Pastor buys AR-15 at raffle so he could destroy it

[ucfengr]

Well, the law wouldn’t target just young black men. Anyone found in possession of a gun would have it confiscated.

So, you view the young, black drug dealer as the moral equivalent of a farmer who has a gun to protect his herd from predators? That’s the only way that make sense. The simple fact is that over 50% of all gun murders in the US are committed by young, black criminals, who are largely targeting other young, black criminals. This illustrates the problem with gun control advocates. It’s not about getting guns out of the hands of criminals, it’s about engaging in moral preening and sharing your virtue with the rest of the tribe.

Actually I think the mantra is “How can we stop this from happening?” as opposed to “Well, that’s sad, but if it infringes on my lifestyle I don’t want to help solve the problem”. I think the first response is more Christian. Of course the killers are responsible for their actions, it’s saving victims that we care about.

True freedom is not living you life in fear, or needing a weapon to feel safe and strong.

How is me giving up my firearms, that have never shot anything but paper targets, going to stop a young black criminal in Oakland or Chicago from killing another young, black criminal? What your engaging in is not trying to solve a problem, but in signaling your moral virtue to the rest of the tribe. You’re like the silly man who sets up his piano and sings “Imagine” at the sight of terrorist attacks.

 

[Brendan]

Do you think the murder rate in Russia would increase or decrease if private gun ownership was banned?

It would most likely increase. By definition, criminals do not follow laws. The criminals would retain their firearms, and have relative certitude that they would have no danger from their prey.

The extent of the increase would be hard to determine. But any change in gun laws would certainly not affect the criminals.

 

[Usige]

The local police would be in charge of confiscating the weapons.

And for guns that law abiding citizens obtained legally? Should those be confiscated too? Are you proposing that the 4th amendment against unreasonable seizure of property be suspended when the goverment confiscated 10s of billions of dollars worth of citizens’ property? Perhaps you are volunteering all the antigun advocates to fund the buyback of the property to give it a veneer of legality? The funding of this buyback would of course be exempt from those you are taking property from otherwise you are just forcing them to pay for the “right” to give up their porperty.

 

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

How is me giving up my firearms, that have never shot anything but paper targets, going to stop a young black criminal in Oakland or Chicago from killing another young, black criminal? What your engaging in is not trying to solve a problem, but in signaling your moral virtue to the rest of the tribe. You’re like the silly man who sets up his piano and sings “Imagine” at the sight of terrorist attacks.

I agree not just because “I agree” but because this is the only “real” way to look at it. Their position is irrational about gun control, it can’t win in a debate. What drives me insane is that they don’t want to address reality. You & I can sit there and fully articulate their gunaphobia stance, and could make the argument as well as they could. However they’re so oblivious to the actual reality of the situation that they couldn’t even dream of clearly making the case we make, founded in reality and logic.

Quoted for truth.

 

[lmachine]

So, you view the young, black drug dealer as the moral equivalent of a farmer who has a gun to protect his herd from predators? That’s the only way that make sense. The simple fact is that over 50% of all gun murders in the US are committed by young, black criminals, who are largely targeting other young, black criminals. This illustrates the problem with gun control advocates. It’s not about getting guns out of the hands of criminals, it’s about engaging in moral preening and sharing your virtue with the rest of the tribe.

How is me giving up my firearms, that have never shot anything but paper targets, going to stop a young black criminal in Oakland or Chicago from killing another young, black criminal? What your engaging in is not trying to solve a problem, but in signaling your moral virtue to the rest of the tribe. You’re like the silly man who sets up his piano and sings “Imagine” at the sight of terrorist attacks.

We should stop general sales of guns to the public. Farmers who wish to protect their livestock can register to own guns like in many other countries. People like you who want to go target shooting can use guns stored at gun ranges to do so. Those “young black criminals” you are so concerned about are getting their guns from smugglers who obtain guns in states with relaxed restrictions and transport them along the various Iron Pipelines. Cutting off the supply of guns would raise illegal gun prices and reduce gun violence in areas with gang problems.

 

[lmachine]

It would most likely increase. By definition, criminals do not follow laws. The criminals would retain their firearms, and have relative certitude that they would have no danger from their prey.

The extent of the increase would be hard to determine. But any change in gun laws would certainly not affect the criminals.

