Sorry, another gun control thread

[mikeymikec]

No, shit, there is more to this world than the United States. I never knew that. I's dumb.

Not pointless or difficult to change things...IMPOSSIBLE! The only changes you could possibly make would do nothing to stop those bent on committing gun violence.

You want to ban a tool and think it will magically change the evil/sickness/criminal element in the hearts of some men. I say better to be prepared than let your wishful thinking disarm the 99.9%+ of gun owners who aren't the problem. Even if you could.

Please stop talking about the evil in mens' hearts after acknowledging there is more to this world outside the US. Of course there is, and of course there are bad men outside the US yet somehow the rest of the world manages without allowing the general populace to be armed. Disarmament does not require magical powers, nor is anything made by man impossible to change, but first this situation requires the US to face its addiction, and you're not ready to do that. Your argument has reached a new level of ridiculousness, congratulations.

All of your arguments revolve around the assumption that you can achieve your peaceful world if the law abiding among us would just agree to give up our guns. And that you have some magic that will make it possible to confiscate the weapons of those who refuse to comply. While you selectively choose to ignore those who would use it as an opportunity to do even further harm.

Since I have not even broached the topic of how to go about disarmament, you're engaging in a straw man. What disarmament does initially require is for the people to be convinced that it's the right thing to do. The US has not reached that stage yet, so therefore discussing it with someone who has no interest in change is utterly pointless, because addiction requires acknowledgment and a desire to change. People who are genuinely interested in such a change would not bother wasting peoples' time by discussing magical solutions as if they're the only ones. The fact that you do shows that you're not ready for such a discussion because you haven't given it any genuine consideration, if anything you likely began by dismissing the idea outright then thinking about how you can go about justifying that decision.

 

[pmv]

No, those positions are popular in the entirety of America.You probably don’t believe this because you live in an extreme right wing echo chamber.

Things like universal background checks, magazine size limits, bans on certain types of rifles, etc, all enjoy strong majority support in America. The only place they don’t is among the extreme right.

They enjoy support, but I'm not entirely convinced that the support is all that 'strong'. That's the trouble with opinion polls, they don't really measure how strongly someone feels about something because even ticking the 'feel strongly' box doesn't require any real effort or commitment. I suspect those who support them don't feel as strongly about it as the smaller group who oppose them do. Best hope is for that latter group to get smaller and smaller, I feel. There will come a point where numbers can't be countered with fervor or commitment or even money.

 

[Paladin3]

Please stop talking about the evil in mens' hearts after acknowledging there is more to this world outside the US. Of course there is, and of course there are bad men outside the US yet somehow the rest of the world manages without allowing the general populace to be armed. Disarmament does not require magical powers, nor is anything made by man impossible to change, but first this situation requires the US to face its addiction, and you're not ready to do that. Your argument has reached a new level of ridiculousness, congratulations.



Since I have not even broached the topic of how to go about disarmament, you're engaging in a straw man. What disarmament does initially require is for the people to be convinced that it's the right thing to do. The US has not reached that stage yet, so therefore discussing it with someone who has no interest in change is utterly pointless, because addiction requires acknowledgment and a desire to change. People who are genuinely interested in such a change would not bother wasting peoples' time by discussing magical solutions as if they're the only ones. The fact that you do shows that you're not ready for such a discussion because you haven't given it any genuine consideration, if anything you likely began by dismissing the idea outright then thinking about how you can go about justifying that decision.

So many of us disagree with you that owning guns is an addiction, so stop claiming that as a fact. Nothing negative has happened to me because I own guns. In fact, it's a very enjoyable hobby that I have spent many hours engaging in. The help feed my family and help me to keep them safe. Why should I have any desire to change that? Because YOU believe that if I do so it will somehow magically get folks who are the real problem to stop killing? You have no workable plan because it's IMPOSSIBLE to get folks to peacefully disarm if they choose not to.

How many countries have outlawed tobacco? Smoking is one of the most dangerous voluntary habits I can think of. It kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of people around the world each year, but there is very little effort being made to ban it. If the news ran stories of how many children die from second hand smoke each year you'd be up in arms over that, right? I've got a neighbor who smoked all the way through her pregnancy and is raising her son in a house with three smokers. The poor kid is behind in every developmental milestone he's reached. Where's the outrage over parents who do that?

So stop calling all my arguments straw man because that's a huge cop out. You selectively choose to rail against law-abiding gun owners because you have almost zero power to stop the crimes of the sick/criminal/evil individuals who are the actual problem. Those folks don't obey laws, and don't care if they have to break the law to get their weapons of choice.

And then you continue to bury your head in the sand or claim straw man argument again when we point out that even if you had the votes you couldn't enact a weapons ban without starting a civil war. And that, short of a ban, the "common sense" gun control won't do a thing to stop gun crime. WE ALREADY HAD AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN AND IT DID NOTHING! And like I keep saying, murder is already illegal. What further law short of a complete gun ban will stop folks intent on breaking that law?

Most anti-gunners never stop to question if their passionate ideas for a gun-free America are even possible to achieve. Yet they are more than willing to severally limit or completely deprive law-abiding citizens of the constitutional rights in a vain attempt to feel like they are doing something about the problem. Remember, 99.9% of civilian owned guns in America are never used to commit a crime or hurt anyone. Can you say the same about tobacco?

