was a massive failure.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Who gives a flying fuck about crime?
If your goal was to remove and destroy guns, stop and fisk did the job better than any program or ban in the history of America.
-->
@Greyparrot
It doesn't matter if you are pro constitution or anti constitution neither side wants criminals to have guns. And yet no one ever talks about increasing the penalties.
I've mentioned it before but don't feel like looking for the story, but the girlfriend who KNOWINGLY purchased her felon boyfriend a gun, only got probation, even though he used that gun to murder a couple of people. She should have been charged as an accessory to murder imo. How about we try increasing the penalties? We haven't tried that yet, not with any real intent.
Don't you love how they try and make it about reducing murders? lol what a joke they are.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It's just so silly how blind the left is when the leaders say one day that "we need to get rid of guns to save people."
And then when Minorities complain about stop and frisk they say the next day "getting rid of guns is not saving people."
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So how about the data on the offensive gun uses per year so that we can compare the two?
I couldn't find a source that listed the total number of crimes committed with a gun. All of the ones I found said how many crimes of specific categories were committed with guns. From what I gathered, it was at least 300,000-400,000, likely more.
Does the same link have that data if not don't you think it is problem that you brought up a link that doesn't even compare the two instead only talks about defensive gun uses per year?
Depends what you mean by problem. If you mean bias, then yes, that site is very biased.
Meaning your own source can't be used for evidence given they missed out this important data and instead gave data that would suit their narrative. If it wasn't clear this site is heavily biased, it is literally marketing pro-gun books on the site. This is not an independent site more so fueled by an audience of pro-gun advocates. Both of these easily point to this site can't be trusted for giving reliable data given they are profiting on pro-gun advertising and missing really key data. If this was an objective source it would've shown the information about how long the firearms acts occurred.
Thou dost protest too much. Yes, it's biased, so it is less reliable. However, that doesn't mean that you can completely dismiss it. Furthermore, they did link their sources.
However, I did find a better source. It is well researched and makes its case far better than I can.
If you're concerned about bias, 538 is owned by ABC and rated as center left by Media Bias Fact Check. I highly recommend you read the whole article. It provides clear evidence showing that gun bans don't reduce murder rates.
Basically these laws take time to implement. 2005 was when this wiki stops talking about this would likely be the end of the firearms act of 1997. If we look at the graph you gave it was on the decrease after the law. We can see this by simply adding a dot to 2005 and ending it where your graph ends. If we use a ruler to draw a line in between the dots we see a negative trend. This can be caused by external factors that weren't the firearms act which your site claims here "The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004."
That's a valid point, but it can't explain the increase in murder rate following the ban. The fact that the guns didn't go out of circulation immediately can only explain why the murder rate didn't immediately drop. It can't explain why the murder rate rose after the ban, so that point is still unaddressed.
I don't really know what this is referring to so I'll ignore it. If you really want me to argue against it I will.
No, that was something random I ran across while doing research. I only linked it because I found it vaguely funny that HuffPo would even acknowledge that there was a gun control policy that didn't work.
Don't you understand the laws have changes and people have changed during that time in the UK as well? Meaning your claim that we can't compare America to the UK is not really good because the UK has radically changed as well?
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, the differences between the past and present UK are still much smaller than the differences between the UK and the US.
Isn't the idea of comparisons to compare similar things? American gun deaths vs UK gun deaths. The two things don't have to be the same in order to have a comparison. You can still compare without something being exactly the same.
Yes, but that is exactly the problem. They aren't similar. The murder rate in the UK was lower than the US murder rate before they banned guns. That's why it's useless to compare them. Yes, their murder rate is lower than ours, but that can't be linked to their gun bans because it was lower to begin with.
-->
@Greyparrot
Who gives a flying fuck about crime?If your goal was to remove and destroy guns, stop and fisk did the job better than any program or ban in the history of America.
Who gives a fuck about the guns? The point is to stop the crimes being committed with guns. If you confiscate a million guns and they can all be replaced the next day, you have accomplished nothing.
If you can't stop the flow of guns, it will never matter how many you seize.
-->
@HistoryBuff
How do you ensure that no one has any assault weapons?
How do you magically stop the flow of guns that find their way into the hands of criminals?
