The person that wants to own the gun, of course. Owning killer weapons should be a privilege rather than a right.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Would increased gun regulation have prevented Connecticut?
- Thread starter Deified Data
- Start date
- Status
The person that wants to own the gun, of course. Owning killer weapons should be a privilege rather than a right.
It should be up to the individual, just like it is for cars etc. Yes, I know that "infringes" upon the 2nd amendment, but personally I'd be fine with those "restrictions" in order to keep possession of my firearms.
Devolution
Member
Oh at least 3 registered to the mother. =/.
I agree that needs addressing, too. But we're by far in the lead in terms of gun ownership:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
I dont think this and our gun violence statistics are just a coincidence.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Then we hit another road block, because it's something that would never be accepted into law.
We have to think of better, more creative solutions than ones that attempt to saddle citizenry with hundreds of dollars of annual bills. Unless our goal is to just spin our wheels and not think about realistic solutions. In which case, carry on.
It may be that we don't have it in us to think of realistic, applicable solutions that could actually pass through 2 houses of Congress. I can accept that if I have to. I just prefer not to.
orientalNoodle
Banned
I just got a cool idea for gun control.
I love that argument!
Cars are designed to bring a person from point A to point B. They aren't designed to hurt or even kill people.
The sole purpose of a gun on the other hand is to kill. It was designed to kill. It is used to kill. It kills.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
The right to own arms is thought of as a right and not a privilege because all people have a God given right to life and liberty. In order to protect your life and that of your families, you have the option to arm yourself from anyone who tries to take it. At least that is how I understand it.
It would never be accepted into law because nobody actually fights for it. Right now, taking advantage of people's feelings, the government could actually make real progress on Gun Control. I'm completely serious.
NaughtyCalibur
Member
Unfortunately, no. I do however think lessening the sensationalist 24/7 media coverage on similar events prior to the Newtown shooting may have prevented it.
We live in a jaded society where it's apparently all right to shove a camera in a kid's face after they come out of an elementary school where their fellow students were just shot dead. That has to change first and foremost, then we can talk about gun regulation.
We live in a jaded society where it's apparently all right to shove a camera in a kid's face after they come out of an elementary school where their fellow students were just shot dead. That has to change first and foremost, then we can talk about gun regulation.
orientalNoodle
Banned
Equip all guns with GPS tracking electronics that would disable the gun when near public places such as malls or schools. Man I am gonna patent this.
How many lives are saved every year due to citizens owning guns? Why do people in Britain or Japan don't need guns to feel safe?
It's as good as the "smart gun" solution (make it so that guns can only be used by their rightful owner) and the NRA is against that.
They have utility for hunting. Perhaps it's more recreational now than in the past, but it still serves that purpose.
If guns should be controlled now because hunting's just a recreational pastime, why shouldn't cars be the same? With more public infrastructure those in larger metropolitan areas could get by pretty much car-free. Auto lobbyists have made sure public transportation is enough of a pain in the neck to make cars appear to be a 'necessity' but it certainly doesn't have to be.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
orientalNoodle
Banned
Dreams-Visions
Member
yes, definitely not a coincidence. and yet, it's clear when we look at other countries that gun violence : gun supply does not yield a 1:1 relationship such that simply addressing the supply of guns solves the problem, nor that the guns in and of themselves are the problem. Other countries have more than half of our gun ownership numbers, but a fraction of the gun violence. Seems to me that we ought to do some real inspection of our culture and economics compared to theirs to see where the differences lie.
At the end of the day, I'm prepared to agree that the sad reality is that it might be more realistic to get rid of all guns in America than it is to realize the culture and socioeconomic changes necessary to fix the people problem at the root of the gun problem. Even as impossible as that is, it still may be the path of least resistance.
I think about it almost like I think about the educational system problems in America. How teachers and teacher's unions take the brunt of the blame for the poor performance of students when in many cases, it's the home environment that is posing the real problem. But we blame, lambaste, and fire teachers because...well...we can't really fix the culture or the homes. It's too big a task. So too may be the task of stopping our nation from being this fear-based, reactionary culture that is afraid of everyone and everything that looks or acts differently. Maybe the task of addressing our unequal economics and impossible economic upward mobility is simply more unrealistic than sweeping America clean of guns is. Even if you could, you're only addressing the fruit on the tree and ignoring the root.
How do you fix a broken, fearful culture? I'm babbling now. I'll go do something else. Enjoy your thread, guys. I'd only ask that you try to consider ideas that you feel could realistically pass into law. Everything else is just mental masturbation.
I'm a gun owner and enjoy sport shooting, but I'd be okay with trading my stuff in for future non-lethal weapons that have multiple rounds that can be fired. Until the day comes when those weapons hit the market, I'll stick with what I have. But I'll keep hoping my Phasers will be set to stun one day.
Except the government can't force people to bring in their firearms for such modifications. And the cost of such a system would be frightening.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Part of the problem with these hypothetical solutions you guys are proposing is that you have to understand that gun ownership is not a privilege in this country, it is a right.
This is on the assumption that everyone that gets a gun is doing so in order to protect their life and their family's life. On the information that an appreciably sizable contingent of society does not have a gun for this purpose, and or does not use the gun responsibly, there is something that needs to be done to try and correct that.
