With the Oregon school shooting that happened earlier this month, the never-ending debate on gun control resurfaced. This is simplifying things, but concerning this issue, you have four groups of people:
One, the pro-gun people. These are people who don't believe in gun control (e.g, the NRA in its current state), who want more guns everywhere.
On the other side of the debate, we have gun control advocates. They want, at the very least, tighter restrictions on firearms. The more extreme want all guns to be banned in the United States.
Then there are those in the middle, the so-called moderates. They want a balance between gun control and gun rights.
Finally, there are those people who couldn't care less about the whole issue.
As for myself, I identify with the third group. I believe in having firearms, yet I want gun owners to have some responsibility and respect for their pieces. Here are my propositions for a possible addition or replacement to existing federal firearm laws:
The following laws will apply to all 50 states.
- Minimum age to buy handguns: 21 years old
- Minimum age to buy rifles (including semi-automatic) and shotguns: 18 years old
- Potential firearm purchasers must meet following criteria: - Must be at least 18 years old (21 for handguns) - Not previously convicted of a felony - No history of substance abuse or mental illness - Legal resident/citizen of the United States
- In addition to above rules, any member of the immediate family (parents, children, siblings) of a potential firearm buyer/owner must not have been previously diagnosed with a mental illness. - Persons who are in possession of firearms and have members of his/her immediate family who have a history of mental illness before this law takes effect are exempt from above law.
- A gun buyer must apply for a Firearm Purchasing Permit and a Firearm License.
- After applying for the FPP and the license, the buyer must have his/her mental health evaluated.
- After getting the FPP and the license, he/she can buy up to five guns in one month.
- After buying the guns, the owner must enroll in a month-long, Firearm Training Exam (provided by the federal government) to show that he/she can handle a gun safely.
- After buying gun, owner must have his/her mental health reevaluated annualy.
- A gun magazine that has the capability of holding more than 30 rounds are illegal for a civilian to own. Magazines that can hold 30 rounds or less are legal.
Additional Rules:
- The FPP expires two months after the buyer receives it.
- If a person is looking to buy an automatic weapon, he or she must meet following criteria: - At least 30 years old - Must meet same criteria as those wanting to buy "regular" firearms
- Must go through a background check and mental health evaluation
- After buying weapon, he/she must buy $2000 tax stamp verifying that buyer has purchased weapon through legal means.
- Buyer must also have mental health reevaluated annually to prove that he/she is still fit to have weapon.
In the short term, the US needs to stop letting deranged lunatics getting guns. People can argue over the merits of controlling everyone's guns, but this is secondary to the main event.
That aside, I think the problem the US has with guns isn't something laws are going to fix by themselves (Although they wouldn't hurt). Their relationship with firearms is not healthy, and in my view is a major factor in causing mass shootings. Other countries may possess a large number of firearms, but none see anywhere the same rates of that kind of large scale violent attack. In other countries, guns are tools for hunting and target shooting. In the US, they are a symbol of resistance and empowerment. This leads vulnerable people down the road that leads them to believe they can escape their problems by shooting their way out.
Well, for starters, I would like some constructive criticism on my propositions, whether or not you agree/disagree
FYI, it's already a law in all the states that I'm aware of that you must be 18 to buy a sgun/rifle, and 21 to buy a hgun. I think this has been in place for many years.
As for the rest of your propositions, they are very reasonable and smart. Good luck convincing people that they are good proposals. 😉
mental illness
I have one question. Who in government is going to decide what mental illness is?
Then there are those in the middle, the so-called moderates. They want a balance between gun control and gun rights.
This is who I identify with since you're asking.
With the Oregon school shooting that happened earlier this month, the never-ending debate on gun control resurfaced. This is simplifying things, but concerning this issue, you have four groups of people:
FYI, if the government actually cared about these shamy school shootings, they'd stop staging one every single every month just so that they can push legislation to take people's guns away.
In the short term, the US needs to stop letting deranged lunatics getting guns. People can argue over the merits of controlling everyone's guns, but this is secondary to the main event.
