Poll of the Day > But there is no gun problem in the States

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ozmose posted...

The end result for most of them would be millions of law abiding people being turned into felons with the stroke of a pen, or turning over billions of dollars in personal property. Are you really surprised people are opposed to that?

Yeah.

Speaking personally, if my hobby was collecting deadly weapons, and those weapons were being used to kill large numbers of innocent people in public across the country every single day, I would be fine with giving up the most unnecessarily dangerous among my collection, in compliance with stronger safety regulations. At most I'd like a small reimbursement.

Must be Ozmose because I see a page with no posts on it.

keyblader1985 posted...

At most I'd like a small reimbursement.

And, in practice, it's not uncommon for newly-implemented gun control measures that require the destruction of certain guns that people already own to include a buyback program.

adjl posted...

And, in practice, it's not uncommon for newly-implemented gun control measures that require the destruction of certain guns that people already own to include a buyback program.

of course, Australia's was rather unfair...

"Yo, I gotta sellback my Mac to the gov, I paid $12k for this thing but it's for a good cause"

*gets $50*

"DANGIT"

BlackScythe0 posted...

Must be Ozmose because I see a page with no posts on it.

What a pathetic snowflake.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Must be Ozmose because I see a page with no posts on it.

Zareth posted...

What a pathetic snowflake.

Correct, on both accounts

keyblader1985 posted...

Yeah.

Speaking personally, if my hobby was collecting deadly weapons, and those weapons were being used to kill large numbers of innocent people in public across the country every single day, I would be fine with giving up the most unnecessarily dangerous among my collection, in compliance with stronger safety regulations. At most I'd like a small reimbursement.

I don't own a lot of guns, but what I have is very high end. If I were to break even, It would cost them in the ballpark of $40,000-$50,000. Anyone here willing to hand over that much for doing absolutely nothing wrong? How about you foot the cost? I don't want them banned, you do. It's only fair that you pay for it.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Zareth posted...

Correct, on both accounts

Passing on insults from the hive mind? Real classy. Do i need to put you on time out with the rest of the children?

Damn. Ozmose is fuckin weird.

Ozmose posted...

Do i need to put you on time out with the rest of the children?

I'd wear making you tuck tail and run to hide my big scary posts behind the good ol' block function like a badge of honor, sir

But before you push the button, why didn't you respond to adjl or Grendel? Both made salient points in direct response to you.

Cacciato posted...

Damn. Ozmose is fuckin weird.

Dude has a weird gimmick fer sure. Act like they know better than other posters while simultaneously running scared from half of the discussion

Ozmose posted...

for doing absolutely nothing wrong?

What steps are you taking to ensure that they are never used to commit crimes?

He calls it time out when he blocks people because they don't let him feel like he win the argument?

Like he literally blocked me because I kept responding to him everytime he tried to say something bizarre.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Dude has a weird gimmick fer sure. Act like they know better than other posters while simultaneously running scared from half of the discussion

Also known as the Bill O'reilly approach to "conversation." Act like you are tough shit and know all, silence the dissenters no matter how good or factual their point, claim victory like you had the last word in whatever matter. Problem is, Oz doesn't have a source of income off these outlandish or inaccurate posts.

adjl posted...

What steps are you taking to ensure that they are never used to commit crimes?

Pretty simple. Most of them sit in a 600lb safe unless they're going to the range with me. The only one that stays out is my carry gun. They're never unattended.

Now answer my question, please:

Grendel_Prime posted...

The bans are largely for bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, trigger adapters, fully automatic firearms... You have some (Beto O'Rourke, for example) calling for the ban of certain types of firearm (AR-15). Very few outside of the extreme fringe are calling for an outright wholesale ban on firearms.

Considering this, and addressing your point about "actual" give-and-take, where is the give from 2A defenders?

so should we mandate safe ownership for every gun owner and prosecute if guns are ever left unattended?

