Opinion Poll: Should all new guns be tracked cradle to grave?

[ShadowRun]

My concerns are about the data, tracking guns and owners. We know these days all kinds of data is hacked and exploited, if I was in a serious gang I would want that information and target higher level people that don't have guns ..ect., let alone the government becoming tyrannical one day and hunting gun owners first. It may not happen in my life time but you know know....

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

And that's reasonable enough. Tell me what the purpose of walking around strapped like Rambo serves, though? Seriously, what is the purpose?

I work everyday in rural areas. I've been attacked by skunks and badgers several times. Quick access to my weapon was the difference between me getting mauled and going home safe and sound.

Open carry is allowed in my entire State, it's really not uncommon to see someone with a gun strapped to their side.

Just because you personally have a hard time conceptualizing a purpose, doesn't mean that purpose doesn't exist.

You can't walk around naked, due to public obscenity laws and concern over potential perverse intent, but there is not even remotely close to the same level of concern over letting people walk around strapped to gills, who can snap and kill a fuckload of people in a heartbeat at any given time.

What is your purpose with trying to conflate open carrying with being naked in public?

Does open carrying offend you so much that you personally consider it obscene?

Explain the logic, and explain how it's not irresponsible in any way.

Do you consider carrying a knife on your belt to be irresponsible?

 

[HereticBD]

Does open carrying offend you so much that you personally consider it obscene?

No, I consider it highly dangerous and irresponsible to let people walk around strapped to the gills. I'm not talking about carrying a single pistol, but you know that already.

Do you consider carrying a pocket knife to be irresponsible?

Try a little harder with the false equivalency. Either address my question directly without deflecting to nonsense, or I'm just going to put it down to you not being able to.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

That doesn't mean what you think it does.

The term regulation wasn't understood to mean "subject to government edicts" until after the civil war.

I know it's hard to believe that nomenclature has changed over the past 200 years.....

 

[Higus]

Would not be a viable solution to preventing a statistically significant number of mass shootings.

I agree that it isn't a viable solution, but I disagree that it would not have an effect. You might not see a difference in the short term because of the amount of firearms in circulation, but given enough time (granted, possibly decades), they'd eventually taper off.

 

[Higus]

That doesn't mean what you think it does.

The term regulation wasn't understood to mean "subject to government edicts" until after the civil war.

I know it's hard to believe that nomenclature has changed over the past 200 years.....

It's hard to believe that anyone thinks the opinions from back then should not have any modernization to be reasonably applied today, and yet here we are.

 

[Fight To Win]

I agree that it isn't a viable solution, but I disagree that it would not have an effect. You might not see a difference in the short term because of the amount of firearms in circulation, but given enough time (granted, possibly decades), they'd eventually taper off.

So would violent home invasions, robberies, rapes etc of defenseless innocent civilians as well as mass shootings in ever increasing gun free zones.

When in doubt more gun free zones because shooters will see those signs and say "ah shoot, my plans are ruined."

 

[Fight To Win]

They'd rise as gun ownership tapered off*. (Damn this deprivation of an edit button).

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

No, I consider it highly dangerous and irresponsible to let people walk around strapped to the gills. I'm not talking about carrying a single pistol, but you know that already.

You never made any distinction or difference between a pistol or any other firearm.

Regardless, you're wrong. People open carry pistols rifles and shotguns almost everyday and none of these "blood in the streets" scenarios result from it.

Try a little harder with the false equivalency. Either address my question directly without deflecting to nonsense, or I'm just going to put it down to you not being able to.

So you clearly don't consider carrying a knife to be irresponsible, but you do consider openly carrying a gun to be irresponsible.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

P.S. you showing this level of defensiveness in the face of a very real question confesses a lack of confidence in your own arguments.

Also, I was courteous enough to address all of your points, yet you're not showing me the same courtesy.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Seems like the difference between registration of things versus registration of people is lost on you guys.

Who is "you guys"?

What's the meaningful difference here? How do I register a gun in a way that I'm not registered as its owner? Would the government have a registry by compiling all the serial numbers and specs only? They could just have the manufacturers send 'em the info and every gun would be registered? If that's good enough then fine be me. How about you?

If we accept making them second class citizen (unable to vote , Own guns) we might as well make them have a forehead tattoo.

They clearly do not have the same rights as non felons if they cannot own a firearm.

Tattoos would be harsh.

That said, there's a sex offender registry and those folks are forced to divulge their past to the public by going door to door. Kinda stupid for someone to have no problem infringing on the rights of law-abiding folks but then take a stand against inconveniencing people convicted of violent crimes.

I agree with Cubo on a lot of 2nd amendment issues but at the same time I think he makes some poor arguments in defense of them.

You probably miss the point alot.

 

[Losfer Words]

I don't think anything is worth tracking from cradle to grave

 

[Higus]

So would violent home invasions, robberies, rapes etc of defenseless innocent civilians as well as mass shootings in ever increasing gun free zones.