That aside, I think the problem the US has with guns isn't something laws are going to fix by themselves (Although they wouldn't hurt). Their relationship with firearms is not healthy, and in my view is a major factor in causing mass shootings. Other countries may possess a large number of firearms, but none see anywhere the same rates of that kind of large scale violent attack. In other countries, guns are tools for hunting and target shooting. In the US, they are a symbol of resistance and empowerment. This leads vulnerable people down the road that leads them to believe they can escape their problems by shooting their way out
This argument sounds beautiful on paper, but it isn't actually true. Its just your media influenced bias of a country that you don't live in.
I have one question. Who in government is going to decide what mental illness is?
What qualifies as 'mental illness' will not change from what the government considers mental illness to be right now, e.g, depression, schizophrenia, et cetera.
FYI, it's already a law in all the states that I'm aware of that you must be 18 to buy a sgun/rifle, and 21 to buy a hgun. I think this has been in place for many years.
That's not necessarily true. Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and several other states list the minimum age to buy a handgun to be at 18 years old.
FYI, if the government actually cared about these shamy school shootings, they'd stop staging one every single every month just so that they can push legislation to take people's guns away.
And if they actually cared about their citizens' lives, they would stop blowing up their own highrise towers during peak business hours just so that they can wage war with oil-rich nations. And if they actually cared about lunar exploration, they would stop pretending to have landed there in 1969 just so that they can say they beat the Soviets. And if they actually cared about public awareness, they would stop covering up all the alien spaceship landings that have been happening just so that they can use their technology for military purposes. And if they actually cared about privacy, they would stop implanting EMP-monitoring microchips into people's brains just so that they can read their thoughts. And if they ........
What qualifies as 'mental illness' will not change from what the government considers mental illness to be right now, e.g, depression, schizophrenia, et cetera.
That is not a reasonable basis for exclusion. Someone suffering from ADD, OCD, hypochondriasis, anorexia, or asperger syndrome (to name only a few) should not be any more prone to homicidal tendencies than the average person.
On the other side of the debate, we have gun control advocates. They want, at the very least, tighter restrictions on firearms. The more extreme want all guns to be banned in the United States.
That would be me I suppose. Not on the extreme side but yes, at the very least, tighter restrictions on firearms is a necessity. I suppose I am lingering between the middle and the advocates.
This argument sounds beautiful on paper, but it isn't actually true. Its just your media influenced bias of a country that you don't live in.
That was funny...I like how you just throw that up on someone without even explaining how or why, at least in your opinion. Do you realize how it sounds? "You are not living in this country so your opinion is biased." Great, then you cannot have an opinion for anything going on at least for some time outside the US because you don't live there. Thank you for teaching this to me
That is not a reasonable basis for exclusion. Someone suffering from ADD, OCD, hypochondriasis, anorexia, or asperger syndrome (to name only a few) should not be any more prone to homicidal tendencies than the average person.
Yes, I believe it is obvious it would require some planning. Consulting experts, analysts, psychiatrists and other doctors, carefully setting the new regulations, It is a massive project due to the opposition and the state the US has been in for so many years.
And if they actually cared about their citizens' lives, they would stop blowing up their own highrise towers during peak business hours just so that they can wage war with oil-rich nations. And if they actually cared about lunar exploration, they would stop pretending to have landed there in 1969 just so that they can say they beat the Soviets. And if they actually cared about public awareness, they would stop covering up all the alien spaceship landings that have been happening just so that they can use their technology for military purposes. And if they actually cared about privacy, they would stop implanting EMP-monitoring microchips into people's brains just so that they can read their thoughts. And if they ........
This a classic example of character assassination. Just because I find hard to believe what I'm fed by the media about how some "crazed right wing loner" goes and kills scores of people every month, you (and everyone you that I've come across during arguments like these) immediately start droping senseless smart mouth remarks about me believing in aliens, mind control, lunar mumbo jumbo, blah blah blah.