Entity13 posted...

Also known as the Bill O'reilly approach to "conversation." Act like you are tough shit and know all, silence the dissenters no matter how good or factual their point, claim victory like you had the last word in whatever matter. Problem is, Oz doesn't have a source of income off these outlandish or inaccurate posts.

Are you just making up conversations in your head or something?

"Act like you are tough shit and know all"

Where have I been playing tough? As for the know it all part. When it comes to gun law, I'm probably the only person here that has a formal education on it.

"silence the dissenters"

Read the room slick. I am the dissenter here.

"outlandish or inaccurate posts"

Feel free to point out what I said that's inaccurate and outlandish. I'll wait.

Grendel_Prime posted...

Now answer my question, please:

You're probably going to get blocked. He doesn't answer questions, he just repeats nonsense until he gets tired of being questioned on his actual complete and total nonsense.

As a more general conversation there is no give from 2A "interpreters" because they interpret an amendment which calls for regulation to mean no regulation whatsoever.

Grendel_Prime posted...

The bans are largely for bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, trigger adapters, fully automatic firearms... You have some (Beto O'Rourke, for example) calling for the ban of certain types of firearm (AR-15). Very few outside of the extreme fringe are calling for an outright wholesale ban on firearms.

Considering this, and addressing your point about "actual" give-and-take, where is the give from 2A defenders? They fight every regulation. Red Flag laws, background checks, etc. Even "mild" regulation is pushed back upon by the ardent defenders of 2A. There's no negotiation because those 2A defenders are opposed to even reasonable checks and balances. That's not a fringe stance, either. That's the standard line in the sand.

First off, lets address some errors.

Bump stocks - Trump actually signed off on a ban for those. It was later overturned by the courts because it violated constitutional law.

High-Capacity Magazines - What is a high-capacity magazine? 30 rounds? 20? 10? what about integral mags? People that don't know guns, don't seem to realize the tremendous amount of complications involved. If you were to say anything over 10 rounds, you're describing about 90% of guns on the market.

Trigger Adapters - No clue what this is referring to.

Fully Automatic Firearms - Pretty much already banned. Any fully automatic firearms produced after 1986 can not be purchased my civilians due to the Hughes Amendment. Anything pre-1986 can be purchased under an ATF Form 4. This involves fingerprinting, a letter from local law enforcement, a $200 tax stamp, and multiple background checks with a wait time of about 10-12 months. I'll add that these guns are extremely expensive. For example, a full auto AR-15 built before 86' will run you on average $35,000.

As to your question about the give and take on the pro 2A side, there is none. That was my point. Nobody is willing to make any concessions, because the other side isn't willing to either. When it comes to red flag laws, everyone should be opposed. They are a flat out violation of due process. I honestly can't believe anyone supports them. I understand the intent behind them, but they chose the absolute worst execution possible. The background check thing is just stupid because we already do them! The pro 2A side isn't opposed to background checks, they just sick of repeating the underlined point. I've purchased many guns over the years, both from shops as well as gun shows. I had a NICS check and filled out a 4473 for every single one. If someone is somehow skirting background checks, they're probably already breaking the law.

agesboy posted...

so should we mandate safe ownership for every gun owner and prosecute if guns are ever left unattended?

I'm not entirely opposed to that, as long as it's done within reason.

Ozmose posted...

First off, lets address some errors.

There were no "errors". You completely missed my point. I'm fully aware that some of the examples I'd listed have already been banned, been up for consideration for being banned, or had already been through the courts. That wasn't my point.

The point I was making is that while certain "features" or accessories have been the target of regulation and restriction, only the fringe extreme has called for an outright ban on firearms and/or repeal of the 2nd, while most 2A defenders resist even moderate regulation.

It's utter nonsense that there are no concessions because "the other side isn't willing." There are no viable solutions coming from 2A defenders. And they refuse to sit down at the table to even begin to entertain discussing a solution that proposes regulations.

