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.
So if people want to kill each other, they will continue to do so regardless if they can get their hands on a firearm. Many of the worst murderers didn't and still don' need a firearm at all.
So? I'm afraid I don't see where you're going with this. "People can kill each other in various ways." Well, what of it?
So if people want to kill each other, they will continue to do so regardless if they can get their hands on a firearm. Many of the worst murderers didn't and still don' need a firearm at all.
Yes that's right. Let's not impose a strict gun control, people will kill each other anyway. Also let's not create a standard for factory emissions, the environment is going to be polluted anyway. And why create a treaty for what defines "Crimes against humanity" in a war? People are going to violate it in a war anyway. Why even have a police force? people are going to commit crimes anyway and many of them already get away with it.
Did I really need to point out how flawed this logic is? Fish is right to think that you probably mean something else.
So? I'm afraid I don't see where you're going with this. "People can kill each other in various ways." Well, what of it?
All I'm trying to say is that banning guns won't stop people from murdering each other (if that's even what you care about, not just because you're a hoplophobe). It'll just stop them from shooting each other. Is being shot any worse than being stabed or beaten about the skull with a bat? The media puts so much attention on gun related crimes and gives little to those committed with other weapons. Why not go after other so called "tactical" weapons instead?
Yes that's right. Let's not impose a strict gun control, people will kill each other anyway. Also let's not create a standard for factory emissions, the environment is going to be polluted anyway. And why create a treaty for what defines "Crimes against humanity" in a war? People are going to violate it in a war anyway. Why even have a police force? people are going to commit crimes anyway and many of them already get away with it.
Why on earth would you think that I want any of these things?
Did I really need to point out how flawed this logic is? Fish is right to think that you probably mean something else.
All I'm saying is that we need to remember that believing that no guns = an end to homicide and other violent crimes is incredibility naïve. I'm not saying that we should not have regulations. People that act like "Ooo, guns are so evil and bad! If we get rid of them, people will stop getting killed.", are a bunch of morons. People need regulation first, and weapons second.
So just in case I haven't been clear, I believe the solution is controlling dangerous and possibly dangerous people, not a particular weapon.
- This thread is about gun control, not gun banning. Let's stick to the idea of regulation.
- I don't think anyone in this thread thinks guns are the root of all evil; that is of course not the case. It does not change the fact that stricter gun controls can help reducing crime rates and death tolls. Isn't that well worth a few minor concessions?
All I'm trying to say is that banning guns won't stop people from murdering each other [...]
Which has no relevance to this thread.
Why on earth would you think that I want any of these things?
They're analogies. They have nothing to do with what you may or may not want. The point is that your argument is flawed in the same way those ones are.
This is a neutral question. I'm going to pick the brains of gun-owners, or people who want to own one; what are the reasons for doing so? Well, apart from those who need guns when they live near the wilderness, I can't think of good reason. If personal safety is an issue, wouldn't it make more sense for the authorities to invest more in police training and police funding, as well as cracking down on crime?
Doesn't really seem quite so neutral now on second thoughts.
The study is from July of this year, but I have only just read about it. It is interesting because it supports the idea that such events are contagious due to broad media coverage, which can act as a kind of trigger for copycats/unstable individuals. The idea is not new, but now we have numbers supporting it.
Accessorily, their results also indicate that the likeliness of such events is increased by *drum roll* mental health issues and "high prevalence of firearm ownership".
So @apldeap123 maybe your propositions should also include restrictions to media coverage, like what I learned is apparently already done in cases of suicide.
I'm sorry for barging in with nonsensical stuff, but I found something on the internet today and it's surprisingly fitting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAtkMuyVPS0
Well those problems are mostly caused by parents that don't take care well of children , for those grown up that do this , well i would say they are mad and have problems that they don't know how to take care about so they think that shooting guns at people will fix that problem , that we all know it makes it even worse.
I'm sorry for barging in with nonsensical stuff, but I found something on the internet today and it's surprisingly fitting
Really!!???? *passes out*......
.
.
.
.
.
..........3 months later. * wakes up with a jolt*
How was that video even remotely relevant? If you think that that inane jingly you tube meme video thing somehow how has a fitting point or some sort of sense of dry humor, I'm going to pass out for another 3 months.
they don't know how to take care about so they think that shooting guns at people will fix that problem
Honey, you left a dirty plate in the sink and I have absolutely no idea how to deal with it other than grabbing a M-4 and shooting around at nothing.
.
8 year old girl: "I didn't get the present I wanted so I'll grab my hydraulically driven, 75 rounds per second M-134 minigun that I keep in my ball tent and make it rain on them scumbags".
Honey, you left a dirty plate in the sink and I have absolutely no idea how to deal with it other than grabbing a M-4 and shooting around at nothing.
.
8 year old girl: "I didn't get the present I wanted so I'll grab my hydraulically driven, 75 rounds per second M-134 minigun that I keep in my ball tent and make it rain on them scumbags".
...and so on.
Do you know the story behind the song "I Don't Like Mondays"?
The video plays correctly for me.. anyway, the song was inspired by a school shooting in San Diego in 1979 (wiki article), or rather by a reply of the shooter to a question from a journalist (as is portrayed by the refrain of the song, "Tell me why? I don't like Mondays".
I mentioned it because it was equally ridiculous a reason as in the 'examples' you came up with. Note that I am not saying that the girl actually shot people at her school because she didn't like Mondays. However, every time I hear about murders like when a driver shot another driver for being overtaken or having flipped the bird or other similar incidents, it always reminds me of that song.
Just for the record, I didn't try to offend anyone. I just thought my video was slightly fitting given the discussion at hand and the slight over-exaggeration of both sides. I mean... You do notice how that was a really stupid video but a pretty funny one. I am fairly certain it was not written in seriousness.