Even then, it's really easy nowadays to build your own guns from spare parts.
-->
@HistoryBuff
A 30 round mag has no purpose other than to kill people. It is completely unnecessary.
Firstly, that's wrong. Thirty round mags are also good for sporting. But again, what do you mean by "kill people"? Self-defense can involve "killing people". Against multiple assailants, a 30-round mag is very useful. You can continue to use charged terms like "kill people", but that is just obfuscating the fact that killing people is not always murder and is sometimes required in self-defense.
If you don't need a 30 round mag to shoot at anything in the real world, then why would you need one in a "sporting" environment?
Because reloading is an inconvenience, and convenience is more fun. However, what many people who support bans on standard-capacity magazines (note that I say standard, because that's what they actually are) don't realize is that it's just an inconvenience. It only takes a few seconds to reload. Simply put, a ban on such magazines would just annoy mass shooters and not do much to stop them. Furthermore, mass shootings are incredibly rare. Fewer than 1000 people have died in a mass shooting over the last 20 years. People are more likely to die by being struck by lightning.
as for self defense, we are right back to the primary purpose of the mag, killing people. but your point is kind of dumb. If the assailants have guns and the person engaging in self defense have guns, you get a blood bath.
Honestly, I have no sympathy if criminals die in a bloodbath. As I pointed out to TRN, there are 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses annually according to a CDC study. There are only 10,000-11,000 gun homicides annually. Overall, guns save lives.
Everyone is much, much safer and better off guns are not part of the equation at all.
The criminals are safer, that is. The victims? Not so much.
They are designed for shooting people.
Again, you are obfuscating with "people." There is a world of difference between being designed for killing innocent people, killing enemy soldiers, and killing assailants. And once again, you are ignoring that these "assault weapons" can be and are used for hunting and sporting and are designed for those purposes. The principal targets of assault weapons bans - AR-15s - were specifically designed for civilians. They were not designed for the battlefield. They were not designed for murder. They were designed for civilian purposes, i.e. hunting, sporting, and self-defense. This is an objective fact.
Whether the shooter is military or civilian is irrelevant for the people designing the gun. They just want to sell their guns.
That's true, but irrelevant. Yes, the manufacturers would be fine with it if militaries (The stupid spellchecker thinks that isn't a word) bought their "assault weapons." However, that doesn't change the fact that the functions and features of these "assault weapons" are designed for civilians and not militaries. No military in their right mind would choose to buy semi-auto AK-47s and AR-15s when they can get selective fire AK-47s and M4s. That's because the former weapons are designed for civilians. In fact, they are actually less dangerous than many typical deer-hunting rifles, to the point where it is actually illegal in 6-7 states to hunt deer with guns of the AR-15s caliber because it frequently isn't powerful enough to kill them and just leaves them to suffer.
Not true. A many guns are designed for hunting and that is perfectly fine.
Guns are designed for multiple purposes. A gun that can be used for hunting can also be used for self-defense. A gun designed for self-defense can also be used for sporting. A gun designed for sporting can also be used for hunting. Guns are not designed only for hunting or only for "killing people". That just isn't reality.
But a handgun, an AR15 etc are exclusively designed for killing people.
Again, you are obfuscating with "killing people". See above. And again, this is objectively false. AR-15s are designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense. There are all sorts of handguns designed for all sorts of things. Some are for law enforcement and militaries. All of them are for self-defense and sporting. Guns are designed for multiple purposes.
What there is a problem with is the millions of killing machines being sold and used in america under the guise of "self defense" when the majority of them never, ever get used for that purpose. Guns cause far more problems than they solve.
See my reply to TRN and the evidence involving the defensive uses of guns and the ineffectiveness of gun control. Simply put, gun control does not save lives. When guns are banned, criminals use illegally obtained guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons.
Would she? Statistically, if she has a gun she is much more likely to be killed.
That is a debunked myth based on a study using highly questionable methods.
https://guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html (Read section 15)
She would be much better off if neither she, nor the criminals had easy access to guns.
Actually, a majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, so I don't see how making it even more illegal for them to get those guns would help.
https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/
And again, see the sources I provided to TRN showing that gun control doesn't reduce murder, showing that the single mother would not be any better off with an "assault weapons" ban.
