Guns
- Thread starter wizard
- Start date
- Status
This one's a pickle tickler. I disagree with completely eliminating guns, but I think gun control could work if we did it... right. My suggestions?
This entire list is something I conjured up two years ago and made some minor changes to on a word document, so it's pretty short. Now this prolly doesn't cover everything, but it's a start.
Since I'm more in the left wing circles I'm gonna say some extra things that I've heard from comrades of mine.
Point one: "The revolution should be armed."
Yeah... but conservatives/rightwingers/whatever feel the same way about their idea of a revolution, and either side is always going to be quashed by the military or police - citizens do not have the firepower capable of contesting them.
Point two: "Marginalized people should own guns for self-defense."
Thing is, it?s been shown like repeatedly that "self defense" arguments hold no water - yes, even among marginalized groups, the presence of a gun heightens abuse and murder likelihood, not prevents it. But marginalized groups - particularly people of color, particularly black people - have to also deal with the fact gun rights don?t work the same for them; whether "self defense" is determined depends heavily on what privileges you hold (or don?t hold), so you know, it?s a nice idea on paper, but it doesn?t work out in the real world, where marginalized people aren?t allowed to defend themselves no matter what laws exist that supposedly protect that right.
Just for an example out of many.
Point three: "It's dangerous for the police and the military to be the only people with access to guns."
This almost makes the suggestion that we should let regular citizens have literally everything the police and military uses, and I?m not sure how anyone can think that sounds like a great idea. I agree that the police and the military are out of control, but I dunno if anyone's ever noticed, but civil war and violent, hostile takeover isn?t really a solution for crap. Maybe we forgot this while being cushioned in our privileges here in US while other countries have lived in a state of war for decades - war?s not pretty or heroic, what we?ve seen so far in hate crime statistics and bigoted rallies is nothing compared to war.
---
I'm assuming a lot of this is coming around via tankies and stuff because of this one Marx quote: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." But that's another story.
Buuuut bottom line, I think gun control isn?t simple and straightforward like many assume it to be. This should be paid more attention to.
- Have an intense background and criminal background check, and anything that connects to violent history/criminal record automatically disqualifies you unless you appeal.
- Make getting a gun/gun permit more like how one would get a driver?s license, which means:
- a permit to learn about it
- course includes an exam with 18 or more questions on the policies, laws, and the rest of the stuff on guns and
gun ownership
- if you get more than 8-10 questions incorrect, you have to take it again
- thirty hours of practical experience at a gun range with a licensed and experienced teacher
- Must take a five hour class on the dangers of guns and how to use them safely, which will then give you a certificate that grants you to take the practical exam and the certificate lasts for about one year. If you don?t gain the license within the allotted year, you must retake the class.
- A practical exam with a licensed instructor who will grade you on various skills on use. If you pass you may be granted a permit on the weapon of your choice, the exams may differ on the type of firearm you want.
- Follow the Japanese model where you must have two gun safes in different areas of the house, one to store the gun and one to store the bullets and you must provide the police with information on where those safes are. (They seem to have a good model, so far.)
- No concealed carry, and only handguns may be allowed to be out in public.
- If one is transporting a weapon, it must be in the trunk of a vehicle, in a bag or type of case, safety on and unloaded, and may not leave the vehicle until the user is at the destination.
- If someone's a hunter or some other gun hobbyist that requires a functional weapon other than a handgun, then the gun must stay on the premises, whether that is a gun range or some facility.
- If you live in a rural area where police and people are few and far between, something akin to a deer hunting rifle should provide plenty of protection from predators and poachers, you still have to follow the steps above.
This entire list is something I conjured up two years ago and made some minor changes to on a word document, so it's pretty short. Now this prolly doesn't cover everything, but it's a start.
Since I'm more in the left wing circles I'm gonna say some extra things that I've heard from comrades of mine.
Point one: "The revolution should be armed."
Yeah... but conservatives/rightwingers/whatever feel the same way about their idea of a revolution, and either side is always going to be quashed by the military or police - citizens do not have the firepower capable of contesting them.
Point two: "Marginalized people should own guns for self-defense."
Thing is, it?s been shown like repeatedly that "self defense" arguments hold no water - yes, even among marginalized groups, the presence of a gun heightens abuse and murder likelihood, not prevents it. But marginalized groups - particularly people of color, particularly black people - have to also deal with the fact gun rights don?t work the same for them; whether "self defense" is determined depends heavily on what privileges you hold (or don?t hold), so you know, it?s a nice idea on paper, but it doesn?t work out in the real world, where marginalized people aren?t allowed to defend themselves no matter what laws exist that supposedly protect that right.
