Black Market Theory is not a theory. It's an excuse. Gun control legislation is not designed to prohibit people from obtaining weapons at the end-user level- it's about restricting what can be manufactured in the USA and what can be sold. We also try to do a fair job at restricting what comes into the country. I am not familiar with every damn gun law, but generally automatic assault weapons, machine guns, are restricted to some extent. The restriction does not cause a black market to appear- that market would exist already because buying something illegally- i.e. outside of any regulations and taxes it's ALWAYS cheaper. They can avoid the weapon serial# from getting into the government's hands as well. Criminals would probably do this anyway- but not all 'criminals' have access to these markets. So many crimes are committed by first timers aren't they? There's no such thing as a bad guy born to be bad. The idea behind restricting automatics and machine guns and types of bullets is that we can possibly prevent a crime from happening, prevent a mistake, or a person accidentally shooting their own child. I don't trust gun owners with that responsibility. I elect a government to make and enforce laws and keep me safe, that's the meaning of governance.
To take any position that governance need not exist, especially when it comes to the very thing that humans utilize to kill eachother with- is preposterous. And all the whining about how 'law abiding' citizens are somehow inconvenienced by new laws- then I question what makes them "law abiding" if they don't want to follow those laws. I'd think a law-abiding person would be more than happy to show they have civic intentions with their guns by registering them properly and by avoiding purchase of a gatlin gun. Nobody needs a gatlin gun. Get over it. And I don't want anybody nextdoor to me having one, they could kill me or my loved ones in an instant. When ordinary people have to live in fear that anyone around them could be carrying a weapon that they might not know how to use, then nobody is safe and that's basically anarchy.
Certain guns, certain places. Hunting rifles should be allowed, I think, they're more used for just that than violence. Other guns should be limited to licensed areas, or at the very least with well licensed people. I mean, the issue is someone getting a gun and using it where they're not supposed to, not guns altogether. Well, the issue is more that there's just a lot more gun and gang culture in America than most other places, but this will help solve that too.
Economically, it's pretty much just a slightly milder ban. Gun prices would rise dramatically with next to no guns being manufactured and put right into the black market, which in time would stop all but the criminal overlords from getting them easily. As for self defense, guns just plain do more harm than they do good, it'd be better to have neither have guns than to have both have guns. Besides, there's still lots of viable forms of self defense available; get a taser, take a karate lesson, have a baseball bat, there's lots of options that aren't as useful for criminals.
I like hunters, I like sport-shooters, and, frankly, I don't even care about criminals; but I'm still in favor of gun control. Why? Because with the last two elections, gun-makers and ammunition suppliers have participated in a ramp up in price for both guns and ammo after fueling a panic. This kind of price gouging is inexcusable, and a restriction on the supply-side of how they may sell is, in itself, a form of gun-control. In fact, many, many actions that are considered gun control are, in fact, SANE and have nothing to do with banning guns. Things like registration, wait periods, background checks, and licensing are all gun control, too.
You have good men and women unable to defend themselves in the case that a criminal pulls out a firearm, endangering their lives. Keeping a gun around for self-protection is actually more dangerous than anything you would protect yourself from. [link] Guns are dangerous tools, but just like words, we have a right to them. Unlike words, we can regulate how guns are used, and how they're sold.
I agree with you on this. In the beginning, I did feel many things in gun-control were good, yet, as we have discussed them and explained them out, I have agreed to them because, as you aid, they are in fact sane.
Also, another point which was brought up and proven as fallacy on my end. We should help educate and regulate guns in a sane way. I see that now.
Exactly. There's the possibility for gun control to be a moderate position; but when you have a party that is unwilling to compromise, it's either too strict or none at all. The compromise and debate is supposed to be where sanity is found.
Its just become legal in my state, and tons of people use it. The difference between guns and weed, guns tear holes in whatever they're pointed at, a pipe dosen't. On to the point. Gun controle is a win-lose idea. With the plan to shrink our standing army, state militias will become more important than ever, so that if there was some kind of national threat, we could have some kind of pretrained backup army. However, with such high crime rates, some gun controle would be a good thing. Weapons would be in shorter supply for criminals, and more common would be the guns on cops and federal agents. On another downside, taxes would have to increase in order to pay for the people who would be required to make sure that all the lose guns would be recolected. And after the weapons had been colected, the taxes would not drop again. They never do.