That was funny...I like how you just throw that up on someone without even explaining how or why, at least in your opinion. Do you realize how it sounds? "You are not living in this country so your opinion is biased." Great, then you cannot have an opinion for anything going on at least for some time outside the US because you don't live there. Thank you for teaching this to me
I don't have to explain jack to anyone. I didn't create this thread and I'm not trying to prove anything. The burden proof lies on those who are. My comment pertaining to Phil's post just meant that he probably has no actual personal experience pertaining to our gun control issues. His only knowledge of the issue therefore, comes from BBC in all likelihood. I on the other hand, have traveled extensively in Europe and have real first hand experience and knowledge of European culture, people, and their outlook on certain issues. I may not be an excellent writer, but I'm no unenlightened chump.
I don't necessarily believe in this argument, but most of those who oppose gun control claim that it won't actually solve gun violence, because most people who perpetrate shootings don't actually obtain firearms themselves; they take guns from a relative or close friend who would likely still have a gun even with heightened regulations.
This a classic example of character assassination. Just because I find hard to believe what I'm fed by the media about how some "crazed right wing loner" goes and kills scores of people every month, you (and everyone you that I've come across during arguments like these) immediately start droping senseless smart mouth remarks about me believing in aliens, mind control, lunar mumbo jumbo, blah blah blah.
no, its a pretty valid thing to say. if youre gonna suspect and believe in a conspiracy and base your thoughts on that, its as good as saying the government lies about everything and base every thought on only youre personal experiences or even just biased opinions.
I don't have to explain jack to anyone. I didn't create this thread and I'm not trying to prove anything. The burden proof lies on those who are. My comment pertaining to Phil's post just meant that he probably has no actual personal experience pertaining to our gun control issues. His only knowledge of the issue therefore, comes from BBC in all likelihood. I on the other hand, have traveled extensively in Europe and have real first hand experience and knowledge of European culture, people, and their outlook on certain issues. I may not be an excellent writer, but I'm no unenlightened chump.
actually, you have the burden of proof when you comment on someone elses sayings. if youre gonna say someone is wrong, you have to explain it and base it on reality. otherwise, youre comment is as good as "youre wrong because". if youre not gonna explain why you think the way you think then what you think is almost as good as irrelevant. you are not the only person with experiences. im sure many europeans on this site have traveled to the US and vice versa.
i personally belong to the second group. i see no reason to use guns at all. protection? they are just as good for offense as well. your chances of survival are way higher when nobody is allowed to have a gun. its not a sword fight. one small thumb movement and youre dead.
i live in israel. things are pretty heated up over here. and yet, even we have more strict gun control. and honestly? it works. we might get some terrorist attacks that are based on the political war thats going on but we dont have random shootings of random people. not to mention, they are easier to control because the weapons that is used is usually a knife.
i do think the relationship US has with guns is not healthy. just talking to people and how they respond shows it. they act as if youre gonna take a limb away. you dont need a gun for protection, and a huge ego and wanting to seem/feel strong isnt a good enough reason.
maybe make some kind of special program. not to train cops but train average citizents and give them some special duty to protect people on the street with their guns if anything happens. and it would be very difficult to pass too. very few citizents with guns that can be trusted is the best way to live i think.
On the other side of the debate, we have gun control advocates. They want, at the very least, tighter restrictions on firearms. The more extreme want all guns to be banned in the United States.
Then there are those in the middle, the so-called moderates. They want a balance between gun control and gun rights.
These two groups seem partly redundant to me. Wanting tighter restrictions on firearms is compatible with/equivalent to wanting a balance between gun control and gun rights and should thus be represented by only one group.
- Minimum age to buy handguns: 21 years old
- Minimum age to buy rifles (including semi-automatic) and shotguns: 18 years old
Can you please elaborate on the reason for the age difference between those two categories?