Semi automatic weapons have the ability to kill a large number of people in rapid succession if they can fire 30 round mags. I mean they can fire a significant number of bullets in a matter of seconds. If they only had, for example, 5 round mags, then their ability to kill people would be drastically reduced by the added need to reload.
This actually isn't true. "what many people who support bans on standard-capacity magazines (note that I say standard, because that's what they actually are) don't realize is that it's just an inconvenience. It only takes a few seconds to reload. Simply put, a ban on such magazines would just annoy mass shooters and not do much to stop them. Furthermore, mass shootings are incredibly rare. Fewer than 1000 people have died in a mass shooting over the last 20 years. People are more likely to die by being struck by lightning."
Simply put, a ban on standard capacity mags would handicap the average citizen's ability to fight off multiple assailants, costing innocent lives, but would only succeed in slightly inconveniencing people committing crimes that are rarer than death by lightning strikes.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If the media was honest, a firearm's capability would indeed be more relevant. However, the media persists in calling firearms such as the AR-15 assault rifles even though they're not, inventing made-up categories like "assault weapons" to demonize guns for the sole reason that they look scary, and falsely claims that various guns were designed to kill people, even though that isn't the case. The point of arguing against such things is to expose it for the fearmongering it is. In the OP, I linked to a video showing the results of legislation based on such propaganda. I'm aware that this sort of argument is almost totally disconnected from what the guns actually do. However, so is the propaganda, and that is the point I was trying to make with this thread.Why do you think it is at all relevant what a weapon is designed for? Don't you think that what a weapon is capable of should be more relevant? That is what you seem to imply in the OP but the quote above appears to contradict this.
-->
@SirAnonymous
I couldn't find a source that listed the total number of crimes committed with a gun. All of the ones I found said how many crimes of specific categories were committed with guns. From what I gathered, it was at least 300,000-400,000, likely more.
Alright fine lets talk about what was stated in your link.
Do you agree with this:
"Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such tragedies. All these events occur in the context of a civil society that has millions of guns lawfully owned by citizens who use them for protection, hunting, sport, or work. There are also an unknown number of guns in the hands of criminals and others who are prohibited by law from possessing them."
Do you agree with this
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)"
Do you agree with this:
"The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
If you're concerned about bias, 538 is owned by ABC and rated as center left by Media Bias Fact Check. I highly recommend you read the whole article. It provides clear evidence showing that gun bans don't reduce murder rates.
Okay. Your claim is guns bans don't reduce murder rates. Your previous link didn't support this instead excluded important information but I will read this one as well.
Off-topic but you did bring it up. Leah is former atheist turned catholic and doesn't have a wiki. Carl is well I don't have enough information. To this I say Fox having Shepard Smith is an outlier to the right leaning organisation. Leah alone discredits this being a left leaning authored read so I reject it.
"But mass shootings still account for only a small fraction of the roughly 8,000 gun murder incidents in the U.S. each year."
Read the first quote that I gave earlier and do tell me how this person doesn't lack nuance.
"Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare."
If we look at this link we find out the last mass shooting was in 1996. Now this might not mean firearms act worked but something did for the UK to literally have no mass shooting in 24 years when the US had one in December 10 2019.
"It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban."
Literally no one uses a counter-factual because no one can test it. The more I read the more it looks like this person doesn't know what she is talking about.
"In parts of Great Britain, there isn’t strong evidence the ban and buyback saved lives. After the new gun law was implemented in 1996, the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales kept rising through the 1990s, peaking in 2003 and 2004 before subsiding. The post-2004 drop is hard to credit to the buyback and possibly occurred because of an increase in the number of police officers. It’s possible that any effect of the ban, positive or negative, was swamped by other factors affecting gun violence. There has been one notable mass shooting in Great Britain since the law was passed, making it hard to judge whether the law has been a success in that respect."
All that Leah gave here was conjecture. Nothing to support her claims only possibilities.
"Reuter and Mouzos only had a few years of post-ban data to judge, but last month, a more recent study of Australia’s gun buyback program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association still found only muted results."
