<!--quoteo(post=1635046:date=Jun 21 2007, 05:16 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jun 21 2007, 05:16 AM) [snapback]1635046[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In the heat of the moment ( read: under the influence of adrenaline ) it is easier to act without consideration for consequences.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and thats why guns shouldnt be allowed to be carried by people who only intend to use them to kill other people ("self-defence" being the pretext)
again, the current problem isn't who is and isn't allowed to carry weapons. it's the enforcement of the rules. i don't have the numbers on hand but almost every firearm used in a violent crime was illegally posessed. licensed and trained firearm owners with state (or federal) registered firearms commit almost no crimes with their weapons. making more weapons illegal will just drive the prices up a little (since the majority of firearms used in violent crimes were illegal to begin with)
There is one thing that pro gun control advocates seem to think: the police are there to protect you.
No, that is complete bull######. The police aren't there to protect you. They are there to enforce laws and apprehend lawbreakers. Personal safety is your own responsibility.
<!--quoteo(post=1635073:date=Jun 21 2007, 01:08 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jun 21 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]1635073[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Personal safety is an illusion. Life is dangerous. Suicide is the safest move available to you, then nobody can kill you anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, please no more shallow vs deep or I am forced to raise the 0 corners vs infinite corners debate and I will give a wonderful explanation why neither is right.
Anyway: Lolfigher is pretty much right. If you think the whole security debate through and just accelerate the process by a few hundred generation you might end with two final solutions: Kill yourself, or kill everyone and everything else!
Its true gun laws should be view from a universal perspective. One intereting thing that just came to me is while in the US there is a 'debate' about gun-control, in countries that already have gun control there is no such debate. No one stands up in the Australian or Norwegian parliment and says "hey fellas i think gun controls are to harsh! We should make it much easier for the average citizen to get a firearm so they can protect themselves! That way we can reduce police funding!".
This doesnt happen because in contries with fairly tight gun controls, gun violence/deaths is not really an issue because the amount of gun deaths annually could probably be counted on your fingers. In fact, when there IS a gun incident politicians from both sides lobby for tighter gun controls.
For example last week in Melbourne a bikey shot two good samaritans trying to stop him beating up some girl. The response from politicians? Ban hand guns (though no laws have actually been passed yet). This reaction has worked in the past in Australia. when about 10 years ago Martin Bryant shot 30 people in Hobart the government responded by banning the purchase of automatic or semiautomatic rifles and there has not been a massacre since.
I know "things are different" in America, but i just wish people were just a little more open-minded. There seems to be a lot of macho chest-beating when it comes to the gun debate over in America. Just think of Charlten Heston and his RAWR "they can come take it out of my cold, dead hands" bravado. Frankly i think that kind of behaviour helps NEITHER side of the debate.
Finally this whole idea that the constitution is set in stone and should never be changed is rather silly. a vital function of government is to update laws as times demand different approaches and standards. Each clause in the constitution is called an AMENDMENT.
It is called an amendment under the assumption that it has been or may in the future be changed for whatever reason. Expecting a constitution to stay the same for 200 years a pretty far-fetched expectation, niether is it politically or socially healthy IMHO. Countless other things have changed in the American constitution since its conception, but for some reason when it comes to guns pro-gun advocates seem to be like "RAWR!! Its our right to bear guns cause it says so in the constitution RAWR" without actually providing a rational argument why there should be loose controls on gun ownership.
<!--quoteo(post=1635221:date=Jun 22 2007, 03:16 AM:name=wankalot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wankalot @ Jun 22 2007, 03:16 AM) [snapback]1635221[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Finally this whole idea that the constitution is set in stone and should never be changed is rather silly. a vital function of government is to update laws as times demand different approaches and standards. Each clause in the constitution is called an AMENDMENT.
It is called an amendment under the assumption that it has been or may in the future be changed for whatever reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, no, not quite. "Amendments" are new clauses that have been added to the constitution, that were not present in the original. Original clauses are just clauses. So its called an Amendment because the Constitution was changed, "amended", to include it -- not on the guess that it will be changed again later.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Expecting a constitution to stay the same for 200 years a pretty far-fetched expectation, niether is it politically or socially healthy IMHO. Countless other things have changed in the American constitution since its conception, but for some reason when it comes to guns pro-gun advocates seem to be like "RAWR!! Its our right to bear guns cause it says so in the constitution RAWR" without actually providing a rational argument why there should be loose controls on gun ownership. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lots of things have been <i>added</i> to our constitution, but very few things have been <i>taken out</i>. We've repealed the prohibition of alcohol, changed the method of our elections a few times, and thats about it.
But you miss the point of the constitutional argument. There are plenty of rational arguments why it is a good thing to allow us to have guns, but the constitutional argument is fundamentally different. The existence of the 2nd amendment defines what <i>method</i> has to be taken to <i>remove</i> our right to carry arms. It doesn't necessarily mean the right can never be taken away, but it DOES mean that our rights cannot be removed UNTIL you get a large enough majority to pass a new Amendment.
So the constitutional argument is invoked when politicians try to illegally restrict our rights without bothering with the official process of getting an amendment -- which they try on a regular basis, by the way, so the constitutional argument gets lots of excercise. Every time a politician proposes a new, unconstitutional law to restrict our rights, we have to go remind him of our constitutional protections again.
What is with people confusing causality and coincidence?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->about 10 years ago Martin Bryant shot 30 people in Hobart the government responded by banning the purchase of automatic or semiautomatic rifles and there has not been a massacre since.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm assuming you don't like President Bush, so let me give an example:
There has never been another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 ever since George Bush declared the War on Terrorism. So does this mean what George Bush is doing to counteract terrorism is effective?