Sorry, I'm kind of rambling now as I'm in the middle of a migraine headache.

 

[mikeymikec]

So many of us disagree with you that owning guns is an addiction, so stop claiming that as a fact. Nothing negative has happened to me because I own guns. In fact, it's a very enjoyable hobby that I have spent many hours engaging in. The help feed my family and help me to keep them safe. Why should I have any desire to change that?

Owning guns does not an addiction make. However, you've repeatedly made utterly illogical statements in support of your continued ownership, argued both sides of the fence, made comparisons between something you have acknowledged is a tool for killing and things that aren't tools for killing as if they're somehow comparable in that way, and you reject any gun control suggestions. If that doesn't spell out a rather personal and intensely emotional attachment to an inanimate object that you have already admitted makes you less safe and yet somehow makes you more safe, I don't know what does.

Because YOU believe that if I do so it will somehow magically get folks who are the real problem to stop killing? You have no workable plan because it's IMPOSSIBLE to get folks to peacefully disarm if they choose not to.

Here you are making claims that I've already countered without even bothering to address my counterpoints. Also I have not discussed forcibly disarming the general populace against their will, I made my position relating to that topic quite clear in my first response to you:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/sorry-another-gun-control-thread.2549426/page-3#post-39474088

How many countries have outlawed tobacco?

"I don't have an addiction!" "Excuse me while I compare it to an addiction"

Smoking is one of the most dangerous voluntary habits I can think of. It kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of people around the world each year, but there is very little effort being made to ban it. If the news ran stories of how many children die from second hand smoke each year you'd be up in arms over that, right? I've got a neighbor who smoked all the way through her pregnancy and is raising her son in a house with three smokers. The poor kid is behind in every developmental milestone he's reached. Where's the outrage over parents who do that?

I don't know about the US but quite a few steps have been taken to curb smoking in the UK:

1 - No smoking in public buildings, I'm pretty sure it's banned in workplace buildings as well, pubs and restaurants too
2 - No sale of such items to under 16s.
3 - Every cigarette packet is covered in public health notices and huge lettering that says this item will kill you
4 - Advertising of such items is banned
5 - I read an article literally the other day about the dangers of third-hand smoking
6 - Such items are heavily taxed
7 - Shops selling such items cannot even openly display them in the shop any more, they have to be hidden from general view.
(there probably have been other measures taken)

Which resulted in (IIRC):
Every demographic in the UK has decreased smoking except for teens.

Do you know how such a thing is possible? Because of the absense of anything like the Dickey amendment. Because those lobbyists clearly don't have that much power over politicians in the UK. Because there weren't significant numbers of people crying out that it was impossible to change. Because people listen to the evidence.

So stop calling all my arguments straw man because that's a huge cop out.

I didn't call all of your arguments straw men. Concede that point. I find it interesting that you didn't try to make a counterpoint with evidence that my accusation of a strawman was incorrect, because that would have been the logical thing to do. Honestly, please do go back and check where in this thread I've brought up how I would recommend disarming the general populace. So talking about my arguments going on the assumption that just people voluntarily giving up firearms is a strawman. There was an assumption, and it was yours. Concede that point in the interests of intellectual honesty.

You selectively choose to rail against law-abiding gun owners because you have almost zero power to stop the crimes of the sick/criminal/evil individuals who are the actual problem. Those folks don't obey laws, and don't care if they have to break the law to get their weapons of choice.

Jesus, it's the "laws don't change behaviour" argument again. Your argument runs contrary to the basic reason why we have laws: To deter people from behaviours that we wish to discourage in our societies. I'm honestly not even going to bother addressing your point. It's completely absurd.

Just to point your head in the right direction so you can see the argument of gun control advocates though: If you restrict the availability of firearms, it will logically reduce gun crime. Logically it will also have a desirable effect on violent crime in general since as you've already acknowledged, a gun is a tool; logically people will use the most appropriate tool that's available to them, and since a gun is a considerably more efficient tool for threatening people, it's logical to use that tool rather than a less efficient one. The use of less efficient tools logically reduces the likelihood of success.

And then you continue to bury your head in the sand or claim straw man argument again when we point out that even if you had the votes you couldn't enact a weapons ban without starting a civil war. And that, short of a ban, the "common sense" gun control won't do a thing to stop gun crime. WE ALREADY HAD AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN AND IT DID NOTHING! And like I keep saying, murder is already illegal. What further law short of a complete gun ban will stop folks intent on breaking that law?

So you're of the opinion that if you try something and it doesn't work, then try nothing else?

Most anti-gunners never stop to question if their passionate ideas for a gun-free America are even possible to achieve.

I would find it pretty surprising if no gun control advocates anywhere have ever discussed how to go about disarming America (though AFAIK that's not the aim of most gun control advocates in America). I personally have never discussed the topic at great length with anyone because a) I don't live there, and b) discussing it with a like-minded person to myself (ie. I've never owned a gun, I've never seen the point in it, so therefore my experience of the topic is limited) will result in what tends to happen with echo chamber thinking: Piss-poor solutions that fail to take in many factors of the problem and critically examine the solutions from as many angles as possible.