- Potential firearm purchasers must meet following criteria: - Must be at least 18 years old (21 for handguns) - Not previously convicted of a felony - No history of substance abuse or mental illness - Legal resident/citizen of the United States
I am always amazed anew that conditions like these are not already established nation-wide. I would definitely be in support of that.
- After buying the guns, the owner must enroll in a month-long, Firearm Training Exam (provided by the federal government) to show that he/she can handle a gun safely.
This should also at any cost contain education in safe storage of weapons, among other. I say this because there are too many accidents and deaths happening due to a child finding the parent's guns and playing with it...
- The FPP expires two months after the buyer receives it.
I am unsure whether I understand this correctly. Would that mean that one could not buy weapons after this time? That would restrict total weapon numbers to 10 (two months, five guns per month). 10 guns would already be too much for me personally, but I could see how most people could have issues with this additional law.
This argument sounds beautiful on paper, but it isn't actually true. Its just your media influenced bias of a country that you don't live in.
The argument is stated by too many Americans to be an outsider's media biased view. It is certainly true to some extent.
That is not a reasonable basis for exclusion. Someone suffering from ADD, OCD, hypochondriasis, anorexia, or asperger syndrome (to name only a few) should not be any more prone to homicidal tendencies than the average person.
Whether all mental illnesses exclude one from the right to carry firearms or not can be debated, but I think it is only reasonable to check and assess the candidate's mental health before giving out a permit.
FYI, if the government actually cared about these shamy school shootings, they'd stop staging one every single every month just so that they can push legislation to take people's guns away.
If that were true, don't you think we should expect at least some whistleblowers or anything? This would be just too huge to work. Remember the government is made up of people (regular humans with different opinions) that cannot even fully agree on a single topic; how could they unanimously push such a horrible conspiracy through during all those years, without a single concerned member? This would have to extend to the entirety of police force to work, considering the evidence reported and all.
I don't necessarily believe in this argument, but most of those who oppose gun control claim that it won't actually solve gun violence, because most people who perpetrate shootings don't actually obtain firearms themselves; they take guns from a relative or close friend who would likely still have a gun even with heightened regulations.
Even a single case where the weapons were acquired by the wrongdoer would be enough to justify such measures. Besides it is well known that weapons can be acquired way too easily in the US, even without shootings this would lead to concerns, leading to such measures.
maybe make some kind of special program. not to train cops but train average citizents and give them some special duty to protect people on the street with their guns if anything happens. and it would be very difficult to pass too. very few citizents with guns that can be trusted is the best way to live i think.
I honestly don't like concepts like vigilantism. Besides it would be time and money better spent directly in the police.
This a classic example of character assassination. Just because I find hard to believe what I'm fed by the media about how some "crazed right wing loner" goes and kills scores of people every month, you (and everyone you that I've come across during arguments like these) immediately start droping senseless smart mouth remarks about me believing in aliens, mind control, lunar mumbo jumbo, blah blah blah.
No, it's a classic example of argument by analogy. All are equally plausible to their respective proponents and profoundly ridiculous to everyone else.
Phil's post just meant that he probably has no actual personal experience pertaining to our gun control issues. His only knowledge of the issue therefore, comes from BBC in all likelihood. I on the other hand, have traveled extensively in Europe and have real first hand experience and knowledge of European culture, people, and their outlook on certain issues.
So, if your opinion isn't based primarily upon personal experience, it is immediately wrong, biased, and/or woefully misinformed, and if your media source isn't gonzo, it must be dishonest, biased, and/or politically motivated. Thanks for that valuable insight.
maybe make some kind of special program. not to train cops but train average citizents and give them some special duty to protect people on the street with their guns if anything happens. and it would be very difficult to pass too. very few citizents with guns that can be trusted is the best way to live i think.
It's hard enough to keep law enforcement in line. Trusting disorganized and unsupervised amateurs with the same tasks isn't liable to make things any better.
This would have to extend to the entirety of police force to work, considering the evidence reported and all.
And the paramedics, and news teams, and the teachers and school children who actually saw what was happening first hand.