When in doubt more gun free zones because shooters will see those signs and say "ah shoot, my plans are ruined."

Its a circular problem that perpetuates itself. Civilians have access to a large number of firearms, which leads to more guns in the blackmarket, which leads to more armed criminals, which leads to more violent crime, which leads to more civilians buying guns, and so on. A registration database would solve the blackmarket issue. If you could halt the supply chain, it would eventually kill the demand. But enough people have decided that their individual right to bear arms with as little regulation as possible is more important that the problems it inflicts on the rest of society.
We already acknowledge that there is a mental health issue in the country that no one is politically willing to do anything about, so why on earth does it make sense to advocate throwing more guns in an increasingly mentally unstable population?

 

[tinker_190]

I voted 'No - other'. The core arguments have already been covered, but how about the idea of privacy? I don't need the state to watch my every move like I'm some kind of lab rat. The state works for me; it isn't some sort of distant manager of a population algorithm.

 

[Fight To Win]

Its a circular problem that perpetuates itself. Civilians have access to a large number of firearms, which leads to more guns in the blackmarket, which leads to more armed criminals, which leads to more violent crime, which leads to more civilians buying guns, and so on. A registration database would solve the blackmarket issue. If you could halt the supply chain, it would eventually kill the demand. But enough people have decided that their individual right to bear arms with as little regulation as possible is more important that the problems it inflicts on the rest of society.
We already acknowledge that there is a mental health issue in the country that no one is politically willing to do anything about, so why on earth does it make sense to advocate throwing more guns in an increasingly mentally unstable population?

So we should ignore one problem we both acknowledge as real to go after one that fits your political agenda? Hmm, no. We should lower the mental health stigma and increase funding and availability for mental health care, especially crisis stabilization units which saved my life. I think that would do a lot to help. And I think we have to treat each other better but that would require everyone agreeing to do so and would never happen. People are comfortable looking down on the mentally ill and then act shocked when these people snap and go after the people that have ostracized them their entire lives. Surprised pikachu face.

They're both problems. If we tackle one we should tackle the other. More rights to the mentally ill, more visibility and the same rights to gun owners, that would be my pitch.

 

[Bamboozled]

Nothing to offer. Gotcha.

its been settled for quite some time, quit trying to beat a dead horse.

LeBron > Jordan

Citizens are the well regulated militia, that means they are adequately armed to fight off oppression. I don't give a single fuck about anything else.

 

[HereticBD]

You never made any distinction or difference between a pistol or any other firearm.

No, I quite clearly said "strapped to the gills like Rambo".

So you clearly don't consider carrying a knife to be irresponsible, but you do consider openly carrying a gun to be irresponsible.

Yes.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

A gun is the fastest, most efficient way to kill someone. Now, let people walk around with high capacity machine guns, that can fire god knows how many rounds per second(each one with a lethal potential), and yeah, I think it's safe to say the gun is a little more dangerous than the knife, and it's absolutely irresponsible to let folks walk around with the potential to kill scores of people in a split second.

P.S. you showing this level of defensiveness in the face of a very real question confesses a lack of confidence in your own arguments.

Okay, guy deflecting to pocket knives...

All I'm arguing is for reasonable, common sense open carry restrictions. Not gun grabbing, not restricting access, not even getting rid of open carry in general, just limiting quantity and type. Can't even meet halfway there. Nope, pocket knives n' shit. LOL.

This is why gun nuts have the reputation they do.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You probably miss the point alot.

Maybe or maybe some of your arguments could be better. A lot of times on issues like these we just jump into our trenches and support the arguments on our side regardless of their quality. Guns are one issue where I am less emotionally invested and less likely to do that.

 

[Whippy McGee]

I don't see how a registry is really much of an infringement as you are still just as free to keep & bear arms. It's also not a crazy ask imo to have accountability for literal Human Murder Machines.

Because, when the Government knows you own arms, they seize them.

Hurricane Katrina was a great example of the 2nd Amendment being crushed by Authoritarian Gov't types.

 

[Bamboozled]

And that's reasonable enough. Tell me what the purpose of walking around strapped like Rambo serves, though? Seriously, what is the purpose? You can't walk around naked, due to public obscenity laws and concern over potential perverse intent, but there is not even remotely close to the same level of concern over letting people walk around strapped to gills, who can snap and kill a fuckload of people in a heartbeat at any given time.

Explain the logic, and explain how it's not irresponsible in any way.

1. a side arm is logically enough to defend yourself

2. The purpose of walking around like Rambo is if we were in a civil war or a fight against the government.

3. They drew first blood.

 

[Bamboozled]

I voted 'No - other'. The core arguments have already been covered, but how about the idea of privacy? I don't need the state to watch my every move like I'm some kind of lab rat. The state works for me; it isn't some sort of distant manager of a population algorithm.

Grade A post here, would like more times if I could.