Why nearly all guns have to go

Post Reply New Topic

Yep. All of that.

It's MOSTLY handguns that get smuggled into Canada from our lawless neighbours to the South that are used in gun crimes in Canada, mostly by drug gangs.

Most of Canada, in my experience, does not have the same boner for assault rifles nor mass shootings as Americans do so assault rifles, and other rifles, aren't nearly the same problem here as they are there.

Some people like to have guns as it makes they feel like a big man.

I think a lot is at pay with gun violence in the US. Canada is a good example of the stark contrast where guns are still very common but gun violence is much lower. Guns are not the only issue but one of several.


It's the same in the UK, nowhere near as many guns over here as Canada but the attitude of people with them is much better. Last time I went shooting it was with a group of farmers who were blasting some clays with 12 gauges to win a tub of Quality Street chocolates which was pointless as they spent more money each on the ammo that the cost of the chocolates. I got ripped off. They spoke of their guns like watch collectors too and a lot of focus was on this expensive Beretta that I'm sure didn't shoot straight.

It was all just a bunch of guys goofing off but when I watch videos of Americans with guns I get a lot more hyperbole descriptions of guns and hard man fantasy with a great deal of them.

I agree, the mentally ill and convicted criminals shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Unfortunately our stupid HIPPA laws make the former rather difficult since none of that information can be shared.

That and Doctors are reluctant to want to be the ones gatekeeping guns from crazies because they don’t want to get shot & killed for it.. catch 22.

By videos I assume you mean Youtube videos, most of which are curated to you by the Almighty Algorithm and as such, cannot be taken as a "baseline" of the average American's reaction to guns.

Anyway, the OP's "ban all guns" argument is an argument that by winning they lose.

For instance the exact same argument could be said for booze and alcohol.

>Most booze drinkers are safe.
>A small percentage of booze drinkers cause harm.

This is exactly, no different than the gun argument

>Booze is recreational, it is superfluous to society.
>Guns are recreational, not essential to society.

The inevitable argument is that booze should be banned since drunk drivers kill and harm people, even safe booze drinkers must be banned from booze for the greater safety of all.

Then if Elon's ai becomes more safe than human drivers, the argument could be taken even a step further to try to ban all human driven cars.

This argument already has been done and it is called Prohibition.

Prohibition did not end up benefiting the greater good and neither would banning all guns. And its even harder to argue against guns because guns actually do save lives, whereas booze literally saves 0 lives at all whatsoever and usually only endangers lives. The only argument I could see for booze saving lives is maybe an introvert had no friends so they drank booze and they became more social and got friends, then they decided not to kill themselves. Other than that I think booze saves 0 lives probably

Again, your problem is all or nothing thinking.. that any attempt at improvement of either situation = complete and total ban.

People learned that all out alcohol prohibition was not workable, so they shitcanned that idea and went with various rules & regulations instead. Licensed sales & consumption sites, trained licensed service staff, laws about not being intoxicated in public, restrictions on the time of day of sales, a blood alcohol content limit maximum for driving, regulations on alcohol content & quantity, safe ingredients and processing, packaging, labelling, marketing, age restrictions etc etc - common sense regulations that allow people to responsibly use alcohol without causing unnecessary harm.

Much like all the folks who don't want to die from gunfire, or hear that their children were shot and killed at school etc. They're asking for similar common sense regulations to be applied to fire arms so that responsible people can still use them as tools or for sport, but their kept out of the hands of as many of the people that should not have them as possible vs. a free for all that allows unstable whackjobs to arm themselves to the teeth and waste people with record efficiency.

Why is this concept so difficult for you to comprehend?

I would like to see red flag laws. I would like them to include juvenile data (if my friend had been able to flag her son for mental health -including three suicide attempts, he would not have been able to buy a gun at 18. His friend would be alive, and he would not be in prison.) I would like to see the punishment for giving minors access to guns used to commit crimes to be at least as severe as the punishment for serving them alcohol.

I don’t think any civilian needs a semi-automatic weapon.

I was responding to the OP not to you. Ours is a separate debate. The OP says that "nearly all guns have to go".

With your debate, you believe in "common sense gun control" even though "common sense gun control" is not common as the majority of Americans disagree. My belief with you is that common sense gun control would lead to total disarmament, as you are not the dictator of society. The leftist actually running society might just want total disarmament and is just using "common sense gun control: as a tool to reach that goal. At the end of the day, you are just a voter and do not have complete control over what policy the leftist actually running society decides.

