Del. Nick Freitas' guns speech goes viral.

[Prokofievian]

Sherdogger with the same AV as @Teppodama posts goatse in Mayberry? Sorry @Teppodama you're banned from posting; you might potentially post goatse too, and we have no way to be sure you won't

Better safe than sorry, I always say.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

You think private sellers at gunshows are selling thier guns at a discount to do people favors or something?

What does a discount have to do with anything. I already told you a third party non-felon buys the gun then resells it to a criminal at a substantial mark-up, after all, what is the criminal going to do, complain to the BBB?

 

[Teppodama]

According to your brilliant use of logical fallacy any demographic whose members commit a crime justifies targeted policy on an individual by individual basis, before they themselves exhibit any criminal behavior whatsoever

IRA shooting? Irish gun control

Taliban executions? Muslim travel ban

Crips and Bloods? Black people are criminals and should be treated as such

Sherdogger with the same AV as @Teppodama posts goatse in Mayberry? Sorry @Teppodama you're banned from posting; you might potentially post goatse too, and we have no way to be sure you won't

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Born and raised

Born and just partially raised there.

What am I taking out of context?



There will always be people who break laws, that does not mean we do not have laws. We know that people will steal, even though it is illegal, but we still have a law against stealing.

Background checks are common sense, they prevent proven criminals from legally purchasing a gun. Why would we not require a background check for someone to purchase a gun in any situation? There is not a single reason to not do background checks.

Of course background checks will not solve everything, I have never heard anybody claim that it would. But we obviously should make it illegal for a convicted felon to buy a firearm. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?




We can't keep drugs out of prisons. But we do have laws about it, and try our best. Do you think we should just legalize drugs in prisons?

3D printing is going to be another problem that we will need to do our best to address. Nobody ever said we need to focus on only one specific thing, we need to be focusing on a lot of things.

Did you get the impression that I had strong feeling about background checks? I don't even think I've mentioned it on here. They are just one of many things that should be in place everywhere.

You're taking the mention of crime-ridden American cities out of context and saying he's not addressing that the measures would be nationwide, while ignoring he already spoke to that by bringing up other nations and their (supposedly) over-hyped results.

Of course we make laws knowing full-well they'll still be broken. But that doesn't mean we pass laws on emotion with no rational assessment of the problem we're looking to curtail and the potential efficacy of the proposed legislation. Sometimes there are deeper principles involved (i.e. civil rights) and sometimes shit's just not worth the problems arising from the unintended consequences (eg. alcohol prohibition). So when you want to infringe on the Bill of Rights it's a pretty lousy argument to say we should just start throwing solutions at the wall to see what sticks. And fwiw, it's already illegal for a convicted felon to buy a firearm. Count that among the thousands of statutes that have so far not been enough.

Sounds like you have no answers at all for the 80% lowers and 3D-printing. There are no effective criminal-control solutions that don't take these two things into account. So anyone (not saying you necessarily) proposing further legislation that can't speak intelligently in this area should recognize that they are out of their element.

 

[Stoic1]

He has no point and neither do you

Why are people in Chicago buying guns from neighboring states?
Answer: Because they cannot buy any in Illinois

Why not?
Answer: Illinois state law

What does mean?
Answer: It means that Illinois state laws are effective in preventing criminals from buying guns.

So why are people dying?
Answer: Neighboring state laws do not have those same restrictions and criminals go their to get armed.

WTF??
Answer: I know.

We need more good guys with guns in Illinois!
Response: Have you ever heard any law abiding citizen in Illinois complain about access to guns?

Good point.
Response: I make the best points.

What do we do:
Answer: Implement a federal law to keep guns out of criminals hands.

Won't the criminals just get heir guns from the USA's neighbors?
Answer: lolcanada and we're soon going to have an impenetrable wall in the south.

You're the best.
Response: No need to congratulate me. Just stay vigilant.

Response: How about enforcing the laws we already have and focus on the criminals instead of law abiding gun owners?

 

[MacDuffle]

white flag post

all posters whose names start with a T are all childish knee-jerk policy naives now

according to his own shitty logic

 

[Teppodama]

white flag post

all posters whose names start with a T are all childish knee-jerk policy naives now

according to his own shitty logic

It was a joke dude. Hence the Kermit goatse image directly above it as retort to you mentioning me posting a goatse image in your analogy and getting banned.

 

[milkmandanl]

Can’t we all just get along ...would have been more succinct

 

[Patrick Carey]

If you could not get guns easily in those other areas, where would the guns come from?

1) Google "make your own sten"

2) go to ace hardware and make a sten SMG for 50 bucks.

the reality of why gun control could work in an island nation has more to do with the lack of ammunition than anything. Making a brass case is way harder than making a functioning firearm.

