The Futile Attempt of Gun Bans

Peace through superior firepower.

[quote]tom63 wrote:

I like guns. Other people like other things. Fat asses eating at fast food are more draining on this country’s resources than me owning a firearm.[/quote]

Well said.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I think gun control is necessary.

Good point. What other effective way is there to keep the common man, the innocent man, from owning something that he can use for self protection and as a deterrent against tyranny? Gun control rulz! Let’s face it, if we criminalize the possession of guns by criminals we can be assured they won’t have access to them, right? And if we de-arm the general populace then we can be assured that only government officials and the well connected can have them and that would certainly make us safer. It’s a no brainer!

Say like a minimum IQ to handle and own firearms.

Excellent idea! A forced national IQ test should do the trick. We could/should also use that test to determine car ownership, suffrage, a license to have children, ability to buy junk food at the grocery or convenience store, alcohol and marijuana possession, etc.

For instance if one of the questions on the National Are You Worthy Test posited the idea that say…gun control by strong centralized powers has always led to greater freedom and quality of life whenever and wherever it has been implemented…and the tested person answered, “Yes” then that would rightfully disqualify that person from ever possessing and using alcohol and Mary Jane or driving a car because c’mon now…anyone stupid enough to answer in the affirmative to that question is definitely too stupid to drive or smoke pot or vote.

That said, I don’t know much about the process to get a firearms license in the USA.

How does it work?

An American possesses said “license” by virtue of citizenship and no felony convictions in most jurisdictions.

Concealed carry permits are also now somewhat easily available by non-felons in most states. Incidentally in almost every case where CCW laws have been passed violent crime has noticeably fallen.

It’s really weird that where more folks (including women and the elderly) live in a society where they have an effective and relatively cheap method of self protection that criminals are less inclined to to inflict violence on them, isn’t it? In fact, it’s fuckin uncanny!

[/quote]

Actually an IQ test for driving and voting doesnâ??t sound like a bad idea. I also donâ??t like the driving comparison people make, because there is no statement in the constitution about driving rights. If anything arms should be more guaranteed than driving privileges.

It isnâ??t hard to get a carry permit, however, the problem is that it can be very expensive. No other basic right (speech, press, religion) is taxed that way. Regulation and licensing or not, I donâ??t think the individual should have to pay for it. At minimum not any more than the licensing directly costs.

Wouldn’t an intelligence test be discriminatory against stupid people? Possibly even race biased?

[quote]tom63 wrote:
And what does banning abortion have to do with gun control? Let’s see, me shooting bad guy and protecting the innocent and ending an innocent life. What’s the problem here?[/quote]

I see you missed the whole point of a ban being ineffective when the demand is there. It just shows that these people don’t care what works or what is logical, just that the things they like are not banned, and the things they don’t are.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yet, these same conservatives will, with a straight face, talk of the need to ban abortion.

I wonder if the Bengals will make it to the Super Bowl this year as I think this too has something to do with gun control.[/quote]

I’m going to quote one of my heroes, Foghorn Leghorn:

“You’re built too low, son, the fast ones go over your head!”

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
And what does banning abortion have to do with gun control? Let’s see, me shooting bad guy and protecting the innocent and ending an innocent life. What’s the problem here?

I see you missed the whole point of a ban being ineffective when the demand is there. It just shows that these people don’t care what works or what is logical, just that the things they like are not banned, and the things they don’t are.

[/quote]

If you are going to make that argument, you can apply it to all illegal activities. People are going to murder whether it’s illegal or not. We should just make it all legal.

People are going to steal regardless of law. Lets legalize and regulate theft too. Do you see how that logic doesn’t really apply to certain sectors?

Market forces shouldn’t dictate the legality of human rights no matter what side you are on.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Stupid laws were meant to be broken.

I would not even consider the attempt to ban the ownership of guns – any type of gun – legitimate.

Go ahead, you stupid lemmings, give away your guns and just bow and pray to your beloved leaders for protection.

I promise I won’t laugh too hard when your bowing and praying turns into begging and cowering.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
And what does banning abortion have to do with gun control? Let’s see, me shooting bad guy and protecting the innocent and ending an innocent life. What’s the problem here?

I see you missed the whole point of a ban being ineffective when the demand is there. It just shows that these people don’t care what works or what is logical, just that the things they like are not banned, and the things they don’t are.

If you are going to make that argument, you can apply it to all illegal activities. People are going to murder whether it’s illegal or not. We should just make it all legal.

People are going to steal regardless of law. Lets legalize and regulate theft too. Do you see how that logic doesn’t really apply to certain sectors?