The only ideas that come from 2A defenders are half-baked, non-starter "solutions", at best. Nebulous, undefined things like "address mental health" with no guideline or plan to achieve that. "Arm the teachers!", which is laughable. If anyone who suggested arming teachers ever met with or spoke with any teachers, they'd realize the vast majority want very little to do with guns, let alone with bringing them into the schools.

Grendel_Prime posted...

There are no viable solutions coming from 2A defenders.

They just recently proposed putting armed security at every school. Can you guess who shot it down? And yes, there were many errors. If you actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I pretty much bullet pointed them. You were literally proposing bans on things that are already banned. You wouldn't consider that to be an error?
It looks to me like you're not actually interested in discussing this anyway. You asked me a question, demanded I answer it, and when I provided you with a very thorough answer you completely disregarded it. I think you're just here to bask in the sound of your own voice.

Ozmose posted...

I think you're just here to bask in the sound of your own voice.

haven't you blocked most of the voices in this topic because you prefer your own voice to theirs

He blocked me because I disproved his claim and he refused to admit it

agesboy posted...

haven't you blocked most of the voices in this topic because you prefer your own voice to theirs

I blocked a handful of the loudest crazies here. If I thought for even a second anything but hostility and insults could come out of them, I wouldn't have blocked them. I don't keep toxic assholes around in the real world, why should I give them a break here?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/1/1/AABsC-AAEaTX.jpg

Ozmose posted...

I blocked a handful of the loudest crazies here. If I thought for even a second anything but hostility and insults could come out of them, I wouldn't have blocked them. I don't keep toxic assholes around in the real world, why should I give them a break here?

aw did the snowflake get upset people keep tearing apart your arguments with facts

poor baby it's ok mommas here

This is what happens when you don't use the death penalty properly and shut down the mental institutions....

Fun fact, the death penalty actually does not work as a deterrent for crime. Decades of crime data show that it does not reduce crime rate by any measure.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

aw did the snowflake get upset people keep tearing apart your arguments with facts

poor baby it's ok mommas here

Isn't there a bridge you should be guarding?

i'm not in the armed services, so, uh, no?

would you like me to guard your bridge

papercup posted...

Fun fact, the death penalty actually does not work as a deterrent for crime. Decades of crime data show that it does not reduce crime rate by any measure.

Well, it certainly stops repeat offenders.
Joking aside, I think the greater benefit of the death penalty is that society isn't forced to support the worst of the worst. It makes my stomach turn thinking my hard earned tax dollars are paying for the food and healthcare of some multiple child murderer somewhere.

Gross

Imagine thinking the death penalty would deter mass shooters. They all expect to be killed, most WANT to be killed.

Lordkill posted...

This is what happens when you don't use the death penalty properly and shut down the mental institutions....

People already covered you lie about the death penalty, I'll cover your lie about mental institutions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/05/truth-about-deinstitutionalization/618986/

Its not the case that the majority of people with mental illness were suddenly on the streets when institutions closed: Even in 1950, only about a third of people with mental illness were living in psychiatric hospitals and other facilities. More than half already lived in communities, with family or on their own.

Furthermore, the vast majority of incarcerated people with mental illness belong to a subset of the population that likely would never have been served by state psychiatric hospitals in the past. State-hospital patients were largely white and middle-aged or older, and divided roughly evenly between men and women; todays incarcerated population is largely young, male, and not white. (More than half of the U.S. prison population are people of color.) One study suggests that closing the state psychiatric facilities increased the incarcerated population by less than 10 percent.

So what accounts for the extraordinary levels of mental illness we see in our jails and prisons? In large part, the sheer number of incarcerated people. In a July 1971 press conference, President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs, calling drug abuse Americas public enemy number one and setting the stage for tough-on-crime policies. These laws, like mandatory minimum sentences for possession and other drug-related crimes, disproportionately affected people of color and pushed incarceration rates to record levels. Between 1972 and 2009, the prison population alone grew 700 percent.