Well, if the guns aren't on the honest citizens, wouldn't that just make it easier to tell who the "bad guys" are? Besides, controle doesn't mean that the guns will be taken away, just means that there will be tighter regulation on who can get them. Point your eye at sweeden for a moment, every sweedish citizen is given a hand gun upon reaching adulthood. They are also put into a required six-month training progam on gun safety. Their gun distribution is controled, in order to purchase another gun, the must go threw a long process of filling out applications, background checks, and waiting process that, if my source, exchange student, is to be beleived, can take anywere from six months to six years. Control. Not deprivation as you were suggesting. also, indeviduals use and obtain guns at there own disgression. Im not suggesting that only people who are bad would keep their guns if the Powers That Be decided that guns needed to be removed, and yes moraly perverse people would be more likely to keep them, but that doesnt neccicarily mean that their criminals. I personaly would keep any fire arm in my possion untill the police came to me with a warent to both search my home and take them from me.
And for the record, I don't support gun controle, and i appologize for my inabuility to spell.
Did you read any of what i wrote? I didnt say that honest people couldnt get guns, i just said that those who want guns would be screened, besides, if we had a tighter controle on our guns, criminals wouldn't be capable of getting a hold of guns. Again, i dont support gun controlle, im just pointing out that there are posative sides to it, not just the one negative thing that you keep falling back to as your only argument against cone controlle.
Well, obviously you are an ignorant littl third grade prick, who has done no resurch into the topic. Criminals get 70-80% of their weapons from threw honest transactions, or homes where they arent properly locked up. Homes that the government wouldn't alow guns to be any way. Little advice, reasurch your shit, than come back with an argument that can stand up to something. Goodnight, and grow up troll.
Marijuana is used for Medicinal and some Native American Cultural purposes. However,the ease of attainability, all you have to do is grow an cultivate it, and any negative effects it has depends on brain development stage and long-term use, makes it the most stupid illegal drug.
It would be much easier to legalize marijuana, as it does have other purposes besides a good smoke. Consider the fact that if marijuana was legalized all the police effort going towards busting the growth and distribution of it would allow more Beat Cops, Cops in general and Federal investigations to focus their power on more harmful drugs like: methamphetamine, heroin, opium, cocaine, drugs whose cartels rip apart communities and the drug lords of which threaten the peace and freedom of average people within the countries and communities trafficking takes place in.
In terms of comparable effects marijuana is less dangerous than the four drugs I mentioned by far, and that doesn't even begin to consider PCP, LSD, and other hallucinogens.
"what would be different with guns"
The difference is people use guns, legal or not, to harm others: cops, some military personal, average Americans who Snap among those who pre-meditate and are successful in murdering others.
Murdering someone is a personal choice, I am not saying "all gun owners are murders."
I'm saying that more stringent 1) Licensing Tracking 2) Gun Registration and 3) Education on Gun Use needs to occur. There needs to be action taken that can not only protect average law-abiding gun-owning citizens from being uneedfully attacked when guns are used for harmful but action that can start preventing innocent civilian and child death due to irresponsible gun storage and under-educated gun use in general.
"I am for legalizing all drugs...but pot doesnt' do shit for you except make you want to sit around watching porn"
I do not want to legalize all drugs. There are extremely dangerous drugs that change your brain in negative ways and cause harmful physical change to happen to your body. I want opium (which isn't as large of a problem as it was in Sr. Arthur Conan Doyle's day), methamphetamine, heroin, LSD, PCP and other hard drugs to remain illegal.
You are making a huge assumption about the effect marijuana has on a majority of people based on what, your experience seeing how other people chose to use it, a small number of people in the scope the those who decide to use it.
First of all, being lazy is a personal choice, not a choice someone makes because they smoke marijuana. Marijuana does relax a person and heighten your sensory input, and yes it does damage your brain while it's still growing, which is up to age 25 at least.
Second, watching porn is not triggered by marijuana use. (I don't want to get started debating the pron industry because I have very strong opinions against it in general). Porn watching is a personal choice that individuals make for themselves. I don't agree with it but blaming any drugs as "the reason for watching porn" is just a denial to yourself or people around you that whoever you know that watches porn personally chose to do so.
"I would first like to congratulate President Obama for his victory and give my condolences to Governor Romney for his loss this election year."
Anyways I am pro gun control because we as Americans either lack the responsibility or the intellect to actually handle one. I can't even trust the cops with guns since they all seem so trigger-happy. Now to go into detail, we have had more incidents dealing with guns recently, and it scares me. Not because people are getting guns, but the fact that they are getting these guns legally. Not to mention they abuse their second amendment right to no end and expect sympathy when they screw up big time. But I will agree to keep guns open IF there is a massive change in the selling process. Otherwise I will stay against.