So by this logic you believe America would be safer if there were no restrictions on gun ownership?

 

[Alex_H]

And for guns that law abiding citizens obtained legally? Should those be confiscated too? Are you proposing that the 4th amendment against unreasonable seizure of property be suspended when the goverment confiscated 10s of billions of dollars worth of citizens’ property? Perhaps you are volunteering all the antigun advocates to fund the buyback of the property to give it a veneer of legality? The funding of this buyback would of course be exempt from those you are taking property from otherwise you are just forcing them to pay for the “right” to give up their porperty.

Ideally, there would be a gun buyback program that would be mandatory for all citizens. That’s what Australia did after the massacre of 35 people in Tasmania.

Suicide by firearm rates in Australia fell dramatically, as did homicide by firearm rates.

 

[Alex_H]

So by this logic you believe America would be safer if there were no restrictions on gun ownership?

For them, the solution to gun violence is to equip more people with guns.

 

[Usige]

Ideally, there would be a gun buyback program that would be mandatory for all citizens. That’s what Australia did after the massacre of 35 people in Tasmania.

And who is going to pay for this buy back? In Australia I beleive it was a 1% tax increase. The US has significantly more guns and would likely require somewhere around a 3-5% federal tax increase to buy back all the exant weapons and ammunition in private hands. At 5% of my 2016 taxable income I would pay slightly over 2x what my current firearms are worth in taxes. So in otherwords I would pay for my weapons again just to have them taken away. How is this a buy back?

If you tax someone 2000 and give them 1000 for their guns, that is not a buyback, but forcing them to pay for the confiscation of their own property. Perhaps Michael Bloomberg will simply use his 48 billion to buy them all back. He should do like the pastor in the original story and pay 500% the retail value. If you really want them off the street then be willing to offer enough for people to willingly give them up, not nickels on the dollar.

This ofsourse competely ignores that niggling 2nd amendment problem.

 

[otjm]

The local police would be in charge of confiscating the weapons.

Can you say “Dallas”? And do you truly think the police are not already doing that when they come upon guns?

And do you truly want to completely suspend the laws of search and seizure? Or are you simply someone who wants the Constitution to say and do whatever they think will solve their problem, without any consideration of how far such changes go and the unintended results?

 

[otjm]

Actually, that is complete nonsense. Every single US state has a much higher murder rate than any country in Western Europe. The three US states with the lowest murder rates (which hover around 2 per 100,000, so twice the European average) only account for 5% of the US population

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10320691/US-crime-murders-and-manslaughters-by-state.html

I am not going to play a game of statistics with you; the CDC answer stands.

 

[Alex_H]

And who is going to pay for this buy back? In Australia I beleive it was a 1% tax increase. The US has significantly more guns and would likely require somewhere around a 3-5% federal tax increase to buy back all the exant weapons and ammunition in private hands. At 5% of my 2016 taxable income I would pay slightly over 2x what my current firearms are worth in taxes. So in otherwords I would pay for my weapons again just to have them taken away. How is this a buy back?

If you tax someone 2000 and give them 1000 for their guns, that is not a buyback, but forcing them to pay for the confiscation of their own property. Perhaps Michael Bloomberg will simply use his 48 billion to buy them all back. He should do like the pastor in the original story and pay 500% the retail value. If you really want them off the street then be willing to offer enough for people to willingly give them up, not nickels on the dollar.

This ofsourse competely ignores that niggling 2nd amendment problem.

Well, there are a lot of different ways to finance a gun buyback.

 

[otjm]

Unfortunately, “liberal” policies in the US are actually policies that centre and centre-right parties hold in Europe, to a large extent. Aside from moral issues like abortion, which we cannot ever condone, I feel like right-wing Americans tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater when referring to opinions that democrats tend to have as “liberal”; in reality politics is skewed in the USA on a number of issues. I mean, the pope isn’t a socialist

Leaving that aside, I still hold to my analogy. I have no problem with guns being used for hunting or target practice. Norway has a culture that allows a healthy relationship between it’s citizens and their guns, to a large extent. The US doesn’t have that.

Ireland has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. Inaction is a poor option; nurses are still overwhelmed on weekends caring for severely drunk, puking people. Anti-social behaviour will continue. The list goes on.

