Gun Control discussion

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Gun Control discussion

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1878304 6-Oct-2017 09:15

DaveB:

An (old) friend of mine lives in Utah and fully supports that States very, very lenient gun laws. In fact he is so vocal and "macho" I no longer have much to do with him, or his loud mouthed wife. But most interestingly, they are also very anti-abortion and have been known to demonstrate outside abortion clinics.

Double standards here I think.

Kinda like some of our politicians, pro "assisted dying", but at the same time they talk about our suicide rates being too high!

People that are anti-gun control harp on about the right of self defense, and from their point of view I can understand where they are coming from. If living in a dangerous place for example, where criminals have guns, and are not afraid to use them it makes prefect sense to have a gun. Especially if you have a family to protect. Having a gun in this kind of environment gives you a fighting chance in the event that a home invader manages gets in. Criminals don't like finding themselves on the end of barrel any more than the rest of us.

Its more of a case of where you find yourself in this world, rather than a no guns policy just being the answer for it anywhere. If I was living in the USA I would only support gun control if guns were removed from the criminals first. Thats not likely to happen, as can be seen of what has happened in South Africa (the innocent have been disarmed).

So whats the right answer? There is none. It depends on where you live in this world.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1878306 6-Oct-2017 09:18

networkn:

kingdragonfly: When the constitution was written, including the second amendment, there was still a real threat of foreign invasion.

Also long rifles of the time fired at a rate of fire of about a shot every 30 seconds.

Shortly after the constitution was written, 1787, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants.

So quoting the founding fathers is similar to quoting the Bible regarding the use of cameras: not exactly a firm foundation.

Exactly the point I've been making.

Copyright laws had to be rewritten to take into account new technologies, Gun Laws should as well. The problem is, laws only get changed when the impact is *money*.

Rewriting the bill of rights would be no different to us re-writing the treaty. It aint going to happen without another civil war.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1878326 6-Oct-2017 09:28

At the end of the day, guns are as fundamental to US society as rugby and alcohol are to NZ society.

The best you will ever see is tinkering around the edges as far as regulatory impact goes.

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#1878332 6-Oct-2017 09:36

Fred99:

Geektastic:

I have no idea how they define it. I'm sure Google will assist.

It struck me as odd that it had taken them so long to decide that being a patched Mongrel Mob Member should disqualify you from legally possessing guns...

It's actually not odd.

It's a very difficult area of law to discriminate against individuals based on "guilt by association". Once that's allowed in principle, then those laws could be used against innocent people - and you're depending on benevolence of police officers whether or not to prosecute - which is a bad idea.

It's also probably futile in reality, as those patched gang members won't give a flying toss whether their firearms are legal or not and whether they're licensed or not.

It's a typical political move which will achieve basically nothing, designed to ease the fears of hand-wringers and pearl necklace clutchers, to make them believe that government is doing something to keep them safe.

Read some of Jared Gilbert's writings on the matter. Membership of gangs is quite hard to define in law. There is also a tendency for groups to be called gangs when convenient to the police/government. I think at one point the police tried to classify him as a gang member. There is also a danger that certain political groups would be defined as gangs. For example Greenpeace, or even federated farmers.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1878342 6-Oct-2017 09:54

Wiggum:

Rewriting the bill of rights would be no different to us re-writing the treaty. It aint going to happen without another civil war.

So you've said. My reply to that is that one is coming anyway. The shift is away from guns not toward them. There will be a revolution when the people decide enough people have died, and we are approaching that point in the USA very shortly I believe (inside 10-20 years). A growing number of influential voices are saying enough is enough. There is a change in the political messaging, unfortunately, set back 4 years by the Election of Trump. It could even be that the message that the next presidential candidates are making an election issue, is a tightening of gun laws.

I expect lives to be lost and moderate reform to emerge from it.

I am not suggesting we take weapons off those who already have them (criminals excepted). I am suggesting new Gun Sales are subject to stricter policies (no mods) and all gun owners need to secure and register their weapons and undergo regular inspection/training/certification.

It will not completely stop these shootings, but it's part of a process to change peoples mindsets.

Of course, my original list of suggestions will not happen in the USA, at least not in a single step, it would be too far for them I believe.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1878355 6-Oct-2017 10:16

@wiggum

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11930180

Even the NRA is being more open to the idea of some form of restrictions, something they know they have to do given the publics overall opinion starting to flow against them.

It's the most conciliatory I have seen the NRA for a long time.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1878359 6-Oct-2017 10:23

Wiggum:

DaveB:

An (old) friend of mine lives in Utah and fully supports that States very, very lenient gun laws. In fact he is so vocal and "macho" I no longer have much to do with him, or his loud mouthed wife. But most interestingly, they are also very anti-abortion and have been known to demonstrate outside abortion clinics.

Double standards here I think.

Kinda like some of our politicians, pro "assisted dying", but at the same time they talk about our suicide rates being too high!

It's hard to take you seriously when you compare the choice of a person in their right mind who has been through counselling and has been approved because they have 2 separate medical opinions that their illness is terminal, to suicide.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1878498 6-Oct-2017 14:51

Varkk:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

I have no idea how they define it. I'm sure Google will assist.

It struck me as odd that it had taken them so long to decide that being a patched Mongrel Mob Member should disqualify you from legally possessing guns...

It's actually not odd.