Muted results? Here is a quote from the link: "In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated." 13 to 0 is a big decrease because mass shootings are small plus there has been no mass shootings. That is not muted results.
That's a valid point, but it can't explain the increase in murder rate following the ban. The fact that the guns didn't go out of circulation immediately can only explain why the murder rate didn't immediately drop. It can't explain why the murder rate rose after the ban, so that point is still unaddressed.
There wasn't an increase. Look at your graph it was trending down as in a decrease in gun related deaths. Please look at your link.
I only linked it because I found it vaguely funny that HuffPo would even acknowledge that there was a gun control policy that didn't work.
A medication might not work but it doesn't mean we throw out medication entirely. We just need to find one that works.
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, the differences between the past and present UK are still much smaller than the differences between the UK and the US.
You can still compare. You can compare apples and oranges as both fruits with different tastes like how you can compare UK and US are both developed countries with different gun-related deaths.
Yes, but that is exactly the problem. They aren't similar. The murder rate in the UK was lower than the US murder rate before they banned guns. That's why it's useless to compare them. Yes, their murder rate is lower than ours, but that can't be linked to their gun bans because it was lower to begin with.
So we can only compare things if they are exactly the same?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such tragedies. All these events occur in the context of a civil society that has millions of guns lawfully owned by citizens who use them for protection, hunting, sport, or work. There are also an unknown number of guns in the hands of criminals and others who are prohibited by law from possessing them."
I agree with this.
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)"
I also agree with this.
"The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
I'm about 95% sure I've read this study. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me to agree with here, because there are several different statements here. The first sentence I agree with. The second sentence is true but rather vague. The small number of responses in the studies they are talking about is about 4,000 to 6,000 responses per study (at least for the ones I've looked at). The third sentence seems to indicate that the study may have underestimated the total number of defensive gun uses because they didn't specifically ask about them.
Off-topic but you did bring it up. Leah is former atheist turned catholic and doesn't have a wiki. Carl is well I don't have enough information. To this I say Fox having Shepard Smith is an outlier to the right leaning organisation. Leah alone discredits this being a left leaning authored read so I reject it.
Firstly, this is a complete non sequitir. Simply because she's Catholic doesn't mean that she's on the right. Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic, but no one would say that means she isn't on the left. Secondly, even if she is on the right, that doesn't discredit the article. The Left does not have a monopoly on truth.
Read the first quote that I gave earlier and do tell me how this person doesn't lack nuance.
Firstly, even if she "lack[s] nuance," I don't see what that proves. Secondly, the answer to your question is extremely easy. Lives lost to individual homicides are just as important as lives lost to mass shootings. Yes, mass shootings cause more trauma, but they don't kill more people. Statistically speaking, mass shootings are an outlier. According to this rather anti-gun biased source, there have been 941 lives lost to mass shootings in the US since 1999. https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html
Since there have probably been a few more since the article was written, I'll do this math assuming 960 lives lost. Over 20 years, that's 48 a year. Yes, that is "a small fraction of the roughly 8,000 gun murder incidents in the U.S. each year." You are being quite disingenuous here.
If we look at this link we find out the last mass shooting was in 1996. Now this might not mean firearms act worked but something did for the UK to literally have no mass shooting in 24 years when the US had one in December 10 2019.
Actually, if we follow that link we find that there was a mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 that killed 12 and injured 11. That same source also lists several other mass murders committed with weapons other than guns. However, this focus on mass murder is misguided. The goal is to save as many lives as possible. Even if a country succeeds in eliminating mass murder, if their overall murder rate hasn't gone down, they haven't saved any lives. They've just swept the problem under the rug because the media doesn't report on instances of individual homicides as much as they do on mass murders.
Literally no one uses a counter-factual because no one can test it.The more I read the more it looks like this person doesn't know what she is talking about.
Firstly, this is an overgeneralization that you haven't supported. Secondly, the author is correct in saying that we don't know how many mass shootings there would have been otherwise. She actually shows awareness that the counter-factual can't be tested in the very sentence you're criticizing when she says "It's hard to calculate." Thirdly, this is nitpicking taken to an extreme. No one uses 100% good logic 100% of the time. Having one minor statement that you don't like does not discredit everything else in the article. Fourthly, your opinion that "she doesn't know what she's talking about" is based solely on the author "lacking nuance" and using a counter-factual. That is really, really thin.