Ozmose posted...

Feel free to point out what I said that's inaccurate and outlandish. I'll wait.

We've done that the whole topic. No one needs to imagine any conversations, because this is exactly one prime example. If you're genuinely confused, then this is on you.

Entity13 posted...

We've done that the whole topic. No one needs to imagine any conversations, because this is exactly one prime example. If you're genuinely confused, then this is on you.

Nope, not confused at all. You can't give a single example of any of the things you accused me of, so you came back with this vague deflection for a reply. Pretty cut and dry.

lol

There was nothing vague about that. This topic, almost any topic is a conversation. You are posting in it and people are responding to your posts with corrections you elect to ignore outright or misinterpret. It's not the first topic you have done this, nor do I have screenshots saved of those previous times. Nothing needs to be explained further. It is clear you either get the things being said to you and don't care since it does not align with the views you are spouting, or you don't get the facts at all, like some out-of-touch middle-aged man going nutso on TV because the script he was given uses words that don't register; but hey, YOU'RE DOING IT LIVE!

Entity13 posted...
im with them and i think i've tried to be (overly?) level headed with your posts

if you block entity block me

BlackScythe0 posted...

You're probably going to get blocked. He doesn't answer questions, he just repeats nonsense until he gets tired of being questioned on his actual complete and total nonsense.

As a more general conversation there is no give from 2A "interpreters" because they interpret an amendment which calls for regulation to mean no regulation whatsoever.

Regulated militia, not gun regulation.

Lordkill posted...

This is what happens when you don't use the death penalty properly and shut down the mental institutions....

There is no proper use of the death penalty since it's a waste of money.

*sigh*

Revelation34 posted...

Regulated militia, not gun regulation.

And how do you propose one would regulate a militia without regulating their weapons?

Ogurisama posted...

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/little-girl-parents-shot-basketball-025535069.html

The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a violence problem. That same guy could've been using an axe, machete, or even a bow & arrow.

sveksii posted...

Guns facilitate impulsive decisions that would often otherwise not happen. Guns may not always be a root problem, but they are a problem.

The same is literally true of any weapon and, quite honestly, even people's fists. Unless you're planning on disarming the public by literally removing their arms, it'll always be an issue.

sveksii posted...

As far as mental health and other support programs go,

Something like this probably isn't a mental health issue. There's no sign that the perpetrator was mentally ill, other than the fact he acted in an extreme way.

There are a LOT of violent people in the US and other nations. And although people fixate on guns (despite the fact there are countries with higher gun ownership rates (ie, people actually owning guns rather than the highly misleading per capital guns-to-people number that obfuscates the fact that collectors vastly inflate that number) that don't have the US's violent crime rates), it does nothing to resolve the root causes.

Although mental health can be a factor, that's more in the case of mass shootings (and attempted mass shootings) rather than interpersonal disputes.

Revelation34 posted...

There is no proper use of the death penalty since it's a waste of money.

The only "proper use" would be against people who, even imprisoned, continue to pose a significant threat. Leaders of criminal organizations would be one example.

However, most actual uses are things where life imprisonment works just as well.

Count_Drachma posted...

The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a violence problem. That same guy could've been using an axe, machete, or even a bow & arrow.

Please show me the number of times someone with an axe or machete killed 10+ people before being apprehended.

Ozmose posted...

They just recently proposed putting armed security at every school. Can you guess who shot it down? And yes, there were many errors. If you actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I pretty much bullet pointed them. You were literally proposing bans on things that are already banned. You wouldn't consider that to be an error?
It looks to me like you're not actually interested in discussing this anyway. You asked me a question, demanded I answer it, and when I provided you with a very thorough answer you completely disregarded it. I think you're just here to bask in the sound of your own voice.