Because something is a "right" does not mean that it is given to every member of society. We restrict rights in many, many instances for (hopefully) the greater societal good.
orientalNoodle
Banned
How about taxing the shit of of guns? Wana own guns? Pay up bitches.
gps disabling and smart gun technology to disable what is essentially a simple chemical reaction and physics related invention from hundreds of years ago.
k
Wow.
k
Wow.
That right should be restricted to militia members.
Dreams-Visions
Member
"Smart guns have been criticized by gun-rights groups like the NRA as well as by gun-control groups like the Violence Policy Center. Gun-rights groups generally feel that smart gun technology is an attempt to control citizen ownership of guns.
Many gun enthusiasts object to smart guns on a philosophical/regulatory basis as well as a technological basis. Gun expert Boston T. Party writing about smart guns on page 35/24 of Boston's Gun Bible says "No defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices and microcomputers. Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty."
At least one major seller of smart gun technology admits potential fallibility of the technology. IGun Technology Corporation say on their website that "No mechanical or electrical device is capable of 100% reliability....Personalized guns offer advantages to some people and disadvantages to others."
that'd be why.
In which state would such a bill pass? Would you not expect people to buy their guns in states that didn't have such a silly law?
Aquavelvaman
Banned
You wouldn't make for a very popular politician
Did you not read what I said? It's been engineered into a necessity for a lot of people. Of course it's a silly idea to regulate cars at this point, with the number of people that can't get around otherwise the economy would come to a halt.
Dreams-Visions
Member
The Virginia Tech shooter had a history of mental illness and should have been prevented from buying the guns legally. The system should have flagged him. It did not.
The system failed the students of Virginia Tech.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
The same song and dance.
Devolution
Member
VTech? Aurora? Giffords?
If you have the type of gun control that Funky Papa outlined, I think most of these shootings would have been prevented. Of course you can't prevent every single one. Of course some of them might have passed.
jamesinclair
Banned
Tax guns and use the money to pay the victims family, yes.
But how about regulation concerning the form of guns?
-Guns cant shoot more than x times a minute. Or y amount of time between shots - modifications illegal, with large penalties.
-Guns must weigh at minimum, 10 lbs, which discourages people carrying them (preventing bar fight murders, shooting the boss that just fired you etc) but places no limit on home protection. Even a mass killer with a 1 year plan could only be able to carry so much.
-Gun purchasing has a federal 14 day wait period/check, and all guns must be registered to owner, including private sale. Not registering = large penalty.
That last one makes it easier to stop criminals, sort of like how tiny infractions are used to get thugs off the street. Gun isnt registered properly? Into the slammer before you can hold up a 7-11.
But how about regulation concerning the form of guns?
-Guns cant shoot more than x times a minute. Or y amount of time between shots - modifications illegal, with large penalties.
-Guns must weigh at minimum, 10 lbs, which discourages people carrying them (preventing bar fight murders, shooting the boss that just fired you etc) but places no limit on home protection. Even a mass killer with a 1 year plan could only be able to carry so much.
-Gun purchasing has a federal 14 day wait period/check, and all guns must be registered to owner, including private sale. Not registering = large penalty.
That last one makes it easier to stop criminals, sort of like how tiny infractions are used to get thugs off the street. Gun isnt registered properly? Into the slammer before you can hold up a 7-11.
Yes, we live in a car culture here in America, I agree with that. Its a shame, but it is the way it is. But there's pretty clear differences. Cars are still utilitarian. They are not designed to kill anything. Quite the contrary, much has gone on in the auto industry to make cars safer and safer. Guns, on the other hand, were built to kill from the get-go, and have done nothing but gotten more deadly as time as passed.
There's much better arguments for guns than this, I'm afraid.
Wasn't this kid autistic or with some pre-existing mental condition (it's early I know)? I'm saying you shouldn't be able to have a gun even if you only have a family member like this. Totally crazy to enforce, but drastic measures need to be taken. I don't remember the situation clearly with Brevic in Norway, but it seems his situation was more tricky. Didn't the dude just kill the kids due to their political affiliations?
H_Prestige
Banned
More gun control or outright ban on guns would decrease the chances of these things happening. There is no logical counterargument.
Devolution
Member
No offense but they don't live here. Considering how much crime occurs, including invasive home assaults, I wouldn't deny anyone (who's not a nut/convicted criminal) a gun for home defense.
orientalNoodle
Banned
Home defense like shooting the neighbor kids trying to steal your xbox?
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
Huh? Aren't there many countries around the world that have the same freedom to own firearms?
IpsoFacto
Member
@Seanspeed
Where did you hear about cars being safer today? You can check the data here:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html
The data does suggest a dip from 1990 to 2009, but the more recent numbers are still very much cause for concern. And these are accidents.
Violent crime, on the other hand, appears to be declining.
Where did you hear about cars being safer today? You can check the data here:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html
The data does suggest a dip from 1990 to 2009, but the more recent numbers are still very much cause for concern. And these are accidents.
Violent crime, on the other hand, appears to be declining.
- Status