Firearms are relics of the past. The ar15 is from the what 70s? The only reason we still use them is because lazer pistols dont exist yet. Guns arent going anywhere, until we get better killing tools. they are just too easy to make.

 

[Cooz]

Response: How about enforcing the laws we already have and focus on the criminals instead of law abiding gun owners?

Did you miss be part where that’s what Illinois is doing and it’s working? Enforcing laws and letting their law abiding citizens carry.


It’s neighboring states that are loosely regulated, allowing criminals to buy guns very easily.

I expected better of you. Just read my original post again. It’s a very good post.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I like the part where he accuses Democrats of grandstanding and being dishonest.....by dishonestly grandstanding.

 

[Patrick Carey]

Did you miss be part where that’s what Illinois is doing and it’s working? Enforcing laws and letting their law abiding citizens carry.


It’s neighboring states that are loosely regulated, allowing criminals to buy guns very easily.

I expected better of you. Just read my original post again. It’s a very good post.

Strawpurchasing is already illegal but barely prosecuted

selling a gun across state lines in a private sale is also a felony so i dont see what you are really advocating for change here

doesnt sound like gun control is working for chicago, at all

 

[Patrick Carey]

Sounds like you have no answers at all for the 80% lowers and 3D-printing. There are no effective criminal-control solutions that don't take these two things into account. So anyone (not saying you necessarily) proposing further legislation that can't speak intelligently in this area should recognize that they are out of their element.

At best you will get an answer of "no one uses 80% lowers"

at worst they will say yeah, see, proof that we need to ban ammo and rifled barrels

 

[Neph]

A full gun ban is not the way for the US to be safer, I think its more about minorities having better life and laws to restrict certain type of people from owning guns.

Just to make it totally clear I'm not suggesting a full gun ban. It is a little frustrating that any time anyone talks about gun control it is then straw-manned into total gun bans.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

At best you will get an answer of "no one uses 80% lowers"

at worst they will say yeah, see, proof that we need to ban ammo and rifled barrels

Could be. Would be nice though to at least see that the common-sensers understand the landscape before championing the efficacy of private sale background checks. But they don't want to admit that their suggestions will still require more suggestions in the future.

Just to make it totally clear I'm not suggesting a full gun ban. It is a little frustrating that any time anyone talks about gun control it is then straw-manned into total gun bans.

What are you suggesting and what'll it accomplish?

The reason the conversation moves toward a total ban is because that's what it'll take to actually end gun violence. As some gun-control proponent how many deaths are acceptable per year so we know when we've got enough laws. I've asked this many times and have never gotten a straight answer (that I recall).

 

[Rational Poster]

Holy shit, am I in here before @Rational Poster says "snowlflake" in some gy attempt to take the word back?

Reported.

 

[jamel]

As a gun owner, some of these pro gun talking heads make me worry about my future ownership.

 

[Dolomite]

As a gun owner, some of these pro gun talking heads make me worry about my future ownership.

"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
-JFK

 

[Neph]

What are you suggesting and what'll it accomplish?

The reason the conversation moves toward a total ban is because that's what it'll take to actually end gun violence. As some gun-control proponent how many deaths are acceptable per year so we know when we've got enough laws. I've asked this many times and have never gotten a straight answer (that I recall).

As a preamble I believe you are representing the desired outcome incorrectly. If the goal is 'actually end gun violence' then you will never get there, but this is no excuse for not trying.

Next I will start by saying it's a problem not solved in one generation. I think the gun culture is an issue but so is lack of welfare, unequal education and opportunities and lack of support particularly for mental illness. My perspective is that there is a strong belief in individual freedoms ingrained in US culture which stems all the way back to its founding fathers. The problem in such individual freedoms is that you can sometimes sacrifice the greater good of the community for an individual. Other countries view the individual's rights to owning a dangerous implement to be less than the right of the collective to be safe - we can talk statistics here for a while, I am merely pointing out their way of thought.

This culture of individual freedoms, can I also add, is really awesome and has brought many great successes to your country. I have a huge respect for the US, I've been there and met nothing but awesome people. But there are some prices you pay for this. The idea that personal responsibilities are paramount also leads to situations where welfare is really limited. I was astounded by not necessarily just the amount of homeless people I saw in the US but by just how severely homeless they were. Here's the next thing - people don't want to be in that situation, and if better welfare was available, accompanied by better education, you'd probably find the crime rate would lower, these people would be working and even creating jobs, and building a better economy for all. It might seem like handouts but if people are getting off skid row you may find a whole lot of other benefits. People who have supportive families, are reasonably well to do, have things to actually live for... these people aren't your typical mass shooter (or in fact part of any kind of criminal activity).