Market forces shouldn’t dictate the legality of human rights no matter what side you are on.
[/quote]

Well said.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Stupid laws were meant to be broken.

I would not even consider the attempt to ban the ownership of guns – any type of gun – legitimate.

Go ahead, you stupid lemmings, give away your guns and just bow and pray to your beloved leaders for protection.

I promise I won’t laugh too hard when your bowing and praying turns into begging and cowering.[/quote]

oh please protect me all powerful lifty:)

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
And what does banning abortion have to do with gun control? Let’s see, me shooting bad guy and protecting the innocent and ending an innocent life. What’s the problem here?

I see you missed the whole point of a ban being ineffective when the demand is there. It just shows that these people don’t care what works or what is logical, just that the things they like are not banned, and the things they don’t are.

[/quote]

“These people”? Whatchew talkin’ 'bout Willis? It’s not about banning things we like or don’t like. Self defense is a basic human right. That’s the beginning and the end of the logical argument.

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
And what does banning abortion have to do with gun control? Let’s see, me shooting bad guy and protecting the innocent and ending an innocent life. What’s the problem here?

I see you missed the whole point of a ban being ineffective when the demand is there. It just shows that these people don’t care what works or what is logical, just that the things they like are not banned, and the things they don’t are.

“These people”? Whatchew talkin’ 'bout Willis? It’s not about banning things we like or don’t like. Self defense is a basic human right. That’s the beginning and the end of the logical argument.

[/quote]

I believe self defense is an inalienable right, and in my post I was trying to [point out some people don’t like guns so they want to ban them. Many people do not own guns, do not consider their personal safety important, so they don’t care if you talk about banning guns.

But they would piss and moan about banning fast food, or some other thing, act, opr even speech. but many things we talk about banning our not as important as the right to defend yourself, your family and I believe your property. I’m in the view of you want to take my stuff, I can use lethal force to stop you. I know I can’t necessarily in all circumstances, but I think it should be the law.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually an IQ test for driving and voting doesnâ??t sound like a bad idea.
[/quote]

Actually the above statement is stupid and obviously coming from some low IQ mind.
Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Franco, Dr. Josef Mengele…those mass murderers were all stupid people with low IQ? That student from South Korea who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech university was afflicted with a low IQ? All those drunk people involved in saturday-night car crash are all low-IQ morons?
Unfortunately stupid, irresponsible and dangerous behaviors certainly aren’t the monopoly of people with low IQ. Everyday I witness stupid behaviors and faulty decision making from so called “clever people”…and btw IQ test isn’t a very reliable tool to determine the ability of the individual to make rational and reasonable decision in real life situation.

Push I’m not talking about criminals, I’m talking about otherwise productive member of society that would misuse a firearm if they had ready access like they do in the USA. Here you need:

  1. A clean record
  2. A permit
  3. Patience. There is a waiting period while they do a background check when you buy from anywhere.

Also, I’m not sure but I think you need to be a practicing member of a registered gun club. Small sacrifice, but if your family’s safety is SOOOO important to you, I’m sure it wouldn’t be a big deal. All it takes is easy access for a firearm to end up in the wrong hands, and you seem to forget this.

Because you are undoubtedly in a red rage at this point, I’ll point this out again - I’m not suggesting a blanket ban, just a way of making them less available to the people that might be tempted to do some damage.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
And what does banning abortion have to do with gun control? Let’s see, me shooting bad guy and protecting the innocent and ending an innocent life. What’s the problem here?

I see you missed the whole point of a ban being ineffective when the demand is there. It just shows that these people don’t care what works or what is logical, just that the things they like are not banned, and the things they don’t are.

Slow down chief, I would never ban them. You should re-read some of the posts here.

“These people”? Whatchew talkin’ 'bout Willis? It’s not about banning things we like or don’t like. Self defense is a basic human right. That’s the beginning and the end of the logical argument.

I believe self defense is an inalienable right, and in my post I was trying to [point out some people don’t like guns so they want to ban them. Many people do not own guns, do not consider their personal safety important, so they don’t care if you talk about banning guns.

But they would piss and moan about banning fast food, or some other thing, act, opr even speech. but many things we talk about banning our not as important as the right to defend yourself, your family and I believe your property. I’m in the view of you want to take my stuff, I can use lethal force to stop you. I know I can’t necessarily in all circumstances, but I think it should be the law.[/quote]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Push I’m not talking about criminals, I’m talking about otherwise productive member of society that would misuse a firearm if they had ready access like they do in the USA. Here you need:

  1. A clean record
  2. A permit
  3. Patience. There is a waiting period while they do a background check when you buy from anywhere.

