Gun law - two.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Like I said. I don't have a problem with requiring background checks at gun shows. I also don't have problems with laws making it sellers (private and public) responsible for who they sell it to. Forcing a call to the local sherrifs department to verify that someone doesn't have a felony conviction is not a difficult thing to do (as those records are public information).

That is my point they need to do something about that. but so far there is absolutelly not control whatsoever. And I think the situation in utah is repetead in many states.

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

Who has the right to decide what I need and don't need? And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?

Then according to you, who has the right to decide if you can speed, or even murder someone. How dare they interfere with your needs or desires. You should be able to buy mustard gas and murder as many people as you want because you want it. Right? How dare they tell you not to do that?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

However, the question still remains, what benefit is there to society by me or my wife giving up our guns?

You're choosing to ignore the argument that I made that nobody asked you to give up your guns.However, if you chose to give up your guns ,the chance that somebody may someday steal them and use them against you or someone that you care about is eliminated.And if enough legitimate gun owners raise the standard of care for their guns,the acquisition of weapons for illegal purposes becomes harder.Gun crime is only out of control because gun ownership is out of control.Flooding the market with guns until everyone has one has created a level playing field of mayhem.Squeezing out the gun supply to both the irresponsible gun owners and therefor also the opportunist firearms thief does not unbalance the equation,but removes a whole tier of unneccessary firearms problems.

[Tehvisseeus]

Originally Posted by taranaki

You're choosing to ignore the argument that I made that nobody asked you to give up your guns.However, if you chose to give up your guns ,the chance that somebody may someday steal them and use them against you or someone that you care about is eliminated.

Do you have any evidence that illegal gun acquisistion is coming mainly from stealing guns? As far as I know most guns are gotten through dealers in some way or another.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

Do you have any evidence that illegal gun acquisistion is coming mainly from stealing guns? As far as I know most guns are gotten through dealers in some way or another.

Please...read what I write before applying your prejudices.Nowhere have I argued the point that you are asking me to prove.The main thrust of this thread is to restrict ownership to those who can be relied upon to use them wisely,and that would obviously makre it harder for crims to steal OR to buy guns.

[whttrshpunk]

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Then according to you, who has the right to decide if you can speed, or even murder someone. How dare they interfere with your needs or desires. You should be able to buy mustard gas and murder as many people as you want because you want it. Right? How dare they tell you not to do that?

Of course, because gun ownership is one step away from murdering people with mustard gas. Please keep your sarcasm to yourself, I'm attempting to have a serious discussion. I base most of my policital opinions around two basic rules.
1. Do all you that you have agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach on others or their property.

Murdering as many people as I want(although I don't recall stating that I wanted to murder anyone) would encroach on the rights of others. However, my owning a gun would not.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

Of course, because gun ownership is one step away from murdering people with mustard gas. Please keep your sarcasm to yourself, I'm attempting to have a serious discussion. I base most of my policital opinions around two basic rules.
1. Do all you that you have agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach on others or their property.

Murdering as many people as I want(although I don't recall stating that I wanted to murder anyone) would encroach on the rights of others. However, my owning a gun would not.

ok the perhaps i took it a bit too far and said murder so lets take that out. But you did bring the argument: to be alowed a weapon because

And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?

So if you want mustard gas should you be allowed to have it?

[Tehvisseeus]

Originally Posted by Neutrino

So if you want mustard gas should you be allowed to have it?

mustard gas is inherently dangerous so no you shouldnt be allowed to have it, however a gun is perfectly safe as long as it is kept unloaded.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

mustard gas is inherently dangerous so no you shouldnt be allowed to have it, however a gun is perfectly safe as long as it is kept unloaded.

ok fine then a rocket launcher that is perfectly safe if you keep it unloaded too. Should that be allowed just bacause you want it?

[YogsVR4]

Welcome to the slippery slope.

Its just as easy to argue the 'need' when you phrase the question in a way to get the answer you want. Do you need a semi-automatic weapon? Do you need to buy a car that can go over seventy miles per hour? (the fastest speed limit in the country) Do you need to drink one more beer? Add my favorite - ask the Chinese how nobody needs more then one kid.

Mr. T - the question about how society would be safer if I gave up my guns wasn't directed at you. Its directed at anyone that thinks nobody should have them.

After two decades, nobody has tried to steal my guns. I have not shot at anyone or use the gun in any crime. There were about eighty million other legal gun owners who did the same.

[whttrshpunk]

Thanks for clarifying in my absence Yogs. What I was getting at is
1.No one has the right to decide what I need or want and how to distinguish the two.
2.No one has the right to tell me I can't do/have something because it isn't necessary.
3.Ownership of an item that has uses other than killing human being in cold blood does not constitute an encroachment on other people.

I can shoot a gun for recreation/target practice, I can use it for self defense or I can add it to my collection. In my opinion this is reasonable. Owning mustard gas for target practice or nostalgic/sentimental value is not, in my opinion reasonable.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

Thanks for clarifying in my absence Yogs. What I was getting at is
1.No one has the right to decide what I need or want and how to distinguish the two.
2.No one has the right to tell me I can't do/have something because it isn't necessary.
3.Ownership of an item that has uses other than killing human being in cold blood does not constitute an encroachment on other people.

I can shoot a gun for recreation/target practice, I can use it for self defense or I can add it to my collection. In my opinion this is reasonable. Owning mustard gas for target practice or nostalgic/sentimental value is not, in my opinion reasonable.

