HeyYou Posted April 29, 2021 Share Posted April 29, 2021 you tell me things i already know and most americans already know. what does illegal mean if nobody has any control ? effectively nothing - like in the u.s.!how should effective control of a death bringing instrument work without mandatory registration in advance ? it doesn't work!so where is your safety ? simply control it like cars - with insurance and license! this is how it works in my country - and it works very effective! no insurance and no license = no weapon and not car. it could be so easy and so safe! what is your problem if you like it safe ?should be manageable for a civilized country like usa !? Mainly because it is illegal for our government to set up such a system. The reasoning being: If the government DOES decide it wants to forcibly take away our firearms, giving them a list of everyone who owns one, is just a bad idea. However,..... Handguns are required to be registered. Long guns, are not. Long guns, in general, are used in right about 3% of gun crime. I don't think anyone keeps track of whether a weapon used in a crime, assuming it is even recovered... was in the legal possession of the shooter though. According to this though, 90% of criminals that used a gun, did not buy it from a retail source..... That would tend to imply that a 'national registry' wouldn't really make any difference. Considering that handguns account for almost 97% of gun crime, and they are ALREADY required to be registered...... it appears obvious to me, that criminals that want a gun, will get one, regardless of what laws they are breaking. The dems/liberals just don't seem to be able to figure that out though, and come up with more new, and inventive, ways, to make it harder for folks to purchase firearms. Of course, that has zero effect on the criminals....... And then we have this study, that essentially shows that stricter gun laws have no meaasurable affect on violent crime rates...... There are a LOT of guns in the US. So many, that attempting to register each and every one, would be impossible. Wouldn't matter what penalties you attached to possession of a non-registered firearm..... the laws would be pretty much unenforceable. The situation is what it is. Is there room for improvement? You bet. Is our government approaching it from the correct angle? Nope. Not even remotely. We don't enforce all the laws on the books as it is now, adding more laws that we don't/can't enforce isn't going to change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modder3434 Posted May 4, 2021 Share Posted May 4, 2021 What is the difference between 'reducing' guns, and banning them? Who determines who can own what? Or how many? Targeting gun collectors is pointless. Is this a serious question or just your search for a good opportunity to place your own - fantasy based - answer? And i also do not get your logic with Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore Maryland, Los Angeles California.what do you thinks was first - highest gun crime rate or the law to reduce gun crime ? maybe a little more study of cause and effect ? and it is not about the risk of people who are already known to be ill and registered but about who are not yet registered in case they get ill or addicted or whatever. if you do not have a public authority with control over a register you can not confiscate the weapons in time from potentially dangerous or ill people. Those cities are often cited because the numbers don't lie. Much of the gun violence is gang related. However lets peel the onion back more. What came first the gun violence or the anti-gun laws? The gun violence was going up, and they thought they could legislate the problem away... to make people feel safer...to appeal the the "common sense" people who were afraid, and their fear was used against them to strip them of civil liberties. The reason a licensing system, like we have with vehicles won't work, because weapon ownership is not a privilege, it is a civil liberty, its a whole different mindset then privileges. Ben Franklin said "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither". As for why gun violence was going up, it gets back to the destruction of family formation as well as demographics. The cities listed are some of the most "diverse" in the USA. As stated previously, the majority of the gun violence is gang related. As it stands membership in gangs is a "ethnic thing". Any known white gangs today are practically all undercover feds (KKK, Neo-Nazi groups etc) with the exception of the known members who were incarcerated, often for life sentences. There are numerous gangs of Hispanic and Black origin, that have not been curtailed and currently overwhelm LEOs; La Raza; MS-13; Bloods; Crips; Tango Blast are some the major ones, but for every main one, there are a dozen more that are local, and don't have a statewide or nationwide presence. Aristotle stated that a multi-ethnic society (and by extension an multi-cultural society) prevents all philia (the flesh and blood fraternity between citizens) from developing and is by nature, anti-democratic, requiring despots (read totalitarian rule/ dictatorship/ one party state ) to rule. Why bring up Aristotle? because you're from a European county, and until arguably the last 40 years, the nations of Europe have retained their title as nation-states, i.e. a set border with a primary group living there. Predominantly French in France, Germans in Germany etc. Nation can refer to a people, not just a country. Its arguable that the European countries were/are Ethno-States. Now the uncomfortable truth, the more diverse a nation is, the more ethnic conflict will erupt. It could be curtailed with a dominant culture that everyone is expected to adhere to (Japan is a good example of this, non-Japanese can live there, but there is a limit per year, you have to meet certain monetary requirements, and submit to Japanese culture, they aren't going to change their country for the benefit of non Japanese). As is observable in Europe, the violent crime is rising, and it coincided with the diversification of the continent with a systematic brake down in the family unit. A simple parable of the above: place a duck with a group of chickens, and the duck will assume its a chicken and be part of the flock. place another duck in the group, the ducks form their own group and attack the chickens. As for your last point, you can't govern/ police a nation of what someone may do at some point in time. The best you can do is have contingency plans for when something happens, i.e reactionary, because to a point, it is impossible to determine if someone may turn into a criminal. Not unless you have three psychic siblings who can lay in a pool and predict crimes, Minority Report style. At this point, what HeyYou states about not being able to relay on Leos 100% comes into play. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrayy Posted May 4, 2021 Author Share Posted May 4, 2021 The reason a licensing system, like we have with vehicles won't work, because weapon ownership is not a privilege, it is a civil liberty, its a whole different mindset then privileges. Ben Franklin said "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither". You do not understand the purpose of this debate. the problem is how weapon supporters and nra are still riding this dead horse with a privilege and "civil liberty" for weapon owners in the u.s..other nations are aready acting more "civilized" in the meantime and are not dependent of a liberty understanding of 1880 - even if you prefer it.civil liberty does not include "free weapons including automatic guns" per se. u.s. are just a special case due to some historic constitutional needs in ancient times and some misunderstandings and wrong understanding and interpretation of "liberty", influenced since then by lobbyists and nra. does "liberty" of gun owning individals like you count more than civil liberty of innocent u.s. civilians in a modern community ? i don't think so!there is already evidence that the u.s. "free weapons" liberty ist just a nonsensical old fashioned misinterpretation of what a modern community needs. the sad thing is it still costs innocent life for no reason but lobbyism and fantasy claims! the wordwide statstics are very cear. compare by yourself! and if you think you need to reinstall monarchy in the u.s. feel free to vote for it - it is the same nostalgic thinking like private weapon ownership is relevant for civil liberty in 2021. it may be relevant for you but not for the u.s. society as a whole. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 4, 2021 Share Posted May 4, 2021 The reason a licensing system, like we have with vehicles won't work, because weapon ownership is not a privilege, it is a civil liberty, its a whole different mindset then privileges. Ben Franklin said "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither". You do not understand the purpose of this debate. the problem is how weapon supporters and nra are still riding this dead horse with a privilege and "civil liberty" for weapon owners in the u.s..other nations are aready acting more "civilized" in the meantime and are not dependent of a liberty understanding of 1880 - even if you prefer it.civil liberty does not include "free weapons including automatic guns" per se. u.s. are just a special case due to some historic constitutional needs in ancient times and some misunderstandings and wrong understanding and interpretation of "liberty", influenced since then by lobbyists and nra. does "liberty" of gun owning individals like you count more than civil liberty of innocent u.s. civilians in a modern community ? i don't think so!there is already evidence that the u.s. "free weapons" liberty ist just a nonsensical old fashioned misinterpretation of what a modern community needs. the sad thing is it still costs innocent life for no reason but lobbyism and fantasy claims! the wordwide statstics are very cear. compare by yourself! and if you think you need to reinstall monarchy in the u.s. feel free to vote for it - it is the same nostalgic thinking like private weapon ownership is relevant for civil liberty in 2021. it may be relevant for you but not for the u.s. society as a whole. :wink: It is not merely a civil liberty. It is a constitutional right. And you still claim it is a 'misinterpretation', even though the supreme court has ruled otherwise. And you accuse me of spreading misinformation....... I would also point out, that owning of weapons in Europe has been pretty much banned since feudal times. The ruling elite didn't want the peasants having swords and such, so it would be more difficult for them to rise up, and overthrow their 'rightful masters'. That mindset still exists there.... American culture is a direct result of that. The founding fathers new that if the civilian populace were armed, they would have some alternatives should their government become to oppressive, thus, the 2nd amendment. Your viewpoint is heavily biased by your upbringing, and is reinforced by the liberal media that you seem to put so much faith in. To wit: You have your own bias, and nothing anyone says is going to change that. You fail to recognize that nothing you have suggested so far, would make any difference whatsoever. Gun violence isn't something that you are going to be able to just legislate away. Violence itself isn't something you are going to be able to legislate away. The gun is just a tool used by the perpetrators of said violence. The TOOL isn't the problem, the PERSON committing the violent act is the problem. Removing the tool will only prompt them to find another. Witness the stabbings recently in China. (as just one example....) Something else you may wanna look at: Earlier, I posted a link to a site showing the percentage of households with guns. So, take a look at the crime statistics for those states, vs. states with a lower percentage. You won't find any correlation there...... More guns does NOT equate to more violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrayy Posted May 5, 2021 Author Share Posted May 5, 2021 The reason a licensing system, like we have with vehicles won't work, because weapon ownership is not a privilege, it is a civil liberty, its a whole different mindset then privileges. Ben Franklin said "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither". You do not understand the purpose of this debate. the problem is how weapon supporters and nra are still riding this dead horse with a privilege and "civil liberty" for weapon owners in the u.s..other nations are aready acting more "civilized" in the