Just for an example out of many.
Point three: "It's dangerous for the police and the military to be the only people with access to guns."
This almost makes the suggestion that we should let regular citizens have literally everything the police and military uses, and I?m not sure how anyone can think that sounds like a great idea. I agree that the police and the military are out of control, but I dunno if anyone's ever noticed, but civil war and violent, hostile takeover isn?t really a solution for crap. Maybe we forgot this while being cushioned in our privileges here in US while other countries have lived in a state of war for decades - war?s not pretty or heroic, what we?ve seen so far in hate crime statistics and bigoted rallies is nothing compared to war.
---
I'm assuming a lot of this is coming around via tankies and stuff because of this one Marx quote: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." But that's another story.
Buuuut bottom line, I think gun control isn?t simple and straightforward like many assume it to be. This should be paid more attention to.
These are two interesting ones
Restrictions for mentally ill
Restrictions for suicidal people
You're essentially making the mentally ill a 'predator' class, which is absolutely ridiculous. What's considered mental illness, is autism a mental illness? Do we take away a means of protection from vulnerable people? That's absolutely ridiculous.
The suicide one is another point, people who feel suicidal do not tell anyone, because when they do they are shoved into a psych ward - which will make them more suicidal 9/10. Putting more and more limits on people who feel suicidal and are only looking for help, will only create more suicides.
It's not such a straight forward issue that you can just flip a switch on it. I personally dislike guns, but making them illegal means only criminals will have them - and is that any better? It certainly won't help places like Chicago that's for sure. And then do you let the police have guns but not civilians? it just opens up the power divide even more.
Why don't people look at who is holding the gun, and why? Can mental health reform help? Can we get to a point where help is accessible for people for free before they commit a crime? America has bigger issues than Guns. Banning guns is akin to putting a bandaid on a leukemia patient and saying the problem is fixed.
Restrictions for mentally ill
Restrictions for suicidal people
You're essentially making the mentally ill a 'predator' class, which is absolutely ridiculous. What's considered mental illness, is autism a mental illness? Do we take away a means of protection from vulnerable people? That's absolutely ridiculous.
The suicide one is another point, people who feel suicidal do not tell anyone, because when they do they are shoved into a psych ward - which will make them more suicidal 9/10. Putting more and more limits on people who feel suicidal and are only looking for help, will only create more suicides.
It's not such a straight forward issue that you can just flip a switch on it. I personally dislike guns, but making them illegal means only criminals will have them - and is that any better? It certainly won't help places like Chicago that's for sure. And then do you let the police have guns but not civilians? it just opens up the power divide even more.
Why don't people look at who is holding the gun, and why? Can mental health reform help? Can we get to a point where help is accessible for people for free before they commit a crime? America has bigger issues than Guns. Banning guns is akin to putting a bandaid on a leukemia patient and saying the problem is fixed.
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
i agree w the first part a lot lol bc like... if we could be like "yo ok so everyone who will hurt other people and do illegal things w a gun arent allowed to get a gun" then Great Cool Yeah, but theres no way of knowing who's going to do what, and the risk factors everyone is talking abt arent that Great and for a big part based on stereotypes and misconceptions
"People would still kill people if guns were banned"
Yeah try killing 50 people with a knife, Steve.
"Guns protect ppl
"
Yeah ok let's fight fire with fire. More guns will definitely decrease violence, accidents, and suicides!
"It's in the Constitution and if u wanna ban guns u can't cuz this is America lol"
This is open to interpretation, as the second amendment was created to allow Americans to form militias to protect themselves, though u can argue on that one all day.
"Ppl are still gonna do it anyway lol"
Yeah but FAR LESS people, do you want to save MORE innocent lives??
I don't understand how anyone can not understand the purpose and practicality of gun control, and obviously have not witnessed first hand the damage and horror gun accidents entail.
Yeah try killing 50 people with a knife, Steve.
"Guns protect ppl
"Yeah ok let's fight fire with fire. More guns will definitely decrease violence, accidents, and suicides!
"It's in the Constitution and if u wanna ban guns u can't cuz this is America lol"
This is open to interpretation, as the second amendment was created to allow Americans to form militias to protect themselves, though u can argue on that one all day.
"Ppl are still gonna do it anyway lol"
Yeah but FAR LESS people, do you want to save MORE innocent lives??