The problem is you think that your gun control laws are great. The cold truth is that armed assault (with a firearm) has increased in every post-industrial nation that has severely restricted civilian ownership of firearms except the USA, where it has steadily decreased for 20 years except for a brief rise from 2005-2006. Police reports from France are particularly dire, where the black market in arms is flourishing. You can even get an RPG-7.
Look, death from firearms is low even in the US. About 12,000 die every year from firearms (2/3 of all homicides). 400,000 die from tobacco. An astounding 600k die directly from heart related problems. Getting shot is the least of your worries, statistically. In total causes of death, you have less than a 1/100 chance of dying by getting shot (by another person), that is if you die at all. And that doesn't even include the fact that the vast majority of firearm homicides are gang on gang violence.
We're better off lobbying Congress to mandate people jog half a mile a day (reduce obesity related deaths, 300k per year) than to mandate people not to carry firearms. But dying because you're fat is much less spectacular than biting a bullet. Gun control is the least of our worries and from the standpoint of freedom alone, we should curb gun control.
The fact of the matter is that freedom will always be abused. We have a generally libertarian philosophy regarding criminal justice, that infringing on another person's freedom is a crime. There will always be criminals and there will always be murders. That is the price we pay for freedom, and the way it stands, it is a more than acceptable price.
The difference between deaths caused by firearms and deaths caused by obesity-related heart failures, while the comparison is interesting, comes down to a question of weighing the autonomy of different individuals against each other and certain other aspects.
Let's start by stipulating (for the sake of simplicity, let's leave out the discussions on what would happen if you took this to the extreme) that you are allowed freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses right or ability to do what they want.
By dying of obesity-related heart problems you do weigh the social security system, possibly restricting the care someone else might need. But ultimately it's your own life you're risking, not someone elses. If someone dies in a gun-related incident (in a non self-defense situation to make it simpler) you have directly stopped this other person from doing anything at all from this point on.
The first is indirect and not always final, while the other is very direct and very final.
If you do involve the question of defending your autonomy against a possible attacker (self defense) the issue becomes a bit more complicated, but I'm pretty sure most gun-related deaths are not the result of self defense.
I believe that if you want to compare situations such as these to make a point it is important that you take the time to look at the ethical problem you present rather than just throwing around numbers. Especially when those numbers have very little to do with the issue actually at hand.
For example: "so few people die from being murdered during rape incidents in comparison to gun accidents, so who cares about these deaths" really doesn't make much sense. This is a much more obvious example of course, but it's the same issue.
[Edit] I guess it could basically be summed up to the fact that if I own a gun, and even more so if I carry/keep it loaded, I increase the risk of the individuals around me (including myself) thereby infringing on their autonomy. If I'm really fat it might mean I've eaten alot of poor children's food, but other than that I'm more or less only risking myself.
I can't claim to be knowledgeable, but at the very least I think that firearms should be subject to the same restrictions that cars are.
In Denmark and Germany, you need a driver's license to legally drive a car on any public road. Getting a driver's license requires a knowledge of first aid, and many hours of of theoretical and practical schooling and instruction, as well as a written exam and a practical exam. And there's ample reason for this: A car is a dangerous device. Improperly or carelessly handled, it can cause grievous injury and death. Common sense dictates that anyone who operates one should be properly trained.
At the least, gun control should be that strict. A gun is a dangerous device. Improperly or carelessly handled, it can cause grievous injury and death. Common sense dictates that anyone who operates one should be properly trained. In short, extensive schooling and training should be a requirement for gun ownership with the purpose of discharge - and may be. Like I said, I don't know this. What IS required in order to own and legally discharge a firearm? How much schooling does it require? In the United States, that is.
But complete restriction of firearms just doesn't make sense to me. The same arguments that we often use in favour of abortion can be used in favour of firearms: If a woman wants an abortion/firearm and you don't give her a legal way to obtain it, she'll just find an illegal and probably far more dangerous way.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm assuming you don't like President Bush, so let me give an example:
There has never been another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 ever since George Bush declared the War on Terrorism. So does this mean what George Bush is doing to counteract terrorism is effective?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so frankly i view this example as irrelevant because the Republicans' motives for going to war in the middle east had nothing to truly do with fighting terrorism, that was just an excuse that used to unfairly exploit the emotions of a grieving nation.
So yes i agree with you: The fact that there hasnt been an attack is a complete coincidence. The war on terror in essence has nothing really to do with fighting terrorism. The NSA is probably just as useless as it was in 2001. but anyway back to the point on hand... i dont want an irrelevant example to lead to the topic being derailed.
But you are trying to convince me that the fact that is virtually impossible to obtain an automatic rifle in australia means that the lack of massacres is a coincidence?? Possible.. maybe, but very unlikely. And sorry NO, gun violence has NOT increased here. So please refrain from generalisations like "gun violence has gone up in all countries with gun-control laws".
Yes, I have come to accept that no matter whats for the best that guns will never be restricted in America. But in my country i know it works. There are gangs here too, and goolly some even get a gun off the black market! But generally they dont shoot at eachother. I dont think ive ever even heard a gunshot. I dont feel like my freedom has been infringed on at all, im just pleased that i never fear being shot at.
This is my last post because ive expressed everything i believe. To me the argument Guns=freedom is just nauseating, im sorry if u disagree. Ask any Australian or European if they feel less "free" because they cant buy certain types of guns. Its not like guns are outlawed in most western countries, its just that u have to earn the priviledge of owning one. farmers can have thier long barrel rifle fine no problem, sportsmen can have thiers.