Discussing it with someone who has considerably more experience of gun ownership and gun owners than I do (and ideally some experience of acquiring firearms in shady fashions) and sees the merits of reducing the availability of firearms in some way would make a lot more sense.

Discussing it with you however should be something that even you can acknowledge is utterly futile: You've already rejected basically all the underlying arguments that would be the basis of far less extreme measures of gun control let alone disarmament. Nothing about your position so far suggests to me that there's even any gun control measure that you would honestly consider as the arguments you've put up have logically ruled them out as well.

 

[pmv]

I don't know about the US but quite a few steps have been taken to curb smoking in the UK:

1 - No smoking in public buildings, I'm pretty sure it's banned in workplace buildings as well, pubs and restaurants too
2 - No sale of such items to under 16s.
3 - Every cigarette packet is covered in public health notices and huge lettering that says this item will kill you
4 - Advertising of such items is banned
5 - I read an article literally the other day about the dangers of third-hand smoking
6 - Such items are heavily taxed
7 - Shops selling such items cannot even openly display them in the shop any more, they have to be hidden from general view.
(there probably have been other measures taken)

1 ...and public transport
2...actually, under 18s
6...very, very heavily taxed, to the tune of something close to 90% of the price. Which is why it's silly that people complain about those on benefits spending it on cigarettes - they are simply handing a big portion of their benefits straight back to the treasury. (And as a bonus - from a fiscal conservative perspective - killing themselves off before getting to claim their state pension).

But people don't smoke as a partial consequence of a long-standing and fraught history of racial conflict leading to a deep fear of fellow citizens. So they are different from guns in that regard.

 

[Paladin3]

I'll keep it simple: how will we get guns out of the hands of those intent on committing murder? How do we disarm the next potential shooter?

If I understand correctly, the majority anti-gun position does not favor completely banning civilian gun ownership. So, what "common sense" gun control laws will stop the criminal intent on murder and not simply put unreasonable constraints on the law-abiding gun owner? And not violate the basic principal of due process and innocent until proven guilty either?

 

[Paladin3]

And what I support:

1. A truly instant, universal background check before each and every sale, private or otherwise. These would be free and available at the local law enforcement office. This would require far more funding to ensure no buyer slips through the cracks.

2. Welfare gun checks for those who are in any way declared legally incompetent in any way. If you need a nurse provided to you in home because you are of sufficiently diminished capacity, then it's time to review if it's safe for you to own a gun. This one would be VERY tricky, because we would need to create a firm list of criteria that a judge would have to review before we could remove someones right to own a firearm. This wouldn't be something we would just leave to a doctor or other official to decide since the power would be too easy to abuse for the "greater good."

3. Very strict monitoring of the home environment of those who have lost their right to own guns. No more being shocked that guns seized from an offender were returned to a family member who in turn gave them back.

4. Reasonable criminal penalties for those who knowingly allow anyone without gun rights to access their firearms. We would have to be careful this is not abused as a defacto attempt to make it overly burdensome for folks to own guns.

5. All gun owners need to attend either a gun safety or hunter safety class.

6. Any use of alcohol or drugs while otherwise legally carrying a firearms = automatic loss of gun rights for minimum one year. Far stiffer penalties for second offenders, possibly a lifetime ban.

7. Criminal penalties for gun owners who don't make reasonable efforts to train, teach, educate and prevent the unauthorized access to a household firearm by a minor living or visiting the residence.

8. Continue to allow civilian ownership of guns that are currently legal.

9. Deregulate suppressors. Protecting hearing is a huge concern for shooters. A suppressor in no way makes a gun silent or creates any additional danger of criminal misuse of a gun. Nobody looking to use a handgun in a crime wants an addition foot long tube screwed on the front. It's simply a way to prevent the loss of hearing so many shooters suffer from.

10. Common sense gun awareness and safety training in schools. Even something as simple as "if you see a gun, don't touch, leave the area and tell a responsible adult" would be wonderful.

11. Parents to look for and understand when their kids can't differentiate between fantasy and reality. If you've got a kid hiding away in his room playing Call of Duty (which I like to play as well) please talk to them and figure out if they know the difference between blowing away enemy pixels and the taking of real life. Individuals, especially children, without the ability to empathize with others is a huge problem for our society. If your kid like beating up the family cat or his little brother, do something about it. Get your help if he needs it.

12. Create a culture where we stop ignoring potential malcontents who may escalate into violent criminals. Take care of those in your family, or at least warn someone if they are acting strange. This would be hard to do because we live in a free society where due process must be followed. We can't just lock someone up or remove their gun rights if they haven't done anything illegal, but we can do a much better job than we are currently. In other words, love and care for your brother.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

And what I support:

FYI my replies are in response to laws that could enforce what you support. I mostly agree that people should follow your ideas even if they aren't laws. You are describing responsible gun ownership.

1. A truly instant, universal background check before each and every sale, private or otherwise. These would be free and available at the local law enforcement office. This would require far more funding to ensure no buyer slips through the cracks.

Why for each sale? Why not some kind of license similar to a driver license? A one time check that expires after a few years. Any felony would result in revoking the license.