I don't understand how anyone can not understand the purpose and practicality of gun control, and obviously have not witnessed first hand the damage and horror gun accidents entail.
I personally believe that a crime won't be committed if a would be criminal thinks their victim/victims might be armed.
Hence I think less gun control is needed rather than more.
If someone in the orlando club shooting had a concealed permit, they would've shot the guy dead.
Hence I think less gun control is needed rather than more.
If someone in the orlando club shooting had a concealed permit, they would've shot the guy dead.
I think someone's been watching too much telly.
Exactly this. People against banning guns always say it won't stop shootings but then why are there so little shootings in places that do have stricter gun control than in the USA where in most states, people can carry guns on them while they go shopping.
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
that logic kinda sucks my dude
why would fewer people be murdered with guns if everyone has a gun
Nightmares
(￣。￣)～ｚｚｚ
wot
then how do people in countries without guns protect themselves them? lmfao
even if the supposed "good" person has a gun, the "bad" person could just as easily have one too... you can defend yourself more easily, but you can be killed more easily...rite
idk anything about guns though becAUSE I'M SHELTERED
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
there are other ways to protect yourself that dont involve having a weapon. it's not normal at all to be so used to violence and crime that you think someone has lived a very sheltered life if they think owning a gun for "protection" is weird.
whatever's going on where you're living.... sorry buddy but you have other problems that can't be solved by just pushing in more guns.
Nightmares
(￣。￣)～ｚｚｚ
You explained this better than me, thanks lmao
-Apples-
“Assorted” Collector
That’s because guns didn’t live up in their culture as much as it did here. America had so many guns that even banning them isn’t going to stop future shootings.
Wanna know something interesting? Compared to the rest of the developed world, America is vastly different based on stuff. Examples include, but not limited to:
- Citizens have the right to own a gun. In places like Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, gun control is very loose.
- We are the only country to elect our leaders through the electoral college. The rest of the world uses popular vote to elect a leader.
- We primarily use the imperial measurement system. We also write date format as Month, Day, Year.
- Drugs like marijuana and cocaine are illegal in America. Drinking age is 21 (which is high compared to the developed world).
- We still have the federal death penalty.
- Despite Obamacare in our structure, we still don’t have a national healthcare system like Canada or UK has.
- Religion plays a larger role than in the rest of the developed world.
Yeah, America remains different as of now, and it’s like this for a reason. Some of the stuff is hard to adapt because of the Constitution. Although it says that it’s not a static document, some core stuff like the Bill of Rights were set in stone at the beginning, and some of the stuff the rest of the world follows isn’t compatible with ours.
I have conflicting views. On one side, I think they should be banned, as many seemingly innocent people have gone and done horrible things with them. On the other hand, I would like to be able to protect myself from home invaders.
"BUT it is in the constitution!"
Uhhh, please. Back in the 1700s, guns fired one shot per minute. Pretty outdated if you ask me.
"BUT it is in the constitution!"
Uhhh, please. Back in the 1700s, guns fired one shot per minute. Pretty outdated if you ask me.
What about if someone much bigger and stronger than you attacks you? What other alternative self defense means can guarantee you as much of a chance of leaving a dangerous situation safely as a firearm? I'm 5"2' and I weigh 120 lbs. If someone that's 6" tall that weights 180 lbs were to attack me, that's a fight I'd honestly probably lose even after a self defense class. And, actually, I'm not used to violence. I live in a pretty safe neighborhood full of old people and kids. I've never been attacked, mugged or anything like that and most of the people I know haven't been, either.
Maybe I haven't made this clear, but I don't think guns should be your way of solving conflict, getting back at people you're pissed off at, etc. I consider them to be the solution only to the absolute worst case scenario where an individual is in danger of losing their life to another person, or being seriously harmed by them, or to a situation where you're protecting another person from being killed or seriously harmed. Like I said, I have guns, but I don't ever want to have to use them on a person. The worst case scenario actually happening isn't likely at all, but I don't think that should play a part in whether or not you decide to be prepared for it.
It's the same reasoning behind why, if I go camping or backpacking, I'll take a mylar foil blanket (they trap 90% and up of all the body heat you release), a survival straw (filters particulates and pathogenic bacteria out of natural water sources), clothes for hot, cold, dry and damp weather, a guide for edible wild plants, and a survival tin (full of duct tape, a tiny utility knife, antibiotics, fever reducer, anti diarrhea medication, and a few other things). It's not likely at all that I'd be stranded in the wilderness, but why risk it?