PHEW! but back to scythes point! Why do u need handguns or automatic weapons? guns designed to be concealed? If self-defense is the issue (though to me not a convincing argument) then im sure shoving a longbarrel rifle into some petty criminal's face will convince them to buzz off, or convince ure son that u mistook for a criminal that ure a psycho lol. Just feel fortunate u didnt accidentally shoot him <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> .
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
edited June 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1634816:date=Jun 20 2007, 07:13 AM:name=Kassinger)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kassinger @ Jun 20 2007, 07:13 AM) [snapback]1634816[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I wonder how many would actually be capable of pulling the trigger at someone. Everyone here might say it wouldn't be any problem for them, but it's easy to say now. Actually taking the life of someone else takes ignoring a lot of the wiring up in of our brains. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When taken out of a "normal" situation in daily life and placed in a situation in which your life, property, or freedom is threatened, killing someone isn't as difficult as you may think, trust me.
On Scythe's idea, I like it but it would never work here in the US. In an ideal world things like banning all firearms would be excellent, however it isn't anywhere near ideal and I think handguns, at least in the US, are pretty much impossible to remove from the market. You could ban the sale and possession of pistols and 10 years later still have crime involving handguns, theres way too many.
It depends a lot on the situation. Most people don't have any problem with killing someone through inaction, for example. Killing through inaction is much easier than killing through action. Also, distance makes killing easier. Killing in rage is also easier than killing in cold blood. Killing someone you don't identify or sympathise with is easier than the reverse. And so on and so forth.
lolf: as far as schooling for cars and guns go in the us (at least in my state, kansas) in order to operate a motor vehicle you require proof that you are over 16. (for my demographic (16-24), there is one vehicle-related death in my state per day) in order to own a firearm you must complete at least one firearm safety and operations course, submit to a background check for your license and another check before every purchase, you must register every owned firearm with the state and the local police department may revoke your license and confiscate your arms if you are deemed unfit to own them. all arms and licenses are forfeit if you commit an felony or are found to be mentally unstable. (for my demographic (16-24), there is less than one firearm-related death in my state per year and none of them have involved a state-registered firearm that was not reported as stolen)
Or we could just do away with the need to get a gun licence and sell guns at your local hardware store. And then raise the cost of bullets to $10,000 each.
but on a more serious note, i liked the idea about fighting a war with tranquilizer guns, then again that would only be effective if your enemy was also using tranquilizers
<!--quoteo(post=1635821:date=Jun 26 2007, 12:33 AM:name=Hybridclaw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybridclaw @ Jun 26 2007, 12:33 AM) [snapback]1635821[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Or we could just do away with the need to get a gun licence and sell guns at your local hardware store. And then raise the cost of bullets to $10,000 each.
but on a more serious note, i liked the idea about fighting a war with tranquilizer guns, then again that would only be effective if your enemy was also using tranquilizers <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, I remember seeing a stand-up comedian with the exact same idea. The problem is that bullets are even easier to smuggle and self manufacture than guns. So making them more expensive would only work if you managed to eradicate the black market.
<!--quoteo(post=1635812:date=Jun 25 2007, 04:03 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jun 25 2007, 04:03 PM) [snapback]1635812[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You don't need a driver's license in Kansas?! That's insane! D: <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> sorry, didn't make it clear. you take your certificate of birth showing that you were born at least sixteen years ago to the DMV, pay a $15 application and photo fee and walk away with a licence
<!--quoteo(post=1635905:date=Jun 26 2007, 07:24 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jun 26 2007, 07:24 AM) [snapback]1635905[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> sorry, didn't make it clear. you take your certificate of birth showing that you were born at least sixteen years ago to the DMV, pay a $15 application and photo fee and walk away with a licence <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is so ###### up. i couldve guessed you wouldnt need a license to drive in the democratic republic of congo or somewhere like that, but in the u.s.?
and by license i mean that youre actually qualified to be able to drive a car. your "license" is just a piece of paper you couldve gotten from a pack of kellogs corn flakes, its worth nothing
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1635949:date=Jun 26 2007, 11:56 AM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Jun 26 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]1635949[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> that is so ###### up. i couldve guessed you wouldnt need a license to drive in the democratic republic of congo or somewhere like that, but in the u.s.?
and by license i mean that youre actually qualified to be able to drive a car. your "license" is just a piece of paper you couldve gotten from a pack of kellogs corn flakes, its worth nothing <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, licenses for driving are provided by State governments in the US, not by the Federal government.
Second, BM's description of licensing requirements for the State of Kansas is lacking to say the least.