2. Welfare gun checks for those who are in any way declared legally incompetent in any way. If you need a nurse provided to you in home because you are of sufficiently diminished capacity, then it's time to review if it's safe for you to own a gun. This one would be VERY tricky, because we would need to create a firm list of criteria that a judge would have to review before we could remove someones right to own a firearm. This wouldn't be something we would just leave to a doctor or other official to decide since the power would be too easy to abuse for the "greater good."

This requires a couple of things: knowledge that someone owns a gun, and the ability to confiscate the gun. Both of these are difficult, the second is potentially very dangerous.

3. Very strict monitoring of the home environment of those who have lost their right to own guns. No more being shocked that guns seized from an offender were returned to a family member who in turn gave them back.

I'm more in favor of the offender losing the weapon completely. Why give it to a family member in the first place? Besides, which strategies do you have in mind to use strict monitoring to prevent family members from giving guns back to the offender? Short of random full-home swat searches, you aren't gonna find that gun. And trying to find it could be dangerous to the cops. And time consuming. And expensive. And distract them from important things. How bout just take the gun from the bad guy and destroy it?

4. Reasonable criminal penalties for those who knowingly allow anyone without gun rights to access their firearms. We would have to be careful this is not abused as a defacto attempt to make it overly burdensome for folks to own guns.

Is it not already a crime to allow someone whom you know does not have gun rights to shoot your gun? That needs to be a crime.

5. All gun owners need to attend either a gun safety or hunter safety class.

This could be part of the licensing process I suggested for your point #1. Maybe this class is a one-time-only (not necessary to renew) similar to the actual hunter safety class.

6. Any use of alcohol or drugs while otherwise legally carrying a firearms = automatic loss of gun rights for minimum one year. Far stiffer penalties for second offenders, possibly a lifetime ban.

Yeah, drinking and guns don't mix. At all.

7. Criminal penalties for gun owners who don't make reasonable efforts to train, teach, educate and prevent the unauthorized access to a household firearm by a minor living or visiting the residence.

So you have to train, teach, and educate a minor visiting the residence? This is just weird. Safe storage requirement is a nice idea.

9. Deregulate suppressors. Protecting hearing is a huge concern for shooters. A suppressor in no way makes a gun silent or creates any additional danger of criminal misuse of a gun. Nobody looking to use a handgun in a crime wants an addition foot long tube screwed on the front. It's simply a way to prevent the loss of hearing so many shooters suffer from.

Yeah, I can't recall a single case in which more people died in a shooting or the shooter got away due to a suppressor.

 

[SP33Demon]

Please stop talking about the evil in mens' hearts after acknowledging there is more to this world outside the US. Of course there is, and of course there are bad men outside the US yet somehow the rest of the world manages without allowing the general populace to be armed. Disarmament does not require magical powers, nor is anything made by man impossible to change, but first this situation requires the US to face its addiction, and you're not ready to do that. Your argument has reached a new level of ridiculousness, congratulations.



Since I have not even broached the topic of how to go about disarmament, you're engaging in a straw man. What disarmament does initially require is for the people to be convinced that it's the right thing to do. The US has not reached that stage yet, so therefore discussing it with someone who has no interest in change is utterly pointless, because addiction requires acknowledgment and a desire to change. People who are genuinely interested in such a change would not bother wasting peoples' time by discussing magical solutions as if they're the only ones. The fact that you do shows that you're not ready for such a discussion because you haven't given it any genuine consideration, if anything you likely began by dismissing the idea outright then thinking about how you can go about justifying that decision.

Except we've seen what disarmament looks like (see the London police) and it's a slippery slope of BS. They've now banned scissors, screwdrivers, and other basic tools b/c they're fucking mental midgets who love being censored and controlled by their governments. "Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither."

Case in point:
https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096
If that ain't some Orwellian shit, tell me what is?

Not only that, but look at these idiots going after people for weed possession as well:
https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/1011204185050767360

We are light years ahead of these idiots (Trump is pondering legalizing weed), gun ownership is just where the list begins. Amazing that they were even able to pull off Brexit but now you see why?

 

[mikeymikec]

I'll keep it simple: how will we get guns out of the hands of those intent on committing murder? How do we disarm the next potential shooter?

If I understand correctly, the majority anti-gun position does not favor completely banning civilian gun ownership. So, what "common sense" gun control laws will stop the criminal intent on murder and not simply put unreasonable constraints on the law-abiding gun owner? And not violate the basic principal of due process and innocent until proven guilty either?

I'll go to an even simpler (well, one that starts at the root of such a discussion) question because frankly I'm not going to answer a question about a group of people I have little experience of think:

What do you perceive the problem to be regarding guns in the US? What would the solution fix exactly?

The reason I started this thread is because TallBill regarded school shootings as a "statistical outlier" and that it's too difficult to do anything about it basically. I responded showing one school shooting incident in the UK resulting in people being sufficiently bothered about it to change the law, and since then no school shootings have occurred.

@SP33Demon

No they haven't. I live in the UK. I walk around such such items routinely. Tradesmen such as plumbers carry such items routinely. I suspect that some special project was being conducted for unusual reasons, and and such unusual rules applied.