Last edited:
Wrong.
Wrong again.
Need I continue?
That was about 30 seconds of research. The fact that you think the Founding Fathers didn't know anything about how technology advanced is almost comical, but mostly disappointing.
I guess free speech should only apply to newspapers, pen and paper, and soapboxes in your infinite wisdom, because the internet, cell phones, and laptops didn't exist back then.
The thing that baffles me is that Americans don't need to ban guns. Although I'm all for there being no firearms across the globe, simply adding restrictions (Like for driving a car) would lessen the amount of people who shouldn't own a gun.
It undoubtedly will not solve the problem but it will reduce a fair amount of guns being in the wrong hands. Yes people will find other illegal means to obtain firearms and yes there will still be crime BUT even if one life is saved from a tighter restriction is that not worth it at all?
Surely this is a win win right? People who want to own guns (self defense and hunting/recreation) and legally can and those who shouldn't own guns can't obtain them as easily.
The only thing blocking this almost perfect improvement is the sub-human people who are indoctrinated by old documents and national pride who think having their heads up their own a@# is worth a couple hundred school children being shot.
P.s. I adore turtles ^-^
It undoubtedly will not solve the problem but it will reduce a fair amount of guns being in the wrong hands. Yes people will find other illegal means to obtain firearms and yes there will still be crime BUT even if one life is saved from a tighter restriction is that not worth it at all?
Surely this is a win win right? People who want to own guns (self defense and hunting/recreation) and legally can and those who shouldn't own guns can't obtain them as easily.
The only thing blocking this almost perfect improvement is the sub-human people who are indoctrinated by old documents and national pride who think having their heads up their own a@# is worth a couple hundred school children being shot.
P.s. I adore turtles ^-^
Last edited:
-Apples-
“Assorted” Collector
Option #8 is still the only correct option.
But in all seriousness, I am against banning guns completely. However, we do need at least restrictions on guns. Having little or no restrictions is quite dangerous, but banning them completely is not going to stop what people push for gun control on. I am easily convinced that killing people by swinging with a baseball bat can kill just as many people as a shooting in the same amount of time. That is, if you're good enough at quick close-combat attacks. With that, you can only kill one at a time, but more than two within five seconds. And that's how you can kill just as many a gun can kill in a short period of time, and in a more cruel way than decapitating people. I was even told that killing someone with a baseball bat is one of the cruelest things you can do. But this may happen if we put an absolute ban on guns. Also, guns aren't too effective either. Lot of bad shots in a shooting, hence why we have injuries and not just fatalities. But we'll need more than just background checks. I don't understand the big deal with bump stocks or different type of bullets, but I can see the problem with semi-automatic weapons.
Now here's one question that ponders me. If liberals push for stricter gun laws after every shooting, why didn't they push for stricter gun laws after the 2017 Congressional Baseball Shooting when the perpetrator was targeting Republican congressmen in a shooting?
But in all seriousness, I am against banning guns completely. However, we do need at least restrictions on guns. Having little or no restrictions is quite dangerous, but banning them completely is not going to stop what people push for gun control on. I am easily convinced that killing people by swinging with a baseball bat can kill just as many people as a shooting in the same amount of time. That is, if you're good enough at quick close-combat attacks. With that, you can only kill one at a time, but more than two within five seconds. And that's how you can kill just as many a gun can kill in a short period of time, and in a more cruel way than decapitating people. I was even told that killing someone with a baseball bat is one of the cruelest things you can do. But this may happen if we put an absolute ban on guns. Also, guns aren't too effective either. Lot of bad shots in a shooting, hence why we have injuries and not just fatalities. But we'll need more than just background checks. I don't understand the big deal with bump stocks or different type of bullets, but I can see the problem with semi-automatic weapons.
Now here's one question that ponders me. If liberals push for stricter gun laws after every shooting, why didn't they push for stricter gun laws after the 2017 Congressional Baseball Shooting when the perpetrator was targeting Republican congressmen in a shooting?
You make good points about restricting firearms, but you lose all credibility when you say that a baseball is as effective as a gun at mass slaughter...
One is designed for killing things and the other hits a ball a distance away. If you've got a crowd of 50 people running away from someone with a bat, that person would need a moderate fitness level to catch up to some and at the same time, swing the bat with enough force and accuracy to injure someone.
A gun on the other hand is point and squeeze, even if a kill shot isn't landed you still deal a great amount of damage ripping veins and other organs.
- Status