As for the Prohibition analogy, a 1:1 analogy to common sense gun control would be: Regulate Bars. You need a license to drink (not just id for proof of age, but alcohol training and an alcohol license.) Red flag booze laws: If you know someone who doesn't do well on booze, red flag them and the State bans them from alcohol. All bartenders and shop owners have access to the red flag digital registry (connected to their digitally connected alcohol license) to forbid booze purchase to them. Ban vodka and hard liquor: Only safe liquors like wine and beer should be allowed, liquor with too much alcohol is too dangerous. Ban vodka, whiskey and anything with too much alcohol in it. Bars may only serve 2 drinks per customer, anything else is unsafe.

Note: I rarely drink any of that stuff but its a heluvan argument. A perfect analogy if you ask me

We did ban absinth.

I don’t think banning high alcohol content drinks is the same as banning semi-automatic fire arms. Many bars currently don’t serve customers who already appear severely intoxicated - so much alcohol too quickly that it becomes dangerous. This is partly in order to prevent something bad from happening on the premises. I didn’t even say ban them, I just don’t think civilians need them.

As the mother, niece, and granddaughter of alcoholics, I will gladly sign your red flag petition. My alcoholic child will also sign it, but my grandfather and one uncle are dead and my living uncle stands by his right to die in a pool of his own waste on his garage floor (which he nearly did a few years ago.) I am less worried about that than the possibility that he will get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone. Maybe a good guy with a gun will stop him.

It's not a gun problem. It is a culture problem.

Getting rid of guns wouldn't solve a thing.

We need to fix our culture of crime. That is the only way that anything will be accomplished.

I would like to see the US ban more types of firearms but not completely outlaw them. An all or nothing approach is underhand from both sides of the fence.

I would personally like to see a reduction in the number of pistols (which do have a use to civilians) and a complete ban on assault weapons (which have no use considering the other better alternatives). A good bolt action always trumps a AR15 when hunting and shotguns can be more restricted too. The ones I used in the UK seem perfectly fine for anything hunting and sport related.

Also, being from the UK, I'm not blinkered to the fact that many in the US can't enjoy the safety us Brits do in the countryside and if I was ever in the US, I, along with many other brits would probably want a hefty shotgun or rifle depending on location.

An outright ban is just stupid and not suitable to the nature of living in the US. I would do firearm vetting on both the person and location if I could. Lighten up on old felonies if the person lives in a rural place and harden up on people with no brushes with the law who for reasons I don't understand, want an AR15 when they reside in a major city.

/\Crime in the countryside is usually very low here compared to large urban areas in the States.
So far no homicides in my county this year even with the meth problem .

1.

2. Bars are regulated & licensed with many rules and are subject to random inspections by plain clothes liquor inspectors. Patrons do require proof of age via government issued photo ID in order to drink there - but the notion of drinking training is ridiculous if you're comparing it to the use of a deadly weapon like a gun. Bars DO bar people from entry - is this a foreign concept to you? People known to misbehave are banned from entering, sometimes for life. Bars have their own "red flag," rules and enforce them at their own discretion. (Have you never been to a bar before?)

All bartenders/shop owners DO have access to a digital registry of banned people around here if they're a member of "Bar Watch." All customers have to provide photo ID and then have their photos taken at entry so there's a record of every single person that enters the bar. Known gangsters and violent criminals are not granted entry. This is to keep the gang war violence out of bars as much as possible and to make patrons feel safer going for a night out vs. fearful that gunfire could erupt at any moment between rival drug gangs with their back and forth tit for tat assassinations that have been escalating over the last decade. Virtually every night club downtown is a member, and many other larger pubs etc, and then some larger pubs and clubs in the suburbs as well. You're not the first to realize that this is an effective way to help keep people safe from gun violence in bars.

Vodka & hard liquor aren't banned, but they are standardized to usually 40% abv and labelled as such so that licenced servers can monitor alcohol intake vs. some complete unknown alcohol content in moonshine of unknown ingredients. Standardized drinks have similar overall alcohol content whether a glass of wine, a pint of beer, or an ounce of liquor at 40%. All liquor must be measured vs. free poured and the legal maximum amount anyone is allowed to be served is a triple - 3 ounces at 40%, not a double as you propose. This is to ensure that people do not over consume too much liquor in too short a time period resulting in them being intoxicated, which is technically illegal for a bartender or server to allow to happen. But in reality, people get drunk at bars/clubs, and then IF they go drive and crash and cause property damage or kill someone then they sue the bar & server/bartender and all of those people take their chances on potential financial liability, which is why it's always good practice to cut people off before they're too drunk And to offer to call a safe ride for them etc so you at least have plausible deniability in terms of responsibility for their actions after they leave.