All that Leah gave here was conjecture. Nothing to support her claims only possibilities.
Oh really? Let's examine the quoted passage.
In parts of Great Britain, there isn’t strong evidence the ban and buyback saved lives.
This is stating a conclusion that she is about to support.
After the new gun law was implemented in 1996, the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales kept rising through the 1990s, peaking in 2003 and 2004 before subsiding.
This right here is sufficient to dismiss your assertion that there is "[n]othing to support her claims only possibilities." The authors link to a CNN article that directly substantiates their claim. The article states:
According to bare statistics, the ban initially appeared to have little impact, as the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003/04.
In addition to directly contradicting one of your later claims, this is clear substantiation of the 538 authors' claims.
The post-2004 drop is hard to credit to the buyback and possibly occurred because of an increase in the number of police officers.
This sentence states a fact that can be independently verified - that there was an increase in the number of police officers. Because it is known that greater numbers of police officers leads to an decrease in crime, it is clear that "the post-2004 drop is hard to credit to the buyback" because there was another important factor that would drastically change the results.
It’s possible that any effect of the ban, positive or negative, was swamped by other factors affecting gun violence.
This is the only sentence of which your dismissal is true. It does just state a possibility without direct substantiation.
There has been one notable mass shooting in Great Britain since the law was passed, making it hard to judge whether the law has been a success in that respect.
This sentence also provides clear substantiation for its claims and is sufficient to dismiss your dismissal, as well as proving wrong your earlier assertion that there were no mass shootings in the UK since 1997. All in all, your dismissal that "All that Leah gave here was conjecture. Nothing to support her claims only possibilities." is clearly contradicted by the facts. She did in fact substantiate her claims.
Muted results? Here is a quote from the link: "In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated." 13 to 0 is a big decrease because mass shootings are small plus there has been no mass shootings. That is not muted results.
Yes, it is muted results. As I pointed out earlier, "Even if a country succeeds in eliminating mass murder, if their overall murder rate hasn't gone down, they haven't saved any lives. They've just swept the problem under the rug because the media doesn't report on instances of individual homicides as much as they do on mass murders." Australia's buyback failed to reduce the murder rate, so it didn't save any lives. Yes, that is very much muted results. Lives lost to individual homicides matter just as much as lives lost to mass murders.
Yes, there was. In 1997, there were about 11.8 homicides per million people. In the following years up to 2004, there were 11.6, 12.8, 14.4, 15.2, 17.9, and 14.6. Those numbers are directly from the graph (which does mean that all of them could be 0.1 off in either direction). That is a clear increase, followed by a return to a downward trend. Even the CNN article from earlier in this post acknowledged there was an increase.
Note: Your quote says "gun related deaths" but links to a graph showing the overall homicide rate. This could account for the discrepancy if you accidentally linked the wrong graph. The point, however, remains the same. The homicide rate increased after the gun ban. Whether or not the criminals used guns is quite irrelevant.
A medication might not work but it doesn't mean we throw out medication entirely. We just need to find one that works.
I'm aware of that. The HuffPo article was never intended as an argument. I'm sorry if including it confused you.
You can still compare. You can compare apples and oranges as both fruits with different tastes like how you can compare UK and US are both developed countries with different gun-related deaths.So we can only compare things if they are exactly the same?
No, they don't have to be exactly the same. However, because the UK's murder rate was lower than the US's even before the gun ban, the comparison is invalid. The difference in murder rates can't be attributed to the gun ban because the difference existed before the gun ban did. To use an example, it would be like arguing that Jeff Bezos is richer than I am because he played poker and I didn't (making the poker up for sake of demonstration). However, the poker can't be responsible for the difference in our net worths because he was already richer than I am before he played poker (unless I am Jeff Bezos being anonymous. I'll never say.).
-->
@Christen
the same way they stopped the flow of alcohol, remember learning about prohibition?
the same way they stopped the flow of drugs, er wait some of that comes across the border, hmm do you suppose guns could also come across the border too? If so would that mean criminals would still be able to get guns just like drugs and sex traffickers? Huh it's almost as if those people willfully ignore the drugs and illegal sex trade, yet for some reason they will obey the gun laws? I'm really trying to understand these people's thought processes and logic.