Under 18 years of age: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->INSTRUCTION PERMIT
Must be 14 years of age. Parent or guardian consent required for all applicants under the age of 16. Vision & written tests required. Instruction Permit holder may drive at any time when accompanied by a licensed adult driver 18 years of age or older. To get a Restricted License, you must have held an Instruction Permit for at least 6 months. FARM PERMITS
Must be at least 14 years of age but less than 16. Parent or guardian consent required. Full test (vision, written, & drive) or Driver’s Ed completion slip required. Must live or work on a farm of 20 acres or more. Written documentation from the parent or employer is required. Prior to age 16, applicant must provide affidavit showing at least 50 hours of adult supervised driving, with 10 of those hours being at night, by a licensed driver at least 21 years old. If affidavit is not provided prior to age 16, the driver will remain restricted until age 17 or until affidavit is provided, whichever occurs first. Farm Permit holder may drive to and from school (not school activities); to, from or in connection with any farm related work, or at any time when accompanied by a licensed adult driver 18 years of age or older. RESTRICTED DRIVER’S LICENSE (CLASS C OR M)
Must be 15 years of age but less than 16. Parent or guardian consent required. Driver’s Ed completion slip required. Required to have had an Instruction Permit for at least 6 months, during which time the licensee must have completed at least 25 hours of supervised driving. Additional 25 hours required prior to age 16. All 50 hours can be completed anytime after obtaining Instruction Permit. Prior to age 16, applicant must provide affidavit showing at least 50 hours of adult supervised driving, with 10 of those hours being at night, by a licensed driver at least 21 years old. If affidavit is not provided prior to age 16 the driver will remain restricted until age 17 or until affidavit is provided, whichever occurs first. Restricted licensee may drive to and from school (not school activities); to, from or in connection with any employment or farm related work, or at any time when accompanied by a licensed adult driver 18 years of age or older. NON-RESTRICTED DRIVER’S LICENSE (CLASS C OR M) FOR 16 & 17 YEAR OLDS
Full test (vision, written, & drive) or Driver’s Ed completion slip required. Applicant must provide affidavit showing at least 50 hours of adult supervised driving, with 10 of those hours being at night, by a licensed driver at least 21 years old. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
Any person under the age of 16 with a restricted license, that is convicted of two or more moving violations will remain restricted until age 17. Any licensee issued a Farm Permit or Restricted license may not transport non-sibling minor passengers. Any conviction for this is considered a moving violation. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For 18 years and older: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you have never been licensed you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state Pass a vision examination Pass all applicable written examination(s) Pass driving examination (vehicle provided by you) Pay applicable fees
If you have a valid out-of-state license you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state Pass a vision examination Pay applicable fees
If you have an out-of-state license (expired 1 year or less) you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state Pass a vision examination Pass all applicable written examination(s) Pay applicable fees
If you have an out-of-state license (expired over 1 year) you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state Pass a vision examination Pass all applicable written examination(s) Pass driving examination (vehicle provided by you) Pay applicable fees <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The hyperbole around here is getting a tad excessive.
I have, in my wallet, a Motor Vehicle Operator (Class C noncommercial "small" vehicle) Permit. Also known as a driver's licence (code DL, Class C noncommercial.) The permit has the signature of the Director of the Division of Vehicles for the State of Kansas (2004) and the Secretary of Revenue for the State of Kansas (2004). The permit was issued 01-13-2004 and expires 12-16-2007 and is subject to the following restrictions: Operator is required to wear corrective lenses while in operation of a motor vehicle, operator will not be 18 years of age until 12-16-2005. This card was issued to me on 01-13-2004 at the DMV office for my county by an employee of the State of Kansas and is recognized as a state-issued identification card for the State of Kansas and is such, understood to be valid. That aside, here is how I came to be in possession of said card: 1 - Enter DMV office. 2 - Submit State-issued identification card (Code: N COMM CLS C) 3 - Submit certificate of birth. 4 - Sign form attesting to validity of the above. 5 - Guardian signs the same. 6 - Pass vision exam. 7 - Pay app/photo fee. 8 - Smile for camera. 9 - Wait 20 minutes for photo to develop. 10 - Sign receipt of card. 11 - Drive off.
<!--quoteo(post=1635969:date=Jun 26 2007, 01:35 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jun 26 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]1635969[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I have, in my wallet, a Motor Vehicle Operator (Class C noncommercial "small" vehicle) Permit. Also known as a driver's licence (code DL, Class C noncommercial.) The permit has the signature of the Director of the Division of Vehicles for the State of Kansas (2004) and the Secretary of Revenue for the State of Kansas (2004). The permit was issued 01-13-2004 and expires 12-16-2007 and is subject to the following restrictions: Operator is required to wear corrective lenses while in operation of a motor vehicle, operator will not be 18 years of age until 12-16-2005. This card was issued to me on 01-13-2004 at the DMV office for my county by an employee of the State of Kansas and is recognized as a state-issued identification card for the State of Kansas and is such, understood to be valid. That aside, here is how I came to be in possession of said card: 1 - Enter DMV office. 2 - Submit State-issued identification card (Code: N COMM CLS C) 3 - Submit certificate of birth. 4 - Sign form attesting to validity of the above. 5 - Guardian signs the same. 6 - Pass vision exam. 7 - Pay app/photo fee. 8 - Smile for camera. 9 - Wait 20 minutes for photo to develop. 10 - Sign receipt of card. 11 - Drive off. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty you must have a terrible memory or something. Even in the details posted by Spooge:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NON-RESTRICTED DRIVER’S LICENSE (CLASS C OR M) FOR 16 & 17 YEAR OLDS
Full test (vision, written, & drive) or Driver’s Ed completion slip required. Applicant must provide affidavit showing at least 50 hours of adult supervised driving, with 10 of those hours being at night, by a licensed driver at least 21 years old. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either that, or Kansas is the most backward place this side of Africa, because: 1. Every state I've been to requires you to pass a driving test - as in, actually being in a car and operating it; 2. Every DMV I've been to within the last 4 years had digital cameras, and even Polaroids don't take 20 minutes to develop <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> ; 3. Some form of driver's education is necessary for someone under 18 trying to obtain a driver's license.
The Kansas Department of Revenue website even says (for 18 years and older): <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you have never been licensed you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state Pass a vision examination Pass all applicable written examination(s) Pass driving examination (vehicle provided by you) Pay applicable fees <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing immediately strange about the Kansas system is that it appears you don't need to take a driving test at the DMV, as long as you've complete driver's ed. Which means, unless you had some messed up employee at the DMV, you previously completed driver's education, which means you didn't just 'walk in and get a license'.