Anyways I am pro gun control because we as Americans either lack the responsibility or the intellect to actually handle one. Says who, you? Out of the millions of Americans who own guns, very, very few ever abuse them.
I can't even trust the cops with guns since they all seem so trigger-happy. Blame cops then, not the public. No amount of gun control is going to effect cops so why even bring this up?
Now to go into detail, we have had more incidents dealing with guns recently, and it scares me No we haven't, we've had more reported. If you're talking about violent crime in general, it's been declining every year for a long time. If you're talking about mass shootings, look 'em up, they've been a problem since the 1800s (at least).
Not to mention they abuse their second amendment right to no end and expect sympathy when they screw up big time. What exactly do you mean by this?
But I will agree to keep guns open IF there is a massive change in the selling process. Like what changes? You don't think a federal background check is enough?
Says who, you? Out of the millions of Americans who own guns, very, very few ever abuse them. Yes lets just ignore the issue then. There is nothing wrong is the gun laws that are in place at all.
Blame cops then, not the public. No amount of gun control is going to effect cops so why even bring this up? To prove a point in the first sentence that America as a whole needs a proper education and actual use of guns. Stop defending their stupidity.
No we haven't, we've had more reported. If you're talking about violent crime in general, it's been declining every year for a long time. If you're talking about mass shootings, look 'em up, they've been a problem since the 1800s (at least). Now I'm trying to figure this out. Because if this is true, would you believe it's because of lax gun laws or stricter gun laws? Because from what I've seen gun laws have gotten stricter over the years.
LOL you made it sound like his favorite dog died. xD Couldn't help but laugh a lot.
I would feel a lot safer, but I feel that the bigger issue to testing people sanity often so that if something were to suddenly snap, they could lose their gun rights. Maybe have them take a test get a license and tell them that they have to renew it annually. It won't solve the problem, but maybe we'll have less people being shot at their own homes.
Well, see, I thought of that and what we see is some sane people just snap sometimes - we cannot control that. So we could give someone we have proven and tested for sanity a gun because they passed with flying colors but even then if something happens, they may snap. Now, not saying they would go off with their gun in any case, but just speaking on a human level, they very well could go off the deep end.
Still I see more people buying guns off of fear and propaganda rather than for protection. People need to realize that when you buy a gun, once you pull the trigger, you can't go back. People lack the education and the balls to own a gun, yet they still have one.
The problem with requiring mental testing (Disclosure: I think Police officers an military men should be extensively tested for Anger Management and mental status) is that breaks our "right to privacy."
Example: A person is susceptible to Schizophrenia in their family line. It would be invasive for the government to require them to submit medical records or undergo testing the would bring up this fact, because it invades their private medical records, and they may not ever be triggered.
The other issue is that interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment has been bent out of it's original meaning. "The right to bear arms," despite any changes to it for modern purposes, was originally intended for Police or Sate Militia in the case of an attack between states or in the case of an attack on the country. Not as a right for average Americans, but those trained and knowledgeable.
"The problem with requiring mental testing (Disclosure: I think Police officers an military men should be extensively tested for Anger Management and mental status) is that breaks our "right to privacy.""
Hmm, I never thought of that argument. But could the argument of protecting the majority be used also? Kind of like how people who have seizures or suffered some sort of heart failure are not allowed to use motorcycles for years? I would think that as long as it is not made public, it would not infringe on rights.
And thank you for the added facts about the initial translation of the second amendment. Even teachers today don't know that.
"But could the argument of protecting the majority be used also?"
I think the argument for "protection of the majority" would work in terms of Police Officers or Military Officials.
However, for the average American, that information would need to be stored somewhere, and then released to a gun retailer. The risk of that information being picked up in cyberspace is extremely difficult to oversee. So, for the average American I don't think it would work very well.
You're welcome. In order to get into high school I had to the Constitution Test (twice, I failed the first time) and then my Junior year in high school I took a Constitutional Law class - the first few lessons looked at each Amendment in depth. So I remember it.
1. There are some guns/ammo that civilians were never intended to have 2. The gun show loophole must be closed 3. More safety instruction could be needed 4. If a person is acting unhinged saying "Obama is gonna take away my guns" maybe his guns should be taken away anyways by the community for the sake of public safety 5. Certain offenders should NOT have access to guns, DUH
1. What guns did the founders not want us to have? 2. What gun show loophole? 3. You already need to take a class to get your concealed carry. 4. So you basically want to deny someone their rights because of a . . . thought crime? 5. Certain offenders don't have access to guns. If you're buying a gun from a licensed dealer you have to go through a background check. Unless im mistaken this applies to all firearms.