See but that is exactly the problem with your original argument. You think owning mustard gas or a rocket launcher is not reasonable, but someone can use your own argument:

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

Who has the right to decide what I need and don't need? And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?

So who are you to tell them that they don't need it? Maybe they just whant to have it for fun. Who are you to tell them what is reasonable and what is not?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by Neutrino

So who are you to tell them that they don't need it? Maybe they just whant to have it for fun. Who are you to tell them what is reasonable and what is not?

Exactly! Who makes the determination is what society will settle for. As for guns - I'm from the side that need is not an issue. Some see it that way. But, if you ever want something out of others hans, there has to be other reasons then that they are not needed or it'll never happen.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by taranaki

You're choosing to ignore the argument that I made that nobody asked you to give up your guns.However, if you chose to give up your guns ,the chance that somebody may someday steal them and use them against you or someone that you care about is eliminated.

Since you used an "if", I'll use one, too. If I choose to give up my guns, the chances that somebody breaks into my abode leaving me powerless to defend my family and property increases. Breakins are quite rampant throughout the world, i.e., not isolated to the US. There are less chances of my guns being stolen to be used against someone.

Originally Posted by taranaki

And if enough legitimate gun owners raise the standard of care for their guns,the acquisition of weapons for illegal purposes becomes harder.Gun crime is only out of control because gun ownership is out of control.

The standard of care for our legally acquired and owned guns are excellent and an envy to citizens of many countries that cannot afford or even dream of having anywhere near that standard. Gun crime is only out of control because ILLEGAL gun ownership is out of control.

Originally Posted by taranaki

Flooding the market with guns until everyone has one has created a level playing field of mayhem.

Check your facts first. FIRST, there has always been a large percentage of legally owned firearms, even before the Red Coats were sent back to England. SECOND, illegally owned guns are still on the increase because of gun control efforts that target the wrong populace. THIRD, restricting legal gun ownership will only level the playing field (from SECOND above) and create more mayhem.

Originally Posted by taranaki

Squeezing out the gun supply to both the irresponsible gun owners and therefor also the opportunist firearms thief does not unbalance the equation,but removes a whole tier of unneccessary firearms problems.

Ahhhh, YES! We have no issues with this wonderfully new concept. This is a good train of thought. If only gun control advocates/fanatics can set their sights on the right target and leave law-abiding legal gun owners alone. In fact, the NRA has been offering free target shooting lessons for these types for decades. Perhaps, they can learn the most important lesson of all in target shooting: Identifying the bloody target FIRST.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by taranaki

<snip>
I have tried to argue a case for New Zealand-style gun management in the forum, only to be shouted down by NRA hawks who see any changes as against their interests.

New Zealand-style economics does not work in US-style economy. New Zealand-style gun management does not work in US-style gun business. You were not shouted down, simply debated down because your analogies and logic were flawed.

It's very easy for people to pontificate about subject matter they have little or no first hand knowledge about (oh, yeah, you have access to all the information that we do...) in the confines of the environment they are talking about. Unless you walk our shoes, it's only theory for you.

Originally Posted by taranaki

New Zealand as a whole has about 25% more population than the city of Chicago, yet the comparison in terms of crime still favours NZ by a country mile.The reason? Handguns in NZ are properly managed.We don't get all excitable about the 'what if's'[what if yer mother was bein' raped?What if yer kids were bein' abducted?]we'll leave that kind of hypothetical hype to the gun perverts and hillbillies.

See, this is why you keep getting swatted down,... I mean, debated down...

NZ has a population of just under 4 million humans in a land area of just over 100,000 square miles (i.e., 40 humans per square mile), working force of 2 million with an unemployement rate over just over 5% (i.e., 40,000 out of work), etc.

USA has a population of just over 293 million humans in a land area of just over 3.7 million square miles (i.e., 79 humans per square mile), working force of 142 million with an unemployment rate of just over 6% (i.e., 1,758,000 out of work), etc.

WHOA!

Why you would compare a country (NZ) to a city (Chicago), not even a state (Illinois) or another country (USA) just goes to show how flawed this and other gun-control analogies are to begin with. Handgun control in NZ does not interest us a wee bit. We would prefer that gun control freaks take their fluffy toys and play in the corner where they won't get hurt. And, Shush! Legal gun ownership is only for the adults...

Originally Posted by taranaki

The second ammendment doesn't work.It's time to remove handguns, and the less responsible lower layers of the gun owning community from the gun control equations.That way,nobody would need a gun under their bed to feel safe at night.

HAHAHAHA!!! I can understand why people who have no constitutions to amend in the first place are quick to discard one. That's pretty ironic criticizing an amendment to the US constitution from a country that isn't even totally free/independent (e.g., with an elected Prime Minister who can be fired by the Queen-appointed Governor General...) You can read as much as you want about our constitution and criticize it. See if you can come up with a better one, or better yet, get your own constitution so you can practice your amendments on it first. The second amendment to OUR consitution works quite well, thank you. ( ! )

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Franko914

Handgun control in NZ does not interest us a wee bit. We would prefer that gun control freaks take their fluffy toys and play in the corner where they won't get hurt. And, Shush! Legal gun ownership is only for the adults...

If you can't debate sensibly,please...no wait...NRA.

Obviously can't debate sensibly.

The second amendment to OUR consitution works quite well, thank you.

Obviously.That's why it's news when nobody gets shot for a change.