I could go on but I think that the culture is essential to any discussion on gun control. Guns are merely the article used by people who have ill intentions and the reason I think restrictions should apply is that they allow these ill intentions to be acted out with extreme and wide reaching consequences. If guns were less available it is quite self explanatory that a rampant knife attack would likely have much lower casualties than a mass shooting. However, for all of the reasons above AND for the fact that good policy must have people on board for it... I don't think gun bannings are the way to go in the US. People will be even more divided than ever before, people will simply not accept it, and this is not a good foundation to build upon.

As to the meat of your question:

What am I suggesting and what'll it accomplish?
I'm no expert on existing laws and I understand they vary from state to state. However, the changes I would suggest are:
1. No guns if you have a violent criminal history
2. No guns if you are on a terrorist / no fly watch list
3. No guns if you have a history of mental illness (the specifics to be decided by experts but reasonable thought prevails. If you are now 30 and you had depression when you were 17 then yes, you can have guns. However, if 1 year ago you were institutionalized with schizophrenia then more details are necessary)

To accomplish this there needs to be suitable background checks and some universal registers of the above. Whether these exist or not, I don't know, but they should. I would like to think most fair minded people would think that someone who fits the above is probably unfit to carry a gun.

What will this accomplish?
Any reduction in the ease of acquiring certain weaponry will reduce its likelihood of being used. There is nothing black and white; people can and still will get hold of guns, gun violence will continue, it simply becomes harder.

How many deaths are acceptable per year so we know we've got enough laws.
Build into this is a premise that you believe more laws will be implemented which, while possible, I don't think is any good reason not to institute good and fair laws now. I really feel a comment of this type somewhat narrows the conversation because it starts with a supposition about what will happen and doesn't argue the value of what is being proposed.

To speak more broadly on it, how about as a goal the US looks to halve its gun violence (it would still be 3x greater than other developed countries on average) while at the same time maintaining the same rights for fair minded, law abiding citizens of its country. The above suggestions I made would not impede on such people. If you have no history of violence, are not a terrorist and no mental illness, you can own whatever the fuck you want.

Finally I'd like to add what general principles I apply to whether or not some kind of control (ie licencing, age restrictions, banning, etc.) should apply to any particular item/object.

1. What is the utility it adds to the community?
2. What is the potential danger it adds to the community (in both scope and likelihood)?
3. What can be done to minimise danger but maximise utility?

First example, guns, from an Australian perspective.

1. What is the utility it adds to the community? Nothing for urban areas. Useful for rural areas.
2. What is the potential danger it adds to the community? It has a tremendous capacity to kill.
3. What can be done? Control who uses it through banning of certain models, licencing for others, and strict controls about how they are kept.

Next example, explosives, from an Australian perspective.

1. What is the utility it adds to the community? Nothing for urban areas. Some highly specialised use for the mining sector?
2. What is the potential danger it adds to the community? It has a tremendous capacity to kill.
3. What can be done? Control who uses it. Ban it from the hands of just about everyone who can't demonstrate a need for it.

Another example, cars & trucks, from an Australian perspective.

1. What is the utility it adds to the community? Vital to transport and the success of a country.
2. What is the potential danger it adds to the community? Can cause death by accident or purpose
3. What can be done? Control who uses it. Licence their use and restrict their use to people of certain ages.

I put these because some people just suggest that everyone will begin running down people if guns are banned. I know you haven't done so, and it is a ridiculous argument in my eyes, however I wanted to point out the principles I use when evaluating whether something needs some controls. What does it give to a community and what price is paid? Guns are already controlled to some extent. You have to be a certain age to buy guns because people already recognise that they are dangerous and it should take a certain mind/maturity to have them. I simply suggest that this very same principle of control be expanded slightly to include the mentally ill, the violent, and the terrorists. Everyone else, keep em.

 

[Patrick Carey]

As a preamble I believe you are representing the desired outcome incorrectly. If the goal is 'actually end gun violence' then you will never get there, but this is no excuse for not trying.

Next I will start by saying it's a problem not solved in one generation. I think the gun culture is an issue but so is lack of welfare, unequal education and opportunities and lack of support particularly for mental illness. My perspective is that there is a strong belief in individual freedoms ingrained in US culture which stems all the way back to its founding fathers. The problem in such individual freedoms is that you can sometimes sacrifice the greater good of the community for an individual. Other countries view the individual's rights to owning a dangerous implement to be less than the right of the collective to be safe - we can talk statistics here for a while, I am merely pointing out their way of thought.