Me, as a gun enthusiast (weapons in general, I find those beautiful)......... well I'll say this. The USA has some really loose gun laws. I mean, REALLY loose (At least in my opinion, I've never lived in America and probably never will) But from what I can see, you can walk in a random gun shop, sometimes even without a permit, them not asking to do a psychological test on you, nothing, and you can buy a SMG, a Kevlar vest, extra ammunition without them asking any questions except for seeing your money.
And also, the government staging thing is absurd. It costs very much money in reconciliation for the parents/legal guardians and projects a bad image about the USA to the world. So it would be like punching your kneecaps out for a charity for people who can't walk.
Of course, guns are cool and all, and I don't mind people having them, but you shouldn't necessarily put a M4 in your closet where your 16-year old child can easily find and utilize it to, you know, kill people.
But from what I can see, you can walk in a random gun shop, sometimes even without a permit, them not asking to do a psychological test on you, nothing, and you can buy a SMG, a Kevlar vest, extra ammunition without them asking any questions except for seeing your money.
In the United States as a whole, the sale and distribution of automatic firearms is perfectly legal, albeit with heavy restrictions. However, where I live in the U.S, possessing any automatic weapon (with the exception of automatic weapons purchased before 1992) is illegal. The states that do allow you to buy such weapon impose heavy burdens. For example, not every gun dealer is registered to sell automatic weapons. That sort of privilege is restricted only to Class III NFA (National Firearms Act) Dealers.
Before even buying one, you have to fill out many application forms and apply for a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Assuming that you have been approved, once you walk in to the dealer with all your paperwork, a M16 rifle will cost you about $10,000 to up to $20,000. After that, you have to buy a $200 tax stamp from the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) verifying that you bought the gun legally.
The total cost of all that comes to about anywhere from $10,200 to $20,200. An AR15, on which the M16/M4 is based off on, will only cost about $1,500 - $2,000, minus all of the restrictions.
If that were true, don't you think we should expect at least some whistleblowers or anything? This would be just too huge to work. Remember the government is made up of people (regular humans with different opinions) that cannot even fully agree on a single topic; how could they unanimously push such a horrible conspiracy through during all those years, without a single concerned member?
Whistleblowers being particularly the case when people like @SportShark supposedly "uncover" the whole thing. Don't you think that if a real conspiracy was "revealed", someone, anyone from all the people involved would think like "Oh well, we are done for. Better blow the whistle on the others to receive some better treatment myself"?
What's wrong with this? It can't hurt anyone; it's an apparatus that protects the vital organs from anti personnel ordnance (pistol bullets, shrapnel, etc...). I don't see the need to regulate protective wear.
No, it's a classic example of argument by analogy. All are equally plausible to their respective proponents and profoundly ridiculous to everyone else.
Nope, just because I am skeptical about the reality of the events doesn't give you the right to throw me in the paranormal wacko category of Coast to Coast AM.
So, if your opinion isn't based primarily upon personal experience, it is immediately wrong, biased, and/or woefully misinformed, and if your media source isn't gonzo, it must be dishonest, biased, and/or politically motivated. Thanks for that valuable insight.
No, I did mean anything at all like this. You know that you're exaggerating like a loon here. I feel like you're getting overly emotional about this argument or something like that.
If that were true, don't you think we should expect at least some whistleblowers or anything? This would be just too huge to work. Remember the government is made up of people (regular humans with different opinions) that cannot even fully agree on a single topic; how could they unanimously push such a horrible conspiracy through during all those years, without a single concerned member? This would have to extend to the entirety of police force to work, considering the evidence reported and all.
All anyone really knows about that alleged incident is what we were told from a few people (reporters, cops, dry crying parents, and that so called doctor who was laughing like a complete lunatic). Its just as reasonable to assume that the whole thing was staged by a bunch of actors, the media, and the government as it is to assume that that kid just killed dozens of people for no reason. We've never seen actual crime scene photos or anything to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these people were actually killed. Anyway, this is way off topic.
