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.
I didn't come up with those! They were in the video!!!! Slow down next time before you go racing off to put me down.
All the better. So you've actually had mass shottings because of the shooter 'Not liking Mondays'? I suppose he suffered from some form of psychiatric disease and just said that instead of the real reason.
At any rate, this is off topic, whether those examples were in the video or not I mean. We've been arguing for gun control with you agreeing with us in some things while disagreeing in some others. But what we haven't done is read any argument against gun control... Why would you, or anyone for that matter be against stricter gun regulations?
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.
And you haven't offended anyone. I am well aware that it is not meant to be a serious try thing (unlike some other people here).
So you've actually had mass shottings because of the shooter 'Not liking Mondays'? I suppose he suffered from some form of psychiatric disease and just said that instead of the real reason.
That's the whole point that I've been trying to point out ever since I listed those two examples in response to minecraftsniper's post.
Freedom of choice perhaps, the freedom to own a gun and allegedly to protect oneself. But freedom is not infinite, it would be unsound to think otherwise. Giving way over one form of freedom may intrude on another's. And I think that the sanctity of life and the freedom to go about daily life without fear of a shooting trumps the freedom to own guns too liberally.
Well, the NRA has an economic interest, for instance.
Aside from the NRA. I know about them. I should have said "why logically" Not financially or anything else.
Freedom of choice perhaps
Freedom to own a gun is not grounds to oppose stricter gun regulations. I mean, it may be in the minds of some, but it is a state, not a reason.
to protect oneself
Yeah, but, well, should it be so easy? And is it protection when kids can get their hands on them? It is so illogical in the end, even aside from the fact that this kind of freedom is a terrible intrusion, like you pointed out. Besides, use of guns is permitted under very few circumstances as you are probably well aware . Even in self defense one cannot use his gun with the intent to kill. Not to mention that he cannot even fire at all if the person in front of him is not armed or shows no intention of causing harm. And a million more conditions that I don't know about
Freedom to own a gun is not grounds to oppose stricter gun regulations. I mean, it may be in the minds of some, but it is a state, not a reason.
State, reason? I don't really the point you're driving at here (Much less the difference), perhaps you could elaborate more. In any case, it's a reason brought up often by gun rights advocates (Constitution enshrined rights, yada yada), and is closely tied up with the protection argument.
Yeah, but, well, should it be so easy? .... And a million more conditions that I don't know about
Nope, it wouldn't! Standing from the point of view of a training lawyer there are many possible scenarios and conditions that apply that would make each case different from the next, and consequently, whether you can actually shoot someone in self-defense is not always a guarantee.
In any case, you can shoot to kill, or do an act in self defense in such a way that you know another's death is certain. But this is complicated by statutes again because the courts wouldn't want people shooting others for the slightest alarm! It's all about balance, as we've said.
I'm all for self-defense laws, even if such laws allow for causing the death of others (Which are enshrined in practically all countries), but whether self-defense with a gun is a tad too far is another issue as a gun complicates things much more.
State, reason? I don't really the point you're driving at here (Much less the difference), perhaps you could elaborate more. In any case, it's a reason brought up often by gun rights advocates (Constitution enshrined rights, yada yada), and is closely tied up with the protection argument.
All I am saying is that "being free to own a gun" is not a "reason". It is a state of things (Currently, many American citizens are free to own a gun). But it doesn't answer the question "why would anyone be against gun regulations"? (You can't answer the "Why don't you want guns to be harder to purchase?" with "Because we are free to own one".)
I'm all for self-defense laws, even if such laws allow for causing the death of others (Which are enshrined in practically all countries), but whether self-defense with a gun is a tad too far is another issue as a gun complicates things much more.
Obviously. So many different cases...
Another thing I want to ask: Many Americans are favoring stricter gun regulations or at least, a balance. Even the conservative Republican Donald Trump has advocated for the banning of automatic firearms. So what I fail to see is how come the NRA has so much power? How can it even stop the Congress from taking decisions? Shouldn't some form of regulation be applied, to that organization in the end (or at least, just an attempt to do so)?
(You can't answer the "Why don't you want guns to be harder to purchase?" with "Because we are free to own one".)
Well, the explanation would be simply: They don't want their freedoms taken away. It's the current state of things, and they like it just fine, hence they are against any attempt to regulate and curtail that freedom. It's not a complex reason, don't get caught up on it.
Well, the explanation would be simply: They don't want their freedoms taken away. It's the current state of things, and they like it just fine, hence they are against any attempt to regulate and curtail that freedom. It's not a complex reason, don't get caught up on it.
Sure, but if regulations are done right, the average honest American will not notice much of them except for one or two minor administrative hurdle. Once established, people would quickly adapt and hardly notice anymore. The problem is making it happen. (Then there are those who like to turn it into a slippery slope and fantasize about civil war, but I sincerely hope they're a minority...)
I keep thinking after every major shooting, that there'll be change, but any change thus far has been slow or marginal though.
I feel that the gun control lobbyists and the NRA are cancelling each other out. The gun control advocates want total ban, whereas the NRA want the exact opposite, thus leading to little progress being made.
Well, no, the vast majority of them most certainly don't. Everyone outside the lunatic fringe is generally in agreement that firearms cannot and need not be banned altogether.
The lack of change is probably rather due to the continuing influence of the powerful NRA lobby - a group so powerful they dictate the interpretation of amendments - and the sensibility of republicans to economic arguments. Why else would they block a bill that would have prevented terrorists from buying weapons?
It seems that, in the eyes of the NRA, that any attempt to place any sort of restriction on the buying and selling of firearms to be an infringement on their 2nd Amendment rights.
There will always be a gun culture as long as people do not feel safe, secure and adequately protected by the police.
Honestly, the idea that a citizen militia armed with small arms fighting a heroic resistance against a tyrannical, bloated dictatorship from Washington is as unthinkable as it's hogwash. The sooner people realise the simple truth and connection that guns are part of the reason that fuel violent crime, the better.