I support gun control measures such as requiring a license to own a gun, firearm training sessions, and safe storage. However, I don't see the point of an assault weapons ban since most gun crimes are carried out with handguns. There are plenty of measures that can still keep guns in the hands of law-abiding owners while drastically reducing gun deaths.
Are Semiautomatic Rifles Protected by the Second Amendment?
this also addresses the b.s. term assault weapon
-->
@Varrack
requiring a license to own a gun
then it's not a right, if you have to be granted permission from the government, that's not a right, that which is granted can also be denied or taken away.
There are plenty of measures that can still keep guns in the hands of law-abiding owners while drastically reducing gun deaths.
like 22k in laws that already exist?
guns have to be sold with trigger locks, that has been a thing for a while, it's kind of like a bike lock (most of them)
how about police departments must offer no cost gun training to anyone who wants it? I'd be for that. Who has ever proposed any such thing? No one, because it's about people control, that is all.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
then it's not a right, if you have to be granted permission from the government, that's not a right, that which is granted can also be denied or taken away.
The right to bear arms is not unlimited, as is the case with most other rights. The right to free speech is limited by copyright laws and libel laws, for example.
Gun purchasers already have to go through a background check that could potentially deny them the purchase of a gun. Fully automatic weapons have been banned for decades. Are these not limits to the 2A? Should mentally ill and extremely dangerous individuals not have their purchasing ability limited?
guns have to be sold with trigger locks
And they should have to be stored with such too. It's not that big a jump. There is evidence that safe storage prevents suicides and fatal accidents.
how about police departments must offer no cost gun training to anyone who wants it?
Should driving licenses be handed out to anyone who wants them, or should use have to pass a driving test? If you're going to useperate something that is potentially dangerous, you should know how to use it first.
-->
@Varrack
The right to free speech is limited by copyright laws and libel laws, for example.
that's because those are infringing on someone else's rights.
And they should have to be stored with such too.
and? you think a law will make that happen? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Should driving licenses be handed out to anyone who wants them
there is no constitutional right to drive that I know of, please provide the source if I'm incorrect.
approving or denying based on a criminal or other prohibition is NOT the same as requiring everyone have a license.
-->
@Varrack
The problem with forcing people to store their guns away "safely" is that it makes it harder to access when they need it. If you're in your home with you gun and someone breaks in your home to hurt you you want to get your gun quickly you don't want to have to go to a safe and enter a combination just to unlock the safe and get the gun.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
and? you think a law will make that happen?
Yes. Even if 10% of people complied with the law, that would be a net benefit.
approving or denying based on a criminal or other prohibition is NOT the same as requiring everyone have a license.
Prove it. Both limit the constitutional right to a gun, a right that criminals possess also.
-->
@Varrack
Yes. Even if 10% of people complied with the law, that would be a net benefit.
2018 there were about 26 million nics checks and you think 10% will comply who aren't already responsible?
guess you'd want the police to enter homes randomly to do safety storage checks? I mean how could this ever be monitored for compliance?
so you think they would comply with this law when they won't use the trigger lock that is provided with every new purchase?
Prove it. Both limit the constitutional right to a gun, a right that criminals possess also.
Last year a circuit judge in Illinois deemed that state's licensing system inconsistent with the Second Amendment in a case that is headed for the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment confers no positive right. It recognizes a pre-existing right. The Second Amendment is merely a limitation on federal power to infringe gun rights in addition to the fact that there is no authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution to infringe them in the first place.
biometric locks
a trigger lock and keeping them out of the reach of children works wonders but there's always enough dumb asses in the world who just don't care, no law can fix stupid.
-->
@Varrack
Biometric gun safes are prone to all sorts of malfunctions, which you cannot afford to have in a life or death situation.
They're relatively new and have yet to be thoroughly tested.
Most small gun safes can be compromised by a variety of low-tech methods including paperclips, screwdrivers, or even just banging on them. Adding an economy biometric lock to a weak gun safe doesn’t make it any more secure. Many biometric gun safes also have flimsy key locks as “backups”. The key locks can often be opened with a standard screwdriver or strip of metal.