Now that that fairly off-topic thread has been addressed; I've still got to point out (like elsewhere in this thread) that the majority of crimes committed with weapons are illegal (as in purchased on the black market or stolen). A number of sources indicating such are accessible in the last gun control-esque thread we had (with most of the illegal crimes being committed with handguns, then shotguns, then rifles).
My particular problem with the opening post here is: <!--QuoteBegin-Scythe+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scythe)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No more guns can be sold to anyone other than police and military. A black market will exist but it wouldn't be too hard to control. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you figure the black market wouldn't be hard to control? In recent years gun crime in the UK has <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm" target="_blank">increased</a> (also <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm" target="_blank">this </a> (2001) or <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,1863832,00.html" target="_blank">this</a> (2006). The US has incredible trouble preventing the illegal sale of drugs for increasing too sharply, and prohibition is one of the major reasons for organized crime today.
How do you propose this 'easily controlled black market' will be controlled?
you forget that kansas is also the state with the most exceptional department of education. it's not the only screwed up government office in the state.
edit: i for two would like to know how this easily controlled black market will be set up. the current uncontrolled black market hasn't had much success in the control department on account of it not being controlled.
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
Suggestion: Allow only sale of expensive one-time guns which only shoot <10 or so rounds before they become impossible to use ever again. You're already in more trouble than you should be handling if you have to kill large groups of criminals massing on you in a short period of time.
Then again this would just make more civilians go to the black market for their toys. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
That would make it impossible to get any practice time, unless you have thousands of dollars to throw away on disposable guns. You could theoretically go to a licensed shooting range which would have non-self-destructing guns to practice with, but they won't operate the same way yours does and so won't offer very effective practice--unless of course the self-destruct feature can be activated / deactivated with a modification used by the range, which could then be copied by the public, thus defeating the purpose of the idea to begin with.
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
It wasn't a serious suggestion as it's practically impossible to implement. But how much training do you really need for a last line of defense in case of, err, burglars. How much aim does a woman need to deter a serial rapist coming to close etc. Seriously, how many people actually fear somebody will come to kill them. If you are that afraid of dying you shouldn't be driving.
The best arguments for having guns legal are that they make people feel macho/superior, it ineffective at making our civilization a safer place.
Comments
In the heat of the moment ( read: under the influence of adrenaline ) it is easier to act without consideration for consequences.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and thats why guns shouldnt be allowed to be carried by people who only intend to use them to kill other people ("self-defence" being the pretext)
No, that is complete bull######. The police aren't there to protect you. They are there to enforce laws and apprehend lawbreakers. Personal safety is your own responsibility.
Personal safety is an illusion. Life is dangerous. Suicide is the safest move available to you, then nobody can kill you anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's so deep it's shallow. Wow.
Anyway: Lolfigher is pretty much right. If you think the whole security debate through and just accelerate the process by a few hundred generation you might end with two final solutions:
Kill yourself, or kill everyone and everything else!
This doesnt happen because in contries with fairly tight gun controls, gun violence/deaths is not really an issue because the amount of gun deaths annually could probably be counted on your fingers. In fact, when there IS a gun incident politicians from both sides lobby for tighter gun controls.
For example last week in Melbourne a bikey shot two good samaritans trying to stop him beating up some girl. The response from politicians? Ban hand guns (though no laws have actually been passed yet). This reaction has worked in the past in Australia. when about 10 years ago Martin Bryant shot 30 people in Hobart the government responded by banning the purchase of automatic or semiautomatic rifles and there has not been a massacre since.
I know "things are different" in America, but i just wish people were just a little more open-minded. There seems to be a lot of macho chest-beating when it comes to the gun debate over in America. Just think of Charlten Heston and his RAWR "they can come take it out of my cold, dead hands" bravado. Frankly i think that kind of behaviour helps NEITHER side of the debate.
Finally this whole idea that the constitution is set in stone and should never be changed is rather silly. a vital function of government is to update laws as times demand different approaches and standards. Each clause in the constitution is called an AMENDMENT.
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amendment" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amendment</a>
It is called an amendment under the assumption that it has been or may in the future be changed for whatever reason. Expecting a constitution to stay the same for 200 years a pretty far-fetched expectation, niether is it politically or socially healthy IMHO. Countless other things have changed in the American constitution since its conception, but for some reason when it comes to guns pro-gun advocates seem to be like "RAWR!! Its our right to bear guns cause it says so in the constitution RAWR" without actually providing a rational argument why there should be loose controls on gun ownership.
Finally this whole idea that the constitution is set in stone and should never be changed is rather silly. a vital function of government is to update laws as times demand different approaches and standards. Each clause in the constitution is called an AMENDMENT.
It is called an amendment under the assumption that it has been or may in the future be changed for whatever reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, no, not quite. "Amendments" are new clauses that have been added to the constitution, that were not present in the original. Original clauses are just clauses. So its called an Amendment because the Constitution was changed, "amended", to include it -- not on the guess that it will be changed again later.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Expecting a constitution to stay the same for 200 years a pretty far-fetched expectation, niether is it politically or socially healthy IMHO. Countless other things have changed in the American constitution since its conception, but for some reason when it comes to guns pro-gun advocates seem to be like "RAWR!! Its our right to bear guns cause it says so in the constitution RAWR" without actually providing a rational argument why there should be loose controls on gun ownership.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lots of things have been <i>added</i> to our constitution, but very few things have been <i>taken out</i>. We've repealed the prohibition of alcohol, changed the method of our elections a few times, and thats about it.