Also, I’m not sure but I think you need to be a practicing member of a registered gun club. Small sacrifice, but if your family’s safety is SOOOO important to you, I’m sure it wouldn’t be a big deal. All it takes is easy access for a firearm to end up in the wrong hands, and you seem to forget this.

Because you are undoubtedly in a red rage at this point, I’ll point this out again - I’m not suggesting a blanket ban, just a way of making them less available to the people that might be tempted to do some damage.[/quote]

Otherwise productive members of society that might be tempted to do damage. I’m sensing a disconnect between the two. Assuming that such a group exists, you’re suggesting that we restrict the rights of the rest of the population in order to limit the potential damage. Self defense is a basic human right. Any restriction of that right requires a compelling governmental interest, the restriction must be narrowly tailored, and the law must be the least restrictive means.

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Push I’m not talking about criminals, I’m talking about otherwise productive member of society that would misuse a firearm if they had ready access like they do in the USA. Here you need:

  1. A clean record
  2. A permit
  3. Patience. There is a waiting period while they do a background check when you buy from anywhere.

Also, I’m not sure but I think you need to be a practicing member of a registered gun club. Small sacrifice, but if your family’s safety is SOOOO important to you, I’m sure it wouldn’t be a big deal. All it takes is easy access for a firearm to end up in the wrong hands, and you seem to forget this.

Because you are undoubtedly in a red rage at this point, I’ll point this out again - I’m not suggesting a blanket ban, just a way of making them less available to the people that might be tempted to do some damage.

Otherwise productive members of society that might be tempted to do damage. I’m sensing a disconnect between the two. Assuming that such a group exists, you’re suggesting that we restrict the rights of the rest of the population in order to limit the potential damage. Self defense is a basic human right. Any restriction of that right requires a compelling governmental interest, the restriction must be narrowly tailored, and the law must be the least restrictive means.[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Because you are undoubtedly in a red rage at this point, I’ll point this out again - I’m not suggesting a blanket ban, just a way of making them less available to the people that might be tempted to do some damage.[/quote]

Your arguments are straw men, unfounded, and/or poorly reasoned. Maybe complete rule of the masses works for NZ, but in the spirit of the founding of the US, most choose to believe in responsibility of the individual. There are laws in place that deal with the irresponsible. Your points have been raised and refuted for a couple hundred years now in US case law.

There are already many checks, like detailed background checks, criminal checks, age restrictions, and waiting periods in place. Not quite sure what else you’re looking for?

Incidentally, IQ tests have little to do with competence in any context. Most gun crimes happen with weapons that are already in population illegally used by those who, by law, shouldn’t have the guns anyway. In other words, the ‘gun laws’ in place are being broken or enforced poorly.

I would rather the firearms be available, but the punishment for misuse be much more severe.

There are purchase restrictions, carry restriction, use restrictions, weapons type restrictions, ammo restrictions, age restrictions, information/notification restrictions, concealment restrictions, and many others IN PLACE. The next step in “gun control” is complete bans and confiscation, which, is just not palatable to the vast, vast majority of law abiding firearms owners.

re: Gun clubs. I’m a member of 3 of them. Trust me, there are idiots there, too. Membership does little for competence. They get weeded out pretty quickly.

There was a time when most schools had ‘shooting teams’ or clubs (many in my state still do). These kids are taught respect, responsibility, correct use of, and training in how to properly and safely use, store, carry, and maintain firearms. Maine has one of the highest firearms ownerships per capita in the nation, one of the lowest general crime and gun crime numbers in the nation, and some of the least restrictive laws in the country.

From our State Constitution: "Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

One last point to keep in mind. “Gun crime statistics” are biased on the side of inclusion. What that means is that when you hear/read “gun related crime” or “gun involved”, that simply means that a gun was present where a crime (of any severity) has taken place.

Think of this: You are returning from a day at the gun club where all you did was ‘sight in’ your firearm for hunting season. The gun is in a case, with safety, unloaded, in the back seat out of reach. You are pulled over for having an expired vehicle registration (punishable by fine and sometimes court appearance). When the officer approaches the car to ticket you, he notices the gun case and asks you if a weapon is in the vehicle. You say “Yes, I was just returning from the gun club…”.

Your offense, in the police log is logged as “gun related”. I know this for fact as I’ve contracted with several state DOT’s designing and maintaining “Accident Records” databases as required by Federal Law (all DOT’s must report accident records among other things to the Feds). These systems work directly with public saftey records and police reports. I estimate you could probably subtract a quarter to a third of reported “Gun related” crimes because they are reported from circumstances such as these.