It's not surprising that a proposition for providing armed security in schools was derided, given what we saw in Uvalde with a heavily armed response to a single shooter, and given that research suggests armed security will do little to prevent school shootings.

I wasn't proposing banning anything. I was merely mentioning how certain aspects of firearms/firearms ownership are the target of regulation/bans, while a full-on ban on gun ownership is a fringe stance. So no, I wouldn't consider that an error. Again, the point wasn't the examples provided so much as it was to highlight that a full 2A repeal is a fringe stance. This is why your bullet points are off-base and warrant no further discussion, because you've missed the point.

If you can absorb the point I'm making and make a salient argument worth responding to, I'd be happy to discuss things further. But you continue to focus on how I worded something, even after I clarified for you.

Initially I had responded to your claim that there's no give-and-take, which insinuate that there's some give from 2A defenders. There is not. Proposals like armed security in schools fail to address the problem, which is an overabundance of firearms in the hands of people who are I'll-equipped to own them.

Zareth posted...

Please show me the number of times someone with an axe or machete killed 10+ people before being apprehended.

not quite the same category, but consider the most damaging crime of passion... arson. America also has the highest per capita arson rate.

I've even joked in the past (like, the edgy mid 2000s) that people were promoting guns so that people would shoot each other instead of starting fires... since while both have comparable loss of life, gunviolence causes virtually no property damage.

Ozmose posted...

Pretty simple. Most of them sit in a 600lb safe unless they're going to the range with me. The only one that stays out is my carry gun. They're never unattended.

Then as far as I'm concerned, you're probably good. Maybe throw in some regular mental health checkups to make sure it's still safe for you to own them, but otherwise you're already doing everything I would expect to see mandated by reasonable gun control laws and I wouldn't expect much to change for you beyond maybe having some extra paperwork to fill out.

As much as people like to harp on the "making guns illegal won't stop criminals from getting them" point, the fact of the matter is that virtually every illegal gun was legally purchased at some point. If a gun is owned illegally, it's either because a legal owner sold it illegally or because it was stolen from a legal owner. The former is addressed by a more robust registration and tracking system, allowing any illegal weapons found to be traced back to their last legal owner so that person can held accountable for illegally selling them. The latter is addressed by more robust secure storage requirements, preventing any but the most dedicated thieves from being able to steal and distribute guns (hypothetically, if somebody drove a semi into your house and grabbed your safe with a forklift, they could get your guns, but obviously you can't be expected to defend against something like that) and allowing negligent owners to be held accountable for failing to keep their gun under control.

Toss in more robust background checks on every purchase, mental health screening, and a mandatory waiting period (which helps more with suicide, but also cuts down on impulsive crimes of passion), and you've got what most people mean by "common sense gun control." It's not about banning guns, it's about enacting regulations that help prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who would do wrong with them. By the sounds of things, you're already compliant with those sensible control measures and nobody needs to take any action against your guns. That's great. Not everyone is so responsible, though, and that's a major component of the gun violence problem the US has.

Ozmose posted...

Joking aside, I think the greater benefit of the death penalty is that society isn't forced to support the worst of the worst. It makes my stomach turn thinking my hard earned tax dollars are paying for the food and healthcare of some multiple child murderer somewhere.

You've probably ended up putting more tax dollars toward directly murdering children than toward supporting child murderers, given how expensive the military is compared to feeding somebody in prison. More than that, though, life sentences are in fact cheaper than the death penalty, something that's never going to be escapable so long as there's any interest in preventing the execution of innocent people (which there really needs to be), and they're arguably less humane given how soul-suckingly pointless a life in prison is, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

Count_Drachma posted...

The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a violence problem. That same guy could've been using an axe, machete, or even a bow & arrow.

And guns pretty consistently make that violence worse than it would have been otherwise because they're so much better at killing people. Case in point: If you're going to carry a weapon for everyday self-defense, you're not going to carry an axe, machete, or bow & arrow.