But you miss the point of the constitutional argument. There are plenty of rational arguments why it is a good thing to allow us to have guns, but the constitutional argument is fundamentally different. The existence of the 2nd amendment defines what <i>method</i> has to be taken to <i>remove</i> our right to carry arms. It doesn't necessarily mean the right can never be taken away, but it DOES mean that our rights cannot be removed UNTIL you get a large enough majority to pass a new Amendment.
So the constitutional argument is invoked when politicians try to illegally restrict our rights without bothering with the official process of getting an amendment -- which they try on a regular basis, by the way, so the constitutional argument gets lots of excercise. Every time a politician proposes a new, unconstitutional law to restrict our rights, we have to go remind him of our constitutional protections again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->about 10 years ago Martin Bryant shot 30 people in Hobart the government responded by banning the purchase of automatic or semiautomatic rifles and there has not been a massacre since.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm assuming you don't like President Bush, so let me give an example:
There has never been another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 ever since George Bush declared the War on Terrorism. So does this mean what George Bush is doing to counteract terrorism is effective?
The problem is you think that your gun control laws are great. The cold truth is that armed assault (with a firearm) has increased in every post-industrial nation that has severely restricted civilian ownership of firearms except the USA, where it has steadily decreased for 20 years except for a brief rise from 2005-2006. Police reports from France are particularly dire, where the black market in arms is flourishing. You can even get an RPG-7.
Look, death from firearms is low even in the US. About 12,000 die every year from firearms (2/3 of all homicides). 400,000 die from tobacco. An astounding 600k die directly from heart related problems. Getting shot is the least of your worries, statistically. In total causes of death, you have less than a 1/100 chance of dying by getting shot (by another person), that is if you die at all. And that doesn't even include the fact that the vast majority of firearm homicides are gang on gang violence.
We're better off lobbying Congress to mandate people jog half a mile a day (reduce obesity related deaths, 300k per year) than to mandate people not to carry firearms. But dying because you're fat is much less spectacular than biting a bullet. Gun control is the least of our worries and from the standpoint of freedom alone, we should curb gun control.
The fact of the matter is that freedom will always be abused. We have a generally libertarian philosophy regarding criminal justice, that infringing on another person's freedom is a crime. There will always be criminals and there will always be murders. That is the price we pay for freedom, and the way it stands, it is a more than acceptable price.
Let's start by stipulating (for the sake of simplicity, let's leave out the discussions on what would happen if you took this to the extreme) that you are allowed freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses right or ability to do what they want.
By dying of obesity-related heart problems you do weigh the social security system, possibly restricting the care someone else might need. But ultimately it's your own life you're risking, not someone elses. If someone dies in a gun-related incident (in a non self-defense situation to make it simpler) you have directly stopped this other person from doing anything at all from this point on.
The first is indirect and not always final, while the other is very direct and very final.
If you do involve the question of defending your autonomy against a possible attacker (self defense) the issue becomes a bit more complicated, but I'm pretty sure most gun-related deaths are not the result of self defense.
I believe that if you want to compare situations such as these to make a point it is important that you take the time to look at the ethical problem you present rather than just throwing around numbers. Especially when those numbers have very little to do with the issue actually at hand.
For example: "so few people die from being murdered during rape incidents in comparison to gun accidents, so who cares about these deaths" really doesn't make much sense. This is a much more obvious example of course, but it's the same issue.
[Edit] I guess it could basically be summed up to the fact that if I own a gun, and even more so if I carry/keep it loaded, I increase the risk of the individuals around me (including myself) thereby infringing on their autonomy. If I'm really fat it might mean I've eaten alot of poor children's food, but other than that I'm more or less only risking myself.
In Denmark and Germany, you need a driver's license to legally drive a car on any public road. Getting a driver's license requires a knowledge of first aid, and many hours of of theoretical and practical schooling and instruction, as well as a written exam and a practical exam.
And there's ample reason for this: A car is a dangerous device. Improperly or carelessly handled, it can cause grievous injury and death. Common sense dictates that anyone who operates one should be properly trained.
At the least, gun control should be that strict. A gun is a dangerous device. Improperly or carelessly handled, it can cause grievous injury and death. Common sense dictates that anyone who operates one should be properly trained.
In short, extensive schooling and training should be a requirement for gun ownership with the purpose of discharge - and may be. Like I said, I don't know this. What IS required in order to own and legally discharge a firearm? How much schooling does it require? In the United States, that is.
But complete restriction of firearms just doesn't make sense to me. The same arguments that we often use in favour of abortion can be used in favour of firearms: If a woman wants an abortion/firearm and you don't give her a legal way to obtain it, she'll just find an illegal and probably far more dangerous way.
--Scythe--
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm assuming you don't like President Bush, so let me give an example:
There has never been another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 ever since George Bush declared the War on Terrorism. So does this mean what George Bush is doing to counteract terrorism is effective?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so frankly i view this example as irrelevant because the Republicans' motives for going to war in the middle east had nothing to truly do with fighting terrorism, that was just an excuse that used to unfairly exploit the emotions of a grieving nation.
So yes i agree with you: The fact that there hasnt been an attack is a complete coincidence. The war on terror in essence has nothing really to do with fighting terrorism. The NSA is probably just as useless as it was in 2001. but anyway back to the point on hand... i dont want an irrelevant example to lead to the topic being derailed.
But you are trying to convince me that the fact that is virtually impossible to obtain an automatic rifle in australia means that the lack of massacres is a coincidence?? Possible.. maybe, but very unlikely. And sorry NO, gun violence has NOT increased here. So please refrain from generalisations like "gun violence has gone up in all countries with gun-control laws".