So, there ya go - these common sense regulations are in fact implemented for alcohol sales & consumption in order to limit societal harm. No reason not to have common sense restrictions & regulations on fire arms for the same reason. Thanks for helping prove my point!

All of which is already in place in the Divided States.

It requires a license to run a gun shop and there are many rules for running a gun shop. Probably they have police inspections too but I'm not sure.

It already requires a government proof of age ID to buy a gun.

Gun shops can already bar anyone from entry for any reason even if unconstitutional, for instance a gun shop can not sell you a gun simply because they dislike you or you give them a bad vibe.

So the equivalent of "uncommon sense gun control" would have to take it a step further, if we are to draw accurate parrellels between guns and bars.

Why is it ridiculous? Drunk driving is about as serious as gun violence or mass murder. And there are a plethora of other ways booze can kill, for instance booze could make someone violent, or it could cause cancer later on. So if we are to have an even playing field, if mandatory gun training is required then we might as well have mandatory booze training too.




My point is the safety cult could extend the doctrine to all walks of life. Booze could cause as much havoc as a gun. And the safety cult will say "oh if you don't do uncommon sense gun control, you're a bad, bad person". So someone could say "Well if you don't put strict, draconian measures on booze, you're a bad, bad person who allows booze to wreak havoc." Which is how Prohibition became a thing, which coincidentally led to more violence and coincidentally led to gun control in the first place. And you're assuming "uncommon sense gun control" won't lead to a total gun ban, ie. Prohibition, so I will outline the problems with "uncommon sense gun control".

- Uncommon sense gun control is viewed as draconian by 81% of americans, so I call it uncommon instead of common sense
- With safety cult logic, 10 years from now anyone who supports the freedom to drive could be deemed a bad person, we will be told forced AI drivers will save lives
- Safety cult logic led to the Prohibition, it failed, is the only reason they aren't demanding Prohibition now, in an alternate timeline where Prohibition never happened, they would be pushing for more Prohibition right now too
- Safety cult logic leads to forced vaccinations, even in America some people get toxic when someone refuses to vax
- Safety cult logic could lead to a future of all kinds of forced sketchy medical treatments
- Assault rifle ban: Won't work, could make mass shootings easier
- When AR ban doesn't work they will try to ban pistols
- With pistols banned, people will just use shotguns for mass murder purposes
- Eventually all guns could get banned from what started as a supposed "common sense gun control" framework
- Argument for banning ARs is they aren't useful, but the argument doesn't consider rural situations where people are attacked by giant hogs
- Red flag laws are sketch, wouldn't prevent a lot of mass shootings. For instance Eliot Rodger didn't publish the manifesto till right before the shooting
- Red flag laws could enable toxic family or associates to abuse the laws. For instance someone in a toxic marriage could be manipulated by red flag laws. Or if a parent doesn't agree with their offspring's politics they could use red flag laws. Or social media bullies could egg someone on and then use red flag laws against that person
- "Mental health policy" doesn't work in a corporate industrial complex system where Big Pharma dictates everything
- "Mental health policy" would disproportionally effect LGBTs viewtopic.php?t=411779 so its basically a policy that would disarm LGBTs and prevent them from defending themselves against chuds
- "Mental health policy" might not benefit women. For instance a woman might have some kind of mental disorder but is dating a wifebeater chud who has no actual diagnosis, so it might just disarm women instead of chuds
- Gun regulation would reduce American jobs. We should have UBI anyway, but we don't, so at the moment Americans still need jobs

Sign me onto the mandatory booze training train!

My classes - which according to my syllabi have nothing to do with these topics - already include many random asides about the fact that alcohol is in fact a poison, nicotine is an effective insecticide, three seconds is the appropriate following distance, wet/snowy roads take longer to stop on, high fructose corn syrup is bad for you, caffeine is a drug, addiction to anything sucks, communication is important in relationships, no one should ever lay hands on you against your will, and never put anything in your lungs except air and medication prescribed by your doctor.