The fact that you fixate on the AR-15 and you defend this misleading information means that you aren't actually interested in protecting children. If you actually cared, you would be proposing Russian-style gun laws. What I mean by that is that roughly two thirds of all gun crime in the US (including school shootings) is committed with handguns, whereas semi-automatic rifles are used in less than 1% of gun crime. Handguns are flat-out illegal for private citizens to own in the Russian Federation, but semi-automatic rifles are not (@apnigrich can fact-check me on this). I know of four school shootings that have taken place in Russia since 2009, and in every single one, the weapon used wasn't a rifle of any kind, it was a shotgun, which is the only type of weapon that a Russian citizen may own for the first five years of holding their firearm license. Everyone I've ever spoken to agrees that the five-year smoothbore restriction is the dumbest of Russia's gun laws, primarily because a shotgun does a hell of a lot more damage than a rifle.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm not fixated on the AR-15.
You said that knife crime is more of an issue than guns, and I was pointing out that someone armed with a high powered weapon is more dangerous than someone with a knife... and that knives don't seem to rank too highly in the stats of children's death in the United States.
I would absolutely support regulations on handguns in the USA. 100%! Completely agree. Making handguns illegal for private citizens in the USA sounds like an incredible step forward and I think lots of lives would be improved in the world's richest country if that were to happen.
OK. I have no intention of complying with your proposed regulation. What now? Do you believe your fears really justify using violence to coerce me into compliance? How does that make you the good guy in this scenario?
Just to be clear, I'm advocating for common sense gun regulations, not a ban on guns.
I'd love a ban on handguns, but I also know it would be extremely difficult and maybe impossible... so I think there are a number of important steps before it came to making handguns illegal:
1.) Require licensing/permits for firearms.
2.) Ensure all firearms are tracked and recorded.
3.) Impose gun safety requirements (lockers, separation of ammunition and firearms etc).
4.) Removal of firearms license/permits for other crimes.
Even these steps will be difficult, but I definitely think it's worthwhile to reduce the gun violence in the USA.
I see it similar to owning a car. You can drive around without a license and never be caught... but if you are caught then you risk fines and jail time. if you're firing guns on your property, hunting grounds or shooting ranges then you'd also expect to prove that you have the correct permits/licenses, or else risk fines or jail time.
Calling it "common sense" does not make it common sense.
A license or permit is, by definition, paying for permission to do something which is otherwise illegal. It does not guarantee competence, it just creates a revenue stream for government while creating a "crime" of mere non-compliance. Do you believe failure to comply with a regulation where no person or property suffered any injury really justifies fines, imprisonment, or death? That is the necessary and unavoidable consequence of your proposal.
One of the chief reasons to own firearms is to resist governments. A government which registers and traces firearms is antithetical to this purpose. Again, democide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Governments fundamentally do not represent the people as a whole or serve their interests.
Another reason to own a firearm is to defend yourself against two- or four-legged threats. Mandates for locks, separation of firearms and ammunition, etc. are antithetical, and serve only to again make "criminals" out of people who have committed no crime.
Revoking licenses for crimes sounds great until you see, again, how many acts and objects which are fundamentally not criminal are declared "crimes" by governments.
If people can drive safely without a license, and yet be criminals with its absence, where is the crime? I say the crime is with the law and its enforcement.
First principles: no victim? No crime. Simple as. You are advocating violence against people who have done nothing wrong because you imagine it will make you feel safer.
Drugs are illegal. Machine guns without a $200 tax stamp and registration are presently illegal in the US. Criminals manufacture or smuggle drugs anyway, and prohibition creates a violent black market which fuels a demand for guns. Blaming guns for gang violence is dumb.
Back to my initial point of press freedom, historically speaking, printing pamphlets and books without a government license was even illegal. People could face fines, imprisonment, or even execution for printing unapproved literature. How is that just? Sure, it was The Law, but legality doe snot define rationality or morality. You demand similar legislative threats against peaceful people and call it "common sense," when you are (knowingly or not) demanding violence against them. How can you justify this without appealing to emotion or some status quo in other countries?
@steampunkkaja, do you have anything to add?
Well, since we've so thoroughly covered both the moral and statistical angles to write a book on the subject, I think we should also mention the civic angle. Because the US is a constitutional republic, the legislature cannot simply pass a law to solve something. Look, I know that the government does unconstitutional stuff all the time, but the chief reason that gun control advocates will never get what they want is because it would set a dangerous precedent. Here, have another meme:
Outright repealing the 2nd Amendment (which a lot of people would love to see) would allow the government to repeal any of the other first ten. "Hate speech laws" for example, have also been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus, the government engages in constitutional "workarounds" with Silicon Valley corporations in order to manipulate the narrative because "private companies can do what they want," never mind that most big tech companies are publically-owned.
Furthermore, the massive surveillance state (think NSA spying scandal) was a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. Either citizens have a constitutionally-protected right to privacy or they don't.
Despite what the current dementia patient-in-chief has repeatedly said, Constitutional Amendments are absolute, and the statement that "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is just as invalid as the statement "you couldn't buy a cannon when the 2nd Amendment was written." The reason I bring that up is because far too many people who go after gun rights are also after free speech; maybe not in Australia, but it's certainly the case in every other country that has introduced stricter gun control in recent years; Switzerland, Canada, and Serbia are prefect examples.
The purpose of licenses and permits aren't to pay governments for access... the purpose is to prove competency. Lots of permits and licenses don't carry any cost.
You don't get a driver's license by paying the DMV, you have to pass a series of tests.
A gun permit shouldn't be provided to someone who knows how to handle a firearm safely.
Ideally you would want a licensed electrician, plumber, accountant, mechanic, etc to provide their expertise instead of some random who has no experience but is filled with unearned confidence they can do the job for you.
When flying interstate, I'm confident that the people in charge of the 787 are all appropriately licensed. Same if I need surgery.
Licenses aren't a revenue stream, they are the way that people can find an expert they need without needing to do all the background work themselves.
The way to resist governments isn't with firearms - it's with collective action. Physically fighting the entire US military will just end in lots and lots of death. Governments are there to represent you and your wishes, if they're not doing that then the people need to collectively change that. Shooting someone isn't productive, it takes organizing and protesting and getting representatives in that will look after your interests to make actual meaningful change.
There is a whole ecosystem in the United States to keep people divided, to keep people scared... fearful of other groups or anyone different, fearful of the government, fearful of criminals, etc... all to keep people in the US buying more and more weapons and accessories. It's obviously a huge business and extremely profitable, especially since fear also helps get clicks and views too. Keeping people divided is extremely profitable for so many reasons... but the solution to that is for people to unite and work together. A united people is an unstoppable force.
I agree with competency. Why do you believe a government monopoly is the best, or even only, way to train people? You clearly have zero experience with firearm culture in the US, just distorted media representations. What if trade unions offered guarantees for the work of union members instead of outsourcing to governments and insurance corporations? You appeal to the status quo and just assume it is right and proper without any examination.
I am not advocating civil war. I am advocating the same deterrence for the individual against trespassers you believe threat of legal action from government will impose on people who fail to comply. You, however, are advocating for open war against non-criminals because you believe in arbitrary laws enforced by men with guns.
People like you demanding government violence against peaceful people are divisive. However, unity is not inherently proper. Progress always comes through deviation from the norm, and appeals to popularity and consensus are irrational.
If I refuse to obey new laws, but do not violate the life, liberty, or property of others, how am I a criminal, and how is violence against me justified? Just answer that simple question.