Yes, I have come to accept that no matter whats for the best that guns will never be restricted in America. But in my country i know it works. There are gangs here too, and goolly some even get a gun off the black market! But generally they dont shoot at eachother. I dont think ive ever even heard a gunshot. I dont feel like my freedom has been infringed on at all, im just pleased that i never fear being shot at.
This is my last post because ive expressed everything i believe. To me the argument Guns=freedom is just nauseating, im sorry if u disagree. Ask any Australian or European if they feel less "free" because they cant buy certain types of guns. Its not like guns are outlawed in most western countries, its just that u have to earn the priviledge of owning one. farmers can have thier long barrel rifle fine no problem, sportsmen can have thiers.
PHEW! but back to scythes point! Why do u need handguns or automatic weapons? guns designed to be concealed? If self-defense is the issue (though to me not a convincing argument) then im sure shoving a longbarrel rifle into some petty criminal's face will convince them to buzz off, or convince ure son that u mistook for a criminal that ure a psycho lol. Just feel fortunate u didnt accidentally shoot him <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> .
I wonder how many would actually be capable of pulling the trigger at someone. Everyone here might say it wouldn't be any problem for them, but it's easy to say now. Actually taking the life of someone else takes ignoring a lot of the wiring up in of our brains.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When taken out of a "normal" situation in daily life and placed in a situation in which your life, property, or freedom is threatened, killing someone isn't as difficult as you may think, trust me.
On Scythe's idea, I like it but it would never work here in the US. In an ideal world things like banning all firearms would be excellent, however it isn't anywhere near ideal and I think handguns, at least in the US, are pretty much impossible to remove from the market. You could ban the sale and possession of pistols and 10 years later still have crime involving handguns, theres way too many.
in order to operate a motor vehicle you require proof that you are over 16. (for my demographic (16-24), there is one vehicle-related death in my state per day)
in order to own a firearm you must complete at least one firearm safety and operations course, submit to a background check for your license and another check before every purchase, you must register every owned firearm with the state and the local police department may revoke your license and confiscate your arms if you are deemed unfit to own them. all arms and licenses are forfeit if you commit an felony or are found to be mentally unstable. (for my demographic (16-24), there is less than one firearm-related death in my state per year and none of them have involved a state-registered firearm that was not reported as stolen)
but on a more serious note, i liked the idea about fighting a war with tranquilizer guns, then again that would only be effective if your enemy was also using tranquilizers
Or we could just do away with the need to get a gun licence and sell guns at your local hardware store. And then raise the cost of bullets to $10,000 each.
but on a more serious note, i liked the idea about fighting a war with tranquilizer guns, then again that would only be effective if your enemy was also using tranquilizers
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, I remember seeing a stand-up comedian with the exact same idea. The problem is that bullets are even easier to smuggle and self manufacture than guns. So making them more expensive would only work if you managed to eradicate the black market.
You don't need a driver's license in Kansas?! That's insane! D:
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry, didn't make it clear. you take your certificate of birth showing that you were born at least sixteen years ago to the DMV, pay a $15 application and photo fee and walk away with a licence
sorry, didn't make it clear. you take your certificate of birth showing that you were born at least sixteen years ago to the DMV, pay a $15 application and photo fee and walk away with a licence
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is so ###### up. i couldve guessed you wouldnt need a license to drive in the democratic republic of congo or somewhere like that, but in the u.s.?
and by license i mean that youre actually qualified to be able to drive a car. your "license" is just a piece of paper you couldve gotten from a pack of kellogs corn flakes, its worth nothing
that is so ###### up. i couldve guessed you wouldnt need a license to drive in the democratic republic of congo or somewhere like that, but in the u.s.?
and by license i mean that youre actually qualified to be able to drive a car. your "license" is just a piece of paper you couldve gotten from a pack of kellogs corn flakes, its worth nothing
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, licenses for driving are provided by State governments in the US, not by the Federal government.
Second, BM's description of licensing requirements for the State of Kansas is lacking to say the least.
<a href="http://www.ksrevenue.org/dmvdrlic.htm" target="_blank">Kansas DMV website</a>
Under 18 years of age:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->INSTRUCTION PERMIT
Must be 14 years of age. Parent or guardian consent required for all applicants under the age of 16.
Vision & written tests required.
Instruction Permit holder may drive at any time when accompanied by a licensed adult driver 18 years of age or older.
To get a Restricted License, you must have held an Instruction Permit for at least 6 months.
FARM PERMITS
Must be at least 14 years of age but less than 16.
Parent or guardian consent required.
Full test (vision, written, & drive) or Driver’s Ed completion slip required.
Must live or work on a farm of 20 acres or more. Written documentation from the parent or employer is required.
Prior to age 16, applicant must provide affidavit showing at least 50 hours of adult supervised driving, with 10 of those hours being at night, by a licensed driver at least 21 years old. If affidavit is not provided prior to age 16, the driver will remain restricted until age 17 or until affidavit is provided, whichever occurs first. Farm Permit holder may drive to and from school (not school activities); to, from or in connection with any farm related work, or at any time when accompanied by a licensed adult driver 18 years of age or older.
RESTRICTED DRIVER’S LICENSE (CLASS C OR M)
Must be 15 years of age but less than 16.
Parent or guardian consent required.
Driver’s Ed completion slip required.
Required to have had an Instruction Permit for at least 6 months, during which time the licensee must have completed at least 25 hours of supervised driving. Additional 25 hours required prior to age 16. All 50 hours can be completed anytime after obtaining Instruction Permit.
Prior to age 16, applicant must provide affidavit showing at least 50 hours of adult supervised driving, with 10 of those hours being at night, by a licensed driver at least 21 years old. If affidavit is not provided prior to age 16 the driver will remain restricted until age 17 or until affidavit is provided, whichever occurs first.