meantime and are not dependent of a liberty understanding of 1880 - even if you prefer it.civil liberty does not include "free weapons including automatic guns" per se. u.s. are just a special case due to some historic constitutional needs in ancient times and some misunderstandings and wrong understanding and interpretation of "liberty", influenced sin...... It is not merely a civil liberty. It is a constitutional right. And you still claim it is a 'misinterpretation', even though the supreme court has ruled otherwise. And you accuse me of spreading misinformation.......Your viewpoint is heavily biased by your upbringing, and is reinforced by the liberal media that you seem to put so much faith in. To wit:my viewpoint is heavily biased ? joking ? seems you missed a debate of the u.s society in the last decades! are you serious to bring this stupid liberal media argument ? it does not fit!this is a debate of the whole u.s. society - yes, more and more biased - but not only white male republican supremacists votes count, don't forget that! i just want you to remember that spreading your personal opinions with some others here. i know your constitutional right and i know it was NOT an unanimous decision and we all know the reasons! and you seem to forget or ignore that time has changed since constitution was written.you just show in this debate that you are not open for a debate and that you seem to prefer to live like a member of the amish people but not in the 21th century! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 The reason a licensing system, like we have with vehicles won't work, because weapon ownership is not a privilege, it is a civil liberty, its a whole different mindset then privileges. Ben Franklin said "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither". You do not understand the purpose of this debate. the problem is how weapon supporters and nra are still riding this dead horse with a privilege and "civil liberty" for weapon owners in the u.s..other nations are aready acting more "civilized" in the meantime and are not dependent of a liberty understanding of 1880 - even if you prefer it.civil liberty does not include "free weapons including automatic guns" per se. u.s. are just a special case due to some historic constitutional needs in ancient times and some misunderstandings and wrong understanding and interpretation of "liberty", influenced sin...... It is not merely a civil liberty. It is a constitutional right. And you still claim it is a 'misinterpretation', even though the supreme court has ruled otherwise. And you accuse me of spreading misinformation.......Your viewpoint is heavily biased by your upbringing, and is reinforced by the liberal media that you seem to put so much faith in. To wit:my viewpoint is heavily biased ? joking ? seems you missed a debate of the u.s society in the last decades! are you serious to bring this stupid liberal media argument ? it does not fit!this is a debate of the whole u.s. society - yes, more and more biased - but not only white male republican supremacists votes count, don't forget that! i just want you to remember that spreading your personal opinions with some others here. i know your constitutional right and i know it was NOT an unanimous decision and we all know the reasons! and you seem to forget or ignore that time has changed since constitution was written.you just show in this debate that you are not open for a debate and that you seem to prefer to live like a member of the amish people but not in the 21th century! The Amish don't drive, and don't own guns. What is there to debate about? I have no desire to give up my constitutional rights. Why is that a surprise? Would you be willing to give up your right to free speech? Or how about your right to travel freely? And yes, YOU are biased. You grew up in a completely different culture than what we have here, so your views/expectations are quite different than the average american. And no, you are correct. The decision was not unanimous. That isn't a surprise either. I don't think you can name even ONE topic that EVERYONE agrees on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrayy Posted May 5, 2021 Author Share Posted May 5, 2021 so, for me your opinion is clear. you want to preserve the good old "wild west" feeling, covered as your understanding of personal liberty. repeating it 1000x does not help this debate. so if there is nothing new to contribute we can leave it by the number of 1000x. i'm sure and there is evidence that it is not secure and not a good idea to leave things in the current state with so many innocent victims due to uncontrolled weapon ownership with no purpose in so many u.s. households. the debates purpose is how to change the situation and not to question the need or blaming any kind of media. i don't know why people, who are able to read statistics and who know the situation, question the need of a change. it could be a long term - but live saving - project for the only "civilized" country with still a super high weapon related death rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 I do? Really? Wow. News to me. Also: "uncontrolled weapon ownership with no purpose", see, that right there is the biggest issue. You are operating under a mistaken impression. The only "uncontrolled weapon ownership" in the US is the criminal element. No law you could possibly think of would change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracinfields Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 Well seems French citizens are taking up arms to help secure their own city. https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/05/04/urban-violence-northern-paris-sees-frustrated-locals-attack-drug-dealers/ So much for European Civility. Oh and nearly forgot wasn't Hong Kong wishing they had the US 2nd amendment protection as well over the last couple of years to keep the corrupt CCP from taking over. How did that go, right CCP has pretty much crushed Hong Kong's Freedom. A visual aid for those that don't get history repeating itself, as I previously brought up in another post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Actually, the Nazis relaxed their gun laws somewhat, Jews, however, were NOT permitted to purchase/own firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts