/townhall/ - Townhall

Sure

Probably.  Gun control laws tend to be...shaky, at best.  I don't think what we have now is stopping anything at all.  I could imagine much harsher gun control laws doing something, but also I don't entirely feel comfortable with that sacrifice.  Better to go all in or not at all.

>>12561
I generally think firearms are dangerous and would like there to be fewer of them.  But I have little doubt there is a wide range of opinions about how this button would effect that.

Aren't Americans passing the basic checklist already allowed to keep guns?

As a non-American with a gun-free culture, but having the politics being "americanised", for my country I still don't see the use for this.

>If you had a magic button that would repeal all gun-control laws and prevent enactment of any gun-control laws for 20 years, would you press it?
Absolutely, without any hesitation whatsoever.

Yeah.

>>12565
There are certain restrictions and limitations placed upon purchases.
These vary in ammo capacity, length of the barrel, weight times, etc.

Former criminals with convictions for child molestation, carjacking, domestic abuse of their spouses, bank robbery, and the like having increased freedom and liberty to own whatever firearms they like as well as to carry those weapons on their persons at the same time decreases the freedom and liberty that I've got, with my right to live my life in safety and security being harmed.

Guns are a tool. A tool that should be used by law-abiding citizens. A tool that should be forcibly kept away from those who're not law-aiding citizens.

I'm aware of the viewpoints of the NRA and the gun rights movement in general that strongly argue otherwise, in saying that those with misdemeanor and felony records ought to have guns just like the rest of us.

I simply oppose that belief. I would not press that button. I would be horrified.

>>12569
Many criminals have no trouble acquiring guns on the black market.  I think the solution is to keep violent criminals imprisoned until either they die or they can be trusted to behave in general society.

>>12570
The problem with your logic, which is indeed the argument that I see constantly from the NRA generally honestly, is that it applies to basically all situations of law-breaking harm.

>"Criminals will sexually assault victims no matter what the law says. Therefore, don't have laws that make rape illegal. Or child molestation illegal. We must accept the futility that we cannot practically enforce those moral rules."

>"Criminals will steal computers and other electronic equipment no matter what the law says. Therefore, don't have laws that make theft illegal. We must accept the futility that we cannot practically enforce those moral rules."

Et cetera. If we understand that dangerously violent people genuinely and sincerely don't have the empathy and ethics for caring about their fellow human beings that most of us have, then we can't just give up on civilization, letting those types run free without recourse. That's not going to work out at all.

>>12571
The major distinction is that denying law-abiding citizens the ability to steal doesn't limit or otherwise restrict their ability to defend themselves.

Regardless, the whole reasons those things're illegal is that they are harmful to others.
It's not to make it so those things do not happen.
It's to punish those who do.
An eye for an eye is the foundation of justice, after all.

A better example would've been drugs.

>>12571
>we can't just give up on civilization, letting those types run free without recourse. That's not going to work out at all.
That is why I suggested "keep violent criminals imprisoned until either they die or they can be trusted to behave in general society".

>>12574
All only necessary on public roads.
Meanwhile we allow free purchase of mufflers, no forced limitation on how fast it can go, no fuel tank size restrictions, no tax stamp to add a spoiler, no fuss about overall length, no restrictions on trucks with too many modern features, and so on and so forth.

If we're going to use the car argument, we're going to need to be on an equal playing field.

>>12575
I think there are also limitations on how much you are allowed to modify vehicles.

>>12575
There are literally import taxes and regulations on maximum length width and height, braking capacity, and so on and so forth.

Sure the laws and regulations aren't identical but that's because nobody has been on enough cocaine to regulate the magazine size of a Misubiti or the caliber of a Dodge, or the rear view mirror angle and passenger side air bags deployment zones of a Browning.

>>12576
Again only for on public roadways.
But that aside, the only limiting factor as I understand it are necessary components for safe operation on the road.

>>12577
Do those taxes carry with them the penalties of years in prison with a felony if you have merely the components to make it shorter, and thus the "intent to construct"?

You're right that there are import restrictions, but I think it obvious to say, they're no where near as heafty as the requirements and restrictions on importing firearms.
And of course, once again, these restrictions you mention only apply to their use on public roadways.

>Sure the laws and regulations aren't identical but that's because nobody has been on enough cocaine to regulate the magazine size of a Misubiti or the caliber of a Dodge, or the rear view mirror angle and passenger side air bags deployment zones of a Browning.
Right. Because that would be absurd and would accomplish nothing.
Just as it has done for guns.

Nobody worries about a "shoulder thing that goes up" on a car, because it's obviously meaningless and changes next to nothing.

Reminder: most early gun-control laws were explicitly racist and "applied only to particular groups, such as slaves, Blacks, or Mulattos".

It seems to me that the fundamental problem behind all of this is that the United States has an extremely "flat" justice system - almost, almost everybody goes through a nearly identical ringer no matter what they chose to do and gets out relatively soon-ish.

For example, the average punishment for murder or manslaughter is about nine years in prison.

This means that, ethically and morally, if you're arrested for something like selling bags upon bags of weed out of your house full of weed such that you get placed in the same cell alongside a man who intentionally ran over a child with his truck... maybe you receive three years in prison. You eat the same food. Sleep in the same bed. Get the same health care. Exercise in the same way using the same equipment. You're only as safe as he lets you be. You're getting the same essential punishment except in time duration.

Thus, the life of a dead child in the United States is legally equal to three houses full of weed.

This is even worse when you think about how something like stealing a computer set can get you a year in prison, so then a murdered child is the same as nine laptops.

Is it any wonder why normal people living their normal lives think of U.S. law enforcement and criminal justice as a complete joke? The most likely outcome if I get shot in the head walking home one of these days is that nothing happens to the criminal that did that. The alternative is them getting a stint in what's basically Crime University for a few years only to be right back out there. America, ladies and gentlemen.