Also, biometric handgun safes are electronic and run on batteries (meaning if the battery dies you are locked out of the safe until you can replace or recharge the battery). In addition to the other reliability issues of biometric locks we’ll get into below, battery-powered devices are fundamentally less dependable than all-mechanical devices.
Biometrics in general are still evolving. Standards are still being developed. Performance testing and rating criteria like UL 768 don’t yet exist.
Fingerprint readers are fundamentally limited by the biology that they attempt to verify. Burns, cuts, and blisters to your fingers can change your fingerprint. Imagine fighting off an intruder to rush upstairs to get your weapon. But then you’re locked out of your biometric gun safe because your fingers are cut up. Or, being locked out because a potholder slipped yesterday taking something out of the oven.
Many people who work with their hands regularly have cuts or abrasion on their fingers that can cause their fingerprint to change. Workers and musicians also often have ridges, calluses, and parts of the fingerprints that are worn off. These can all cause issues with a biometric fingerprint scanner, especially a low quality one.
False negatives cause the lock not to open when an authorized person tries to use it.
In addition to cuts, burns, and abrasions, all sorts of things can obscure your fingerprint. Moisture, dirt, oils, blood, lotions, sunscreen, stains, ink, glues, and all kinds of other materials can cause problems.
If that’s not bad enough, biometric locks (especially cheap ones) can be susceptible to the angle of your fingerprint and which part of your finger you use. If your finger is at an angle or rolled slightly you may get locked out.
If the identification tolerance is too tight, it can lead to false negatives. In a false negative the correct person is locked out. This is a problem most people notice, so manufacturers try to avoid it. False negatives could be deadly in a self-defense situation.
To prevent customers from getting frustrated with being locked out of their new biometric gun safe and writing bad online reviews, manufacturers prefer to make the tolerances as loose as possible.
If the tolerance is too loose, false positives result, where prohibited people get access. This is very dangerous. But, the owner isn’t as likely to notice this as quickly as he or she is to notice getting locked out.
Looser tolerances also make “spoofing” or tricking all types of biometrics easier. For example, most facial recognition locks on computers and smartphones can be tricked with a photo of the person.
Source: http://archive.ph/EtUvW
-->
@Christen
why people keep ignoring the obvious is going to be their downfall, they bury their heads in the sand because the truth is too scary. it won't be long before fire arms will be just made in the home then all these laws, safety devices etc will be even more useless.
How long ago where the 3d plans released? better plans must exist by now right? Certainly better materials are now available. These things get better and cheaper no matter how badly they wish it weren't so.
they can continue to try and live in some fantasy land and not face the realities. You must change society, people's values and hearts. Laws can't do that, but they won't or can't admit that. So here we are still talking about laws etc.
-->
@SirAnonymous
First, a fully automatic weapon is designated as an assault weapon. A weapon that looks like it but does not have the capability to fire full auto is not an assault weapon. "ALL" full auto weapons built after 1986 are banned for public purchase. All existing must be registered with the FBI. All this legislation is designed to do is lead to total confiscation.
-->
@sadolite
I posted a video, forget which one, but it was interesting, during WWII the Germans designed a submachine gun, don't recall the name but it translated into assault gun or something to that effect, apparently they like naming their weapons like that, it was a fear/propaganda thing.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If one wants to get real technical, the term "assault weapon" is a completely made up term. Only politicians and civilians use the term.
-->
@sadolite
exactly, they do it for the same reason the Nazi's did to create fear.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I find this argument hilarious. An AR15 will not stop a drone from bombing you. It want stop an abrams tank, or fighter jet. If the US government became tyrannical, either the military backs the government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world won't save you, or they don't back the tyrannical government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world are completely irrelevant.Your guns are meaningless in terms of fighting the government. However, if you hold onto that right to have all those guns countless people will die. Is that pipe dream of fighting off the US military really worth the lives of 10's, or even hundreds of thousands of people?
The Vietnamese and Taliban send their regards
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is impossible to know who will commit a crime with an assault weapon. If no one has any assault weapons, then it is extremely easy to know. No one will.
How are you going to know who has and who doesn’t have an “assault” weapon.