It's a very difficult area of law to discriminate against individuals based on "guilt by association". Once that's allowed in principle, then those laws could be used against innocent people - and you're depending on benevolence of police officers whether or not to prosecute - which is a bad idea.

It's also probably futile in reality, as those patched gang members won't give a flying toss whether their firearms are legal or not and whether they're licensed or not.

It's a typical political move which will achieve basically nothing, designed to ease the fears of hand-wringers and pearl necklace clutchers, to make them believe that government is doing something to keep them safe.

Read some of Jared Gilbert's writings on the matter. Membership of gangs is quite hard to define in law. There is also a tendency for groups to be called gangs when convenient to the police/government. I think at one point the police tried to classify him as a gang member. There is also a danger that certain political groups would be defined as gangs. For example Greenpeace, or even federated farmers.

Regardless of how difficult it may or may not be, it remains odd that being a well known, patched gang member of the Headhunters etc was not sufficient reason for the police to decline a FAL.

It may be in SOME cases hard to tell who is a gang member. It will not be hard in ALL cases.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1878533 6-Oct-2017 15:37

networkn:

Wiggum:

DaveB:

An (old) friend of mine lives in Utah and fully supports that States very, very lenient gun laws. In fact he is so vocal and "macho" I no longer have much to do with him, or his loud mouthed wife. But most interestingly, they are also very anti-abortion and have been known to demonstrate outside abortion clinics.

Double standards here I think.

Kinda like some of our politicians, pro "assisted dying", but at the same time they talk about our suicide rates being too high!

It's hard to take you seriously when you compare the choice of a person in their right mind who has been through counselling and has been approved because they have 2 separate medical opinions that their illness is terminal, to suicide.

I struggle to take people seriously that are pro "assisted dying" but opposed to suicide thats all. Both are really the same thing. The act of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally. Different discussion anyway.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1878540 6-Oct-2017 15:50

networkn:

Wiggum:

Rewriting the bill of rights would be no different to us re-writing the treaty. It aint going to happen without another civil war.

So you've said. My reply to that is that one is coming anyway. The shift is away from guns not toward them. There will be a revolution when the people decide enough people have died, and we are approaching that point in the USA very shortly I believe (inside 10-20 years). A growing number of influential voices are saying enough is enough. There is a change in the political messaging, unfortunately, set back 4 years by the Election of Trump. It could even be that the message that the next presidential candidates are making an election issue, is a tightening of gun laws.

I expect lives to be lost and moderate reform to emerge from it.

I am not suggesting we take weapons off those who already have them (criminals excepted). I am suggesting new Gun Sales are subject to stricter policies (no mods) and all gun owners need to secure and register their weapons and undergo regular inspection/training/certification.

It will not completely stop these shootings, but it's part of a process to change peoples mindsets.

Of course, my original list of suggestions will not happen in the USA, at least not in a single step, it would be too far for them I believe.

Could be wrong, but in recent LV tragedy were illegal weapons not used anyway? If so, I don't believe better gun control would have really done much to prevented it.

In Europe where there is far better gun control, and guns are far more difficult to obtain, the violent attacks still happen. Sick people just resort to different means of killing people.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1878570 6-Oct-2017 16:56

Wiggum:

I struggle to take people seriously that are pro "assisted dying" but opposed to suicide thats all. Both are really the same thing. The act of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally. Different discussion anyway.

This statement shows you know nothing about it. You statement is also very distasteful and you really need to stop your trolling.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1878620 6-Oct-2017 18:28

networkn:

@wiggum

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11930180

Even the NRA is being more open to the idea of some form of restrictions, something they know they have to do given the publics overall opinion starting to flow against them.

It's the most conciliatory I have seen the NRA for a long time.

Not according to news today..they may consider minor changes on these devices that make some guns lethal...but its minor. Senators seem opposed.

Many times more gun deaths have occurred in the US since Las Vegas.

The NRA is reasonably correct in saying guns dont kill...people do. But they are living in the wild west still. The whole world is disgusted at US gun control and nothing will change other than minor bits and pieces. Remember Trump has already reversed Obama's gun restrictions he implemented.

kingdragonfly

12007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12926

Subscriber

#1878625 6-Oct-2017 18:41

I'm sure everyone's heard by now that at least some of the assault rifles used "bump stocks" which don't require a special license in the US.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/10/attempts-to-import-bump-stocks-into-new-zealand-blocked.html

"Attempts to import 'bump stocks' into New Zealand blocked"

"NZ Police say they've rejected two attempts to import a gun accessory drawing attention, after the largest mass shooting in modern United States history.

'Bump stocks' have become a focus of gun-control discussions in the US, after gunman Stephen Paddock used them in an attack that killed at least 58 people and injured about 500 at a music concert in Las Vegas this week.

Attached onto guns, the devices effectively allow some semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates resembling fully automatics, making them significantly more dangerous.

Under New Zealand law, a special permit is required to import the accessory."

Stan

929 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183
Inactive user

#1879303 8-Oct-2017 10:53

kingdragonfly: When the constitution was written, including the second amendment, there was still a real threat of foreign invasion.

Also long rifles of the time fired at a rate of fire of about a shot every 30 seconds.

Shortly after the constitution was written, 1787, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants.

So quoting the founding fathers is similar to quoting the Bible regarding the use of cameras: not exactly a firm foundation.

What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.

kingdragonfly

12007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12926

Subscriber

#1879581 9-Oct-2017 07:21

How conservatives view the creation of the Second Amendment. (Can you spot Satan?)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8