This culture of individual freedoms, can I also add, is really awesome and has brought many great successes to your country. I have a huge respect for the US, I've been there and met nothing but awesome people. But there are some prices you pay for this. The idea that personal responsibilities are paramount also leads to situations where welfare is really limited. I was astounded by not necessarily just the amount of homeless people I saw in the US but by just how severely homeless they were. Here's the next thing - people don't want to be in that situation, and if better welfare was available, accompanied by better education, you'd probably find the crime rate would lower, these people would be working and even creating jobs, and building a better economy for all. It might seem like handouts but if people are getting off skid row you may find a whole lot of other benefits. People who have supportive families, are reasonably well to do, have things to actually live for... these people aren't your typical mass shooter (or in fact part of any kind of criminal activity).

I could go on but I think that the culture is essential to any discussion on gun control. Guns are merely the article used by people who have ill intentions and the reason I think restrictions should apply is that they allow these ill intentions to be acted out with extreme and wide reaching consequences. If guns were less available it is quite self explanatory that a rampant knife attack would likely have much lower casualties than a mass shooting. However, for all of the reasons above AND for the fact that good policy must have people on board for it... I don't think gun bannings are the way to go in the US. People will be even more divided than ever before, people will simply not accept it, and this is not a good foundation to build upon.

As to the meat of your question:

What am I suggesting and what'll it accomplish?
I'm no expert on existing laws and I understand they vary from state to state. However, the changes I would suggest are:
1. No guns if you have a violent criminal history
2. No guns if you are on a terrorist / no fly watch list
3. No guns if you have a history of mental illness (the specifics to be decided by experts but reasonable thought prevails. If you are now 30 and you had depression when you were 17 then yes, you can have guns. However, if 1 year ago you were institutionalized with schizophrenia then more details are necessary)

To accomplish this there needs to be suitable background checks and some universal registers of the above. Whether these exist or not, I don't know, but they should. I would like to think most fair minded people would think that someone who fits the above is probably unfit to carry a gun.

What will this accomplish?
Any reduction in the ease of acquiring certain weaponry will reduce its likelihood of being used. There is nothing black and white; people can and still will get hold of guns, gun violence will continue, it simply becomes harder.

How many deaths are acceptable per year so we know we've got enough laws.
Build into this is a premise that you believe more laws will be implemented which, while possible, I don't think is any good reason not to institute good and fair laws now. I really feel a comment of this type somewhat narrows the conversation because it starts with a supposition about what will happen and doesn't argue the value of what is being proposed.

To speak more broadly on it, how about as a goal the US looks to halve its gun violence (it would still be 3x greater than other developed countries on average) while at the same time maintaining the same rights for fair minded, law abiding citizens of its country. The above suggestions I made would not impede on such people. If you have no history of violence, are not a terrorist and no mental illness, you can own whatever the fuck you want.

Finally I'd like to add what general principles I apply to whether or not some kind of control (ie licencing, age restrictions, banning, etc.) should apply to any particular item/object.

1. What is the utility it adds to the community?
2. What is the potential danger it adds to the community (in both scope and likelihood)?
3. What can be done to minimise danger but maximise utility?

First example, guns, from an Australian perspective.

1. What is the utility it adds to the community? Nothing for urban areas. Useful for rural areas.
2. What is the potential danger it adds to the community? It has a tremendous capacity to kill.
3. What can be done? Control who uses it through banning of certain models, licencing for others, and strict controls about how they are kept.

Next example, explosives, from an Australian perspective.

1. What is the utility it adds to the community? Nothing for urban areas. Some highly specialised use for the mining sector?
2. What is the potential danger it adds to the community? It has a tremendous capacity to kill.
3. What can be done? Control who uses it. Ban it from the hands of just about everyone who can't demonstrate a need for it.

Another example, cars & trucks, from an Australian perspective.

1. What is the utility it adds to the community? Vital to transport and the success of a country.
2. What is the potential danger it adds to the community? Can cause death by accident or purpose
3. What can be done? Control who uses it. Licence their use and restrict their use to people of certain ages.

I put these because some people just suggest that everyone will begin running down people if guns are banned. I know you haven't done so, and it is a ridiculous argument in my eyes, however I wanted to point out the principles I use when evaluating whether something needs some controls. What does it give to a community and what price is paid? Guns are already controlled to some extent. You have to be a certain age to buy guns because people already recognise that they are dangerous and it should take a certain mind/maturity to have them. I simply suggest that this very same principle of control be expanded slightly to include the mentally ill, the violent, and the terrorists. Everyone else, keep em.

1) violent felons already cannot buy guns legally
2) mentally ill people already cannot buy guns from FFLs if everything is logged right.
3) horrible idea because the no fly list has nothing to do with due process

if youre violent/insane enough to not be allowed guns i personally believe you shouldnt even be allowed in public and should be institutionalized but thats just me


also guns obviously have a positive benefit for the community. They allow physically weak people the ability to defend themselves. its pretty disingenuous to overlook this