There is also plenty of Irish people who have an extremely healthy relationship with alcohol. But no initiative to change our drinking culture will be successful unless it is applied nationally. Even if healthy drinkers are inconvenienced by attempts by the government to reduce binge drinking in Ireland, it’s for the greater good of the country and its people.

Obviously I’m not suggesting prohibition in Ireland. So if a citizen of the US is, in fact, a marksman, they should be able to continue that sport. If they hunt, they can also continue that, provided they meet strict criteria for owning and storing their guns and passing strict background checks. Otherwise, the only reason a person would own a gun is to kill or harm a person. When a person only owns a car to kill or harm a person, it should be removed from them too.

Ah. So self defense doesn’t matter. Never mind the CDC response to the issue of how often guns are used in self defense.

Hate to make a minor point in the flow of conversation, but the US is not Europe. What happens in Europe is not particularly instructive of what the US does or needs to do.

 

[Michael68]

Can you say “Dallas”? And do you truly think the police are not already doing that when they come upon guns?

And do you truly want to completely suspend the laws of search and seizure? Or are you simply someone who wants the Constitution to say and do whatever they think will solve their problem, without any consideration of how far such changes go and the unintended results?

I agree that police are already lawfully doing that. There are not enough resources to deal with a full scale confiscation of guns, not to mention the real violation of rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[Alex_H]

Can you say “Dallas”?

I’m not sure what you mean here.

And do you truly think the police are not already doing that when they come upon guns?

They can’t. If you have legally purchased a gun and a officer sees it, under the current laws, they cannot seize it.

And do you truly want to completely suspend the laws of search and seizure? Or are you simply someone who wants the Constitution to say and do whatever they think will solve their problem, without any consideration of how far such changes go and the unintended results?

No, I’m more interested in preventing such things as the Sandy Hook school shootings where 20 elementary students were gunned down. I’m not really ideologically against guns, my heart just breaks when I hear of all these people being gunned down and then people acting like there’s nothing we can do to prevent it.

 

[otjm]

The irony is that on the one hand the US claims its citizens need their guns to defend its freedoms, but that they seem to be having the opposite effect.as a greater proportion of its citizens lose their lives to murder than elsewhere. It seems that the phobia works both ways.

That is because you are unfamiliar with the areas and the incidents.

No one is proposing giving more guns to gang members for self protection. And the great majority of murders by guns occurs within gangs and between gangs, and those caught in the cross fires when the gangs start shooting.

 

[Usige]

Well, there are a lot of different ways to finance a gun buyback.

Such as? Tell me and other gun owners how you won’t make us pay to have our property seized. Also explain how you will feed those that rely on guns to hunt and feed their families as well as those who use guns to protect their livestock and will now have loses to preditor kill.

Antigun rhetoric doesn’t ever seem to have honest answers about these. I guess it’s like all the other magic fixes liberals come up with; the money will magically appear after we pass the law.

In reality what wold happen is the government would steal private property with maybe some token payment.

 

[otjm]

The problem is that your right to defend your family by owning a gun translates to your neighbours ability to shoot his wife and kid in a drunken rage. Far more wives and children have been killed by their husband’s guns than saved by them, in recent times at least. The right to defend your family exists, but not “however you see fit”.

Source please?

You have none. Look at the CDC statement of the use of guns for self-protection.

I am working right now with a co-worker who is going to get a gun, for the specific reason you mention. I kind of doubt she is the only one in the U to do so.

 

[otjm]

Ideally, there would be a gun buyback program that would be mandatory for all citizens. That’s what Australia did after the massacre of 35 people in Tasmania.

Suicide by firearm rates in Australia fell dramatically, as did homicide by firearm rates.

See the CDC statement… It simply does not work.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Such as? Tell me and other gun owners how you won’t make us pay to have our property seized. Also explain how you will feed those that rely on guns to hunt and feed their families as well as those who use guns to protect their livestock and will now have loses to preditor kill.

Antigun rhetoric doesn’t ever seem to have honest answers about these. I guess it’s like all the other magic fixes liberals come up with; the money will magically appear after we pass the law.

In reality what wold happen is the government would steal private property with maybe some token payment.

Actually I don’t think anyone has a problem with a farmer owning a gun.