What I find funny is that you didn't think, "that sounds silly, I should fact-check it", then go on say Google, type in 'is it illegal to carry a screwdriver uk', a Guardian website result pops up with the answer: No.

If you want to play on slippery slopes of BS, that's your business.

In an attempt to find out what the "weapons sweep" was about (you know, being interested in facts) and what basis (alleged or not, because people - including police - make mistakes) they had for confiscating screwdrivers, I found various initiatives in London specifically but nothing that covered anything like screwdrivers. AFAIK the law regarding knives with >3in blades still stands, that's the result I get when I search for "knife law uk" (an prepper's guide appears and the official government knife law page), so I don't think anything has changed in that regard in quite some time.

 

[SP33Demon]

I'll go to an even simpler (well, one that starts at the root of such a discussion) question because frankly I'm not going to answer a question about a group of people I have little experience of think:

What do you perceive the problem to be regarding guns in the US? What would the solution fix exactly?

The reason I started this thread is because TallBill regarded school shootings as a "statistical outlier" and that it's too difficult to do anything about it basically. I responded showing one school shooting incident in the UK resulting in people being sufficiently bothered about it to change the law, and since then no school shootings have occurred.

@SP33Demon

No they haven't. I live in the UK. I walk around such such items routinely. Tradesmen such as plumbers carry such items routinely. I suspect that some special project was being conducted for unusual reasons, and and such unusual rules applied.

What I find funny is that you didn't think, "that sounds silly, I should fact-check it", then go on say Google, type in 'is it illegal to carry a screwdriver uk', a Guardian website result pops up with the answer: No.

If you want to play on slippery slopes of BS, that's your business.

In an attempt to find out what the "weapons sweep" was about (you know, being interested in facts) and what basis (alleged or not, because people - including police - make mistakes) they had for confiscating screwdrivers, I found various initiatives in London specifically but nothing that covered anything like screwdrivers. AFAIK the law regarding knives with >3in blades still stands, that's the result I get when I search for "knife law uk" (an prepper's guide appears and the official government knife law page), so I don't think anything has changed in that regard in quite some time.

Except knives are banned in London:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/9/gun-control-londons-muslim-mayor-sadiq-khan-bans-k/
So I don't know what planet you're living on, but screwdrivers ain't that far from knives and the fact that the police are already confiscating them (and scissors) says otherwise. Look at another post by these oppressive Orwellian twats:
https://twitter.com/MPSStamfordHill/status/1011006750059847680

I'd gladly join in a violent civil war to stop such things from happening if I lived there and had a choice. And people are calling Trump supporters "Nazi's"? Who are the ones censoring and imprisoning their own people without a trial? What the ones taking their guns, knives, even screwdrivers and scissors? Yes, let's talk slippery slopes - the Nazi's did the same.exact.thing. Fact: you are actually living in a country closer to a Nazi-state than we are. Let's not even get into Tommy Robinson's imprisonment for something subjective as reporting from a courthouse (yep thrown in prison without any hearing for 13 months for disrupting the peace). You have no rights mikey, I'd suggest you move to the US before your country goes further down the slippery slope. Brexit came too late, you're fucked.

 

[mikeymikec]

Except knives are banned in London:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/9/gun-control-londons-muslim-mayor-sadiq-khan-bans-k/
So I don't know what planet you're living on, but screwdrivers ain't that far from knives and the fact that the police are already confiscating them (and scissors) says otherwise. Look at another post by these oppressive Orwellian twats:
https://twitter.com/MPSStamfordHill/status/1011006750059847680

In your apparent search for facts, you cited an opinion piece that cites no sources. Congratulations.

This is the closest thing I found to your alleged ban:
https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/tackling-serious-violent-crime
Which... doesn't mention any new ban, or anything more than what I've already stated.

I'm not even going to bother with the knife vs. scissors argument. Unless you can prove otherwise, AFAIK the law in the UK is with regard to carrying >3in blades.

I'd gladly join in a violent civil war to stop such things from happening if I lived there and had a choice. And people are calling Trump supporters "Nazi's"? Who are the ones censoring and imprisoning their own people without a trial? What the ones taking their guns, knives, even screwdrivers and scissors? Yes, let's talk slippery slopes - the Nazi's did the same.exact.thing. Fact: you are actually living in a country closer to a Nazi-state than we are. Let's not even get into Tommy Robinson's imprisonment for something subjective as reporting from a courthouse (yep thrown in prison without any hearing for 14 months for "disrupting the peace"). You have no rights mikey, I'd suggest you move to the US before your country goes further down the slippery slope. Brexit came too late, you're fucked.

Hilarious reading. You might want to read up about Tommy Robinson, former head of the EDL, on video doing nazi salutes, and he was convicted of contempt of court: There were reporting restrictions on a particular case, he flouted them, was arrested and pleaded guilty.

Here's him doing Nazi salutes and his arrest:
https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/11/crybaby-tommy-robinson-supporter-wails-arrested-nazi-salutes-7621521/

If you have a relevant (to this thread topic) point to make, please get to the point quickly. If you want to complain about freedom of speech in the UK, start another thread please.

 

[SP33Demon]

In your apparent search for facts, you cited an opinion piece that cites no sources. Congratulations.

This is the closest thing I found to your alleged ban:
https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/tackling-serious-violent-crime
Which... doesn't mention any new ban, or anything more than what I've already stated.

I'm not even going to bother with the knife vs. scissors argument. Unless you can prove otherwise, AFAIK the law in the UK is with regard to carrying >3in blades.

WTF are you talking about? The mayor tweeted that people will be fucking arrested. Maybe you missed this: “No excuses,” Khan tweeted. “[T]here is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.” I also linked to hard proof that the London police were bragging about confiscating screwdrivers and scissors.

It also says right in the link to the link arrests are being made for even non-knife "offensive weapons" which could be anything. Is an electric toothbrush "offensive"? How about a sawzall? baseball bat? lmao:

• Operation Winter Nights (Nov-Dec 2017) saw more than 900 arrests and more than 350 weapons being taken off the streets – including 278 knives, 61 offensive weapons and 20 firearms

https://www.london.gov.uk/mopac-pub...rime-strategy-putting-stop-knife-crime-london

Are you that fucking stupid and/or naive to not even know what's going on in your own country? Are you sure you live in the UK? Because it sounds like you are clueless. In the US, to reiterate, there would be blood before any knives, scissors, or screwdrivers, or yo mama's dough roller were confiscated from normal law-abiding citizens. To reiterate - you are living in a slippery slope nazi-like country. The reason you can't find any official laws on the books is because they don't exist - they are arresting you because they can. This isn't even getting into Tommy Robinson's imprisonment without a trial. That would never happen in the US where we actually have constitutional rights. You have zero rights in the UK, deal with it or move. It's a fact that you live in an Orwellian-like, nazi-like country.

 

[mikeymikec]

WTF are you talking about? The mayor tweeted that people will be fucking arrested. Maybe you missed this: “No excuses,” Khan tweeted. “[T]here is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.” I also linked to hard proof that the London police were bragging about confiscating screwdrivers and scissors. Are you that fucking stupid and/or naive to not even know what's going on in your own country? Are you sure you live in the UK? Because it sounds like you are clueless. In the US, to reiterate, there would be blood before any knives, scissors, or screwdrivers were confiscated from normal law-abiding citizens. To reiterate - you are living in a slippery slope nazi-like country. The reason you can't find any official laws on the books is because they don't exist - they are arresting you because they can. This isn't even getting into Tommy Robinson's imprisonment without a trial. That would never happen in the US where we actually have constitutional rights. You have zero rights in the UK, deal with it or move.

The major's tweet logically refers to the law I described. If he had theoretically brought in a new law, logically he would have to state that somewhere, right? That's what you need to find, unless of course you think that anything you infer from something not explicitly said must be correct.

I already countered the point about the police tweet.

Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty. AFAIK in the UK you don't get a full criminal trial if you plead guilty, because there is no need for a jury to determine your guilt. What would be the point? You need a fair hearing because you already agree that what you're accused of is entirely correct? I'm curious enough about this point to start a separate thread.

- edit - just noticed your edit:

It also says right in the link to the link arrests are being made for even non-knife "offensive weapons" which could be anything.

Yes, it could be anything, so therefore if you want to make an assertion you would need to find out what that is! That's the nature of dealing with facts, you determine the facts first, not take vague wording and assume that you know the precise meaning of it.

For example, in the UK you can be arrested for "dangerous driving". If I take your perspective on that term, I'd flail my arms around and say "dangerous driving could mean anything! Slippery slope! Nazis everywhere!".

 

[SP33Demon]

The major's tweet logically refers to the law I described. If he had theoretically brought in a new law, logically he would have to state that somewhere, right? That's what you need to find, unless of course you think that anything you infer from something not explicitly said must be correct.

I already countered the point about the police tweet.

Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty. AFAIK in the UK you don't get a full criminal trial if you plead guilty, because there is no need for a jury to determine your guilt. What would be the point? You need a fair hearing because you already agree that what you're accused of is entirely correct? I'm curious enough about this point to start a separate thread.

Why are arrests being made without a law on the books for "offensive weapons" that aren't knives or guns? You can't arrest someone without laws in my country, which suggests that you live in a nazi-like country. Also, you find the law, you are the one living in a place where they arrest you without laws. I'll bet you no law exists for "offensive weapons" which is probably why we're seeing scissors and screwdrivers being confiscated by your police.

As far as Tommy Robinson, there was a fucking media ban on covering it (more nazi-like behavior) and it took Trump and other world leaders criticizing it for the ban to get lifted.

 

[mikeymikec]

Why are arrests being made without a law on the books for "offensive weapons" that aren't knives or guns? You can't arrest someone without laws in my country, which suggests that you live in a nazi-like country. Also, you find the law, you are the one living in a place where they arrest you without laws. I'll bet you no law exists for "offensive weapons" which is probably why we're seeing scissors and screwdrivers being confiscated by your police.

As far as Tommy Robinson, there was a fucking media ban on covering it (more nazi-like behavior) and it took Trump and other world leaders criticizing it for the ban to get lifted.

Your position is now entirely substance-free. Congratulations. Tip: Please don't become a police officer. Your standard of what constitutes reasonable evidence is atrocious: You'd be arresting people for things you perceive to be crimes based on opinion pieces and tweets you've read, while likely then complaining that in the UK people can be arrested without lawful ground to support the arrest.

As for your opinion about the UK's freedom of speech, feel free to start a new thread, it's irrelevant to this one.

 

[pmv]

Except knives are banned in London:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/9/gun-control-londons-muslim-mayor-sadiq-khan-bans-k/
So I don't know what planet you're living on, but screwdrivers ain't that far from knives and the fact that the police are already confiscating them (and scissors) says otherwise. Look at another post by these oppressive Orwellian twats:
https://twitter.com/MPSStamfordHill/status/1011006750059847680

I'd gladly join in a violent civil war to stop such things from happening if I lived there and had a choice. And people are calling Trump supporters "Nazi's"? Who are the ones censoring and imprisoning their own people without a trial? What the ones taking their guns, knives, even screwdrivers and scissors? Yes, let's talk slippery slopes - the Nazi's did the same.exact.thing. Fact: you are actually living in a country closer to a Nazi-state than we are. Let's not even get into Tommy Robinson's imprisonment for something subjective as reporting from a courthouse (yep thrown in prison without any hearing for 13 months for disrupting the peace). You have no rights mikey, I'd suggest you move to the US before your country goes further down the slippery slope. Brexit came too late, you're fucked.

Tommy Robinson supporter, eh? So are you a Nazi sympathiser or just someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. (I suspect both). No excuse for such ignorance at this point.

 

[pmv]

You can't arrest someone without laws in my country, .

Nah, cops just shoot them instead.

 

[pmv]

The major's tweet logically refers to the law I described. If he had theoretically brought in a new law, logically he would have to state that somewhere, right? That's what you need to find, unless of course you think that anything you infer from something not explicitly said must be correct.

I already countered the point about the police tweet.

Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty. AFAIK in the UK you don't get a full criminal trial if you plead guilty, because there is no need for a jury to determine your guilt. What would be the point? You need a fair hearing because you already agree that what you're accused of is entirely correct? I'm curious enough about this point to start a separate thread.

- edit - just noticed your edit:


Yes, it could be anything, so therefore if you want to make an assertion you would need to find out what that is! That's the nature of dealing with facts, you determine the facts first, not take vague wording and assume that you know the precise meaning of it.

For example, in the UK you can be arrested for "dangerous driving". If I take your perspective on that term, I'd flail my arms around and say "dangerous driving could mean anything! Slippery slope! Nazis everywhere!".

It's next-to-impossible to actually convict someone for dangerous driving though. Juries are too full of bad drivers. And when they do, considering only those who actually killed someone, only 1 in 10 sees any jail time (no driver has _ever_ received the maximum sentence for 'death by dangerous', or anything close to it, not even the ones in stolen cars off their heads on drugs).

This really isn't relevant to the argument, other than making the point that in some areas the law in the UK is far from oppressive, if anything it's far too soft.

 

[fskimospy]

Your position is now entirely substance-free. Congratulations. Tip: Please don't become a police officer. Your standard of what constitutes reasonable evidence is atrocious: You'd be arresting people for things you perceive to be crimes based on opinion pieces and tweets you've read, while likely then complaining that in the UK people can be arrested without lawful ground to support the arrest.

As for your opinion about the UK's freedom of speech, feel free to start a new thread, it's irrelevant to this one.

Speedy’s back, how fun! I look forward to his poorly informed, nonsensical ranting followed by bizarre macho posturing. I wonder how long it will be until he brags about how much he can squat.

 

[Paladin3]

Why for each sale? Why not some kind of license similar to a driver license? A one time check that expires after a few years. Any felony would result in revoking the license.

Because you don't need a licence to practice Constitutional rights.

This requires a couple of things: knowledge that someone owns a gun, and the ability to confiscate the gun. Both of these are difficult, the second is potentially very dangerous.

If all gun sales are tracked then it would be simple to have a special trained social worker and a member of the local law enforcement make a welfare check on an individual diminished capacity or who was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility to see if they are still competent to own a gun. If someone is not competent enough to cook or care for themselves maybe they shouldn't have access to a firearm. That goes doubly for someone who has extreme mental health issues. And all this would be reviewed by a judge to ensure the system was not abused.

I'm more in favor of the offender losing the weapon completely. Why give it to a family member in the first place? Besides, which strategies do you have in mind to use strict monitoring to prevent family members from giving guns back to the offender? Short of random full-home swat searches, you aren't gonna find that gun. And trying to find it could be dangerous to the cops. And time consuming. And expensive. And distract them from important things. How bout just take the gun from the bad guy and destroy it?

The same way you can't destroy the car of someone who gets a DUI, you can't just destroy what could be tens of thousands of dollars worth of personal property. Many felonies that result in you losing your gun rights aren't even violent. So, when you serve a felony warrant you search the house and take all guns out. Later on, during the suspects due process, it's decided what is to be done with the guns. And more than anything, we need to stop convicted felons from moving in with family who own guns. And not just violate the felon when we find such a situation, but the owner of the gun as well if they knew the person was a felon.

Is it not already a crime to allow someone whom you know does not have gun rights to shoot your gun? That needs to be a crime.

Again, it's just hold people accountable when they knowingly let a gun in their custody to be accessed by a felon. Like the father who was given the guns that were seized from his son back by law enforcement, then he let the son have them back and he when on a shooting spree...can't remember which one, but it was recently.

This could be part of the licensing process I suggested for your point #1. Maybe this class is a one-time-only (not necessary to renew) similar to the actual hunter safety class.

Again, no licencing. Free gun safety classes would have to be held so there isn't undue burdens place on gun owners, and I'm even iffy on this requirement If it's too much of a burden to make a person have state issued ID and prove who they are before voting, then why is it okay to put additional requirement s on someone exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

So you have to train, teach, and educate a minor visiting the residence? This is just weird. Safe storage requirement is a nice idea.

I probably should have said "and/or" on this one. Basically, I want people to take reasonable precautions to ensure minors in their home have reasonable knowledge regarding gun safety. Otherwise the gun needs to be locked up. I can safely leave my pistol loaded on my nightstand because my 17 year old daughter knows how to use it safely. If her friends come over and I don't know them, or have no idea if they understand gun safety, then the gun gets unloaded and locked up.

Yeah, I can't recall a single case in which more people died in a shooting or the shooter got away due to a suppressor.

It's just another example of how much misinformation is floating around that some voters are using to make decisions with.

 

[Paladin3]

I'll go to an even simpler (well, one that starts at the root of such a discussion) question because frankly I'm not going to answer a question about a group of people I have little experience of think:

What do you perceive the problem to be regarding guns in the US? What would the solution fix exactly?

At the most fundamental level: personal responsibility. Some folks are just irresponsible, while others have mental health issues that render them violent or otherwise unsafe to own a weapon of any kind. There are always a small minority in any community to ruin things for the rest of us with their poor behavior. Guns are no different.

Exacerbating the issue is that America is supposed to be a "free society" where we cherish the concepts of due process, innocence until proven guilty and guaranteed constitutional rights for all. Not to mention certain inalienable human rights.

So, if we can't suspend a persons constitutional right to own a gun until they commit a crime or otherwise have their gun rights revoked by a judge via due process under the law, the how do you stop someone with no criminal record from shooting up a school?

And, if we attempt to ban the tools, it simply won't work, IMHO. Government has never, ever been able to prohibit any object or substance or activity if the demand exists. But we could try real hard, convince law-abiding gun owners to give up their guns, outlaw more and more types of guns, and those who are willing to ignore the laws will still be armed.

Like I keep trying to remind folks, there are already tons of laws against murder, but that doesn't seem to stop folks who are intent on killing. How would any degree of a gun ban be any different? Especially considering how many guns are already in the hands of civilians.

 

[fskimospy]

At the most fundamental level: Personal Responsibility. Some folks are just irresponsible, while others have mental health issues that render them violent or otherwise unsafe to own a weapon of any kind. There are always a small minority in any community to ruin things for the rest of us with their poor behavior. Guns are no different.

Exacerbating the issue is that America is supposed to be a "free society" where we cherish the concepts of due process, innocence until proven guilty and guaranteed constitutional rights for all. Not to mention certain inalienable human rights.

So, if we can't suspend a persons constitutional right to own a gun until they commit a crime or otherwise have their gun rights revoked by a judge via due process under the law, the how do you stop someone with no criminal record from shooting up a school?

And, if we attempt to ban the tools, it simply won't work, IMHO. Government has never, ever been able to prohibit any object or substance or activity if the demand exists. But we could try real hard, convince law-abiding gun owners to give up their guns, outlaw more and more types of guns, and those who are willing to ignore the laws will still be armed. Like I keep trying to remind folks, there are already tons of laws against murder, but that doesn't seem to stop folks who are intent of killing. How would any level of gun bans be any different? Especially considering how many guns are already in the hands of civilians.

The vast majority of other developed countries in the world have accomplished exactly the thing you say is impossible. That indicates to me it’s very possible.

As for laws against murder they clearly don’t stop every person intent on killing but I would bet a shitload of money the murder rate would be higher if they didn’t exist. Will banning guns end all gun deaths and crime? Of course not. It will reduce it though, big time.

 

[Thebobo]

Remember the wild west, even they knew enough was enough.

 

[Paladin3]

The vast majority of other developed countries in the world have accomplished exactly the thing you say is impossible. That indicates to me it’s very possible.

As for laws against murder they clearly don’t stop every person intent on killing but I would bet a shitload of money the murder rate would be higher if they didn’t exist. Will banning guns end all gun deaths and crime? Of course not. It will reduce it though, big time.

Then pass a gun ban and YOU go collect them. I've said before that if I had the power to make all guns disappear I would do so. I just don't know how to accomplish it. And the sick/evil/criminal individuals who don't obey laws would be the hardest to disarm, impossible I would say, so it's only the law-abiding you would be disarming. And this isn't even touching the 2nd Amendment issue and the right of every American of age to own a gun unless their rights have been revoked via legal due process.

Are there any other relatively young nations, that consist of constitutional republic with a representative democracy, that thought so strongly about civilian gun ownership that they made it the 2nd Amendment of their Constitution? How many of them went on to voluntarily disarm their citizens and end violent gun crime?