Restricted licensee may drive to and from school (not school activities); to, from or in connection with any employment or farm related work, or at any time when accompanied by a licensed adult driver 18 years of age or older.
NON-RESTRICTED DRIVER’S LICENSE (CLASS C OR M) FOR 16 & 17 YEAR OLDS
Full test (vision, written, & drive) or Driver’s Ed completion slip required.
Applicant must provide affidavit showing at least 50 hours of adult supervised driving, with 10 of those hours being at night, by a licensed driver at least 21 years old.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
Any person under the age of 16 with a restricted license, that is convicted of two or more moving violations will remain restricted until age 17.
Any licensee issued a Farm Permit or Restricted license may not transport non-sibling minor passengers. Any conviction for this is considered a moving violation. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For 18 years and older:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you have never been licensed you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity
Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state
Pass a vision examination
Pass all applicable written examination(s)
Pass driving examination (vehicle provided by you)
Pay applicable fees
If you have a valid out-of-state license you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity
Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state
Pass a vision examination
Pay applicable fees
If you have an out-of-state license (expired 1 year or less) you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity
Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state
Pass a vision examination
Pass all applicable written examination(s)
Pay applicable fees
If you have an out-of-state license (expired over 1 year) you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity
Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state
Pass a vision examination
Pass all applicable written examination(s)
Pass driving examination (vehicle provided by you)
Pay applicable fees <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The hyperbole around here is getting a tad excessive.
1 - Enter DMV office.
2 - Submit State-issued identification card (Code: N COMM CLS C)
3 - Submit certificate of birth.
4 - Sign form attesting to validity of the above.
5 - Guardian signs the same.
6 - Pass vision exam.
7 - Pay app/photo fee.
8 - Smile for camera.
9 - Wait 20 minutes for photo to develop.
10 - Sign receipt of card.
11 - Drive off.
I have, in my wallet, a Motor Vehicle Operator (Class C noncommercial "small" vehicle) Permit. Also known as a driver's licence (code DL, Class C noncommercial.) The permit has the signature of the Director of the Division of Vehicles for the State of Kansas (2004) and the Secretary of Revenue for the State of Kansas (2004). The permit was issued 01-13-2004 and expires 12-16-2007 and is subject to the following restrictions: Operator is required to wear corrective lenses while in operation of a motor vehicle, operator will not be 18 years of age until 12-16-2005. This card was issued to me on 01-13-2004 at the DMV office for my county by an employee of the State of Kansas and is recognized as a state-issued identification card for the State of Kansas and is such, understood to be valid. That aside, here is how I came to be in possession of said card:
1 - Enter DMV office.
2 - Submit State-issued identification card (Code: N COMM CLS C)
3 - Submit certificate of birth.
4 - Sign form attesting to validity of the above.
5 - Guardian signs the same.
6 - Pass vision exam.
7 - Pay app/photo fee.
8 - Smile for camera.
9 - Wait 20 minutes for photo to develop.
10 - Sign receipt of card.
11 - Drive off.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty you must have a terrible memory or something. Even in the details posted by Spooge:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NON-RESTRICTED DRIVER’S LICENSE (CLASS C OR M) FOR 16 & 17 YEAR OLDS
Full test (vision, written, & drive) or Driver’s Ed completion slip required.
Applicant must provide affidavit showing at least 50 hours of adult supervised driving, with 10 of those hours being at night, by a licensed driver at least 21 years old. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either that, or Kansas is the most backward place this side of Africa, because: 1. Every state I've been to requires you to pass a driving test - as in, actually being in a car and operating it; 2. Every DMV I've been to within the last 4 years had digital cameras, and even Polaroids don't take 20 minutes to develop <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> ; 3. Some form of driver's education is necessary for someone under 18 trying to obtain a driver's license.
The Kansas Department of Revenue website even says (for 18 years and older):
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you have never been licensed you must:
Present acceptable proof of identity
Not be canceled, suspended, or revoked in any state
Pass a vision examination
Pass all applicable written examination(s)
Pass driving examination (vehicle provided by you)
Pay applicable fees <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing immediately strange about the Kansas system is that it appears you don't need to take a driving test at the DMV, as long as you've complete driver's ed. Which means, unless you had some messed up employee at the DMV, you previously completed driver's education, which means you didn't just 'walk in and get a license'.
Now that that fairly off-topic thread has been addressed; I've still got to point out (like elsewhere in this thread) that the majority of crimes committed with weapons are illegal (as in purchased on the black market or stolen). A number of sources indicating such are accessible in the last gun control-esque thread we had (with most of the illegal crimes being committed with handguns, then shotguns, then rifles).
My particular problem with the opening post here is:
<!--QuoteBegin-Scythe+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scythe)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No more guns can be sold to anyone other than police and military. A black market will exist but it wouldn't be too hard to control. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you figure the black market wouldn't be hard to control? In recent years gun crime in the UK has <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm" target="_blank">increased</a> (also <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm" target="_blank">this </a> (2001) or <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,1863832,00.html" target="_blank">this</a> (2006). The US has incredible trouble preventing the illegal sale of drugs for increasing too sharply, and prohibition is one of the major reasons for organized crime today.
How do you propose this 'easily controlled black market' will be controlled?
edit: i for two would like to know how this easily controlled black market will be set up. the current uncontrolled black market hasn't had much success in the control department on account of it not being controlled.
Then again this would just make more civilians go to the black market for their toys. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
The best arguments for having guns legal are that they make people feel macho/superior, it ineffective at making our civilization a safer place.