The problem with Gun control

Senan wrote: There is nothing to fear about background checks or mental health evaluations if you don't have a shady background or undisclosed mental health issues.

Ya if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. I believe that is from Joseph Goebbels? I mean the government and doctors are never guilty of abusing rights or twisting the law to fit a political agenda. So there is no reason to ever be suspicious right?

I mean its not like this ever happened:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/295484-va-is-restricting-veterans-gun-rights-without-due-process

Senan wrote:
It shouldn't be left to the gun store owner to determine who is mentally sound and who isn't. What's wrong with asking that question of doctors or requesting a written statement before selling this veteran a gun? No self respecting medical professional would say purchasing a gun is a sign of mental illness unless it was part of a wider pattern of previous violence toward others, or there is unusual purchasing habits as was the case with the Las Vegas shooter. The paranoia surrounding background checks and mental health evaluations is part of the reason why people choose to get guns illegally instead of through legal avenues. It is harder to enforce existing laws when people are hesitant to comply with them out of fear. There is nothing to fear about background checks or mental health evaluations if you don't have a shady background or undisclosed mental health issues.

The gun store owner isn't determining it. The NICS background check system run by the FBI is the one that determines it. If you apply with NICS background which is mandated by law and fail knowing you cannot posses or purchase a firearm then you are subject to arrest. Which again begs the question why aren't these people getting arrested? They may not have been updated like the case with the Texas shooter where the military did not notify the FBI or simply that the Politicians more interested in posturing then doing their jobs.

The logic of nothing to fear becomes a vastly slippery slope based on invading people's personal privacy and accusing them of something they may not be. Guilty until proven innocent.

It's not about controlling violence (how is that even possible) - its about reducing the effectiveness at which violence can impact society, by restricting access to things which have power sufficient to cause 'too much' damage is misused. What is being discussed is where to draw the line between what is too much and what is not.

As I said in another post, you are not allowed to own a nuclear weapon because if it were used for violence it would have too wide an impact on society. Same with other military equipment and dangerous items. At some point in making these decisions and determining what is and what is not acceptable, there will be that point of overlap where some things which are allowed will have similar capabilities to those which are not. I don't think its anymore complicated then that.

I don't have much to say on Gun Control that is useful - my country has fairly stringent gun control laws, and that is not likely to change, regardless of my opinion.

(Interestingly enough, it is also illegal for a private citizen to own ballistic body armour, which is a somewhat different line of thought to the "can't own semi automatic weapons" debate, and probably part of the "slippery slope")


But, I thought I'd chuck it out there just to entertain myself -

I have mental health issues, and I legally use firearms in a country that makes it damn near impossible (by some people's standards)

If for some goddamn reason I wanted to shoot someone I could - but the effort I went through for background checks, paperwork, qualifying periods, and various fees and levies means I would really have to WANT to do that, and it's not too easy for me to do it on a whim.

There is nothing STOPPING me from owning guns, heck, if I can prove I have a good reason, I can even have semi-autos (although you can't put "Self Defence" on the reason section of your permit) - but it's also hard for me to get into a position where I'm walking through a shopping mall putting holes in people (or knowing my shooting skills, random walls and windows) with reckless abandon.


And given the average....deadbeat....doesn't have as much money, education, or ability to paperwork as I do, I feel relatively confident that I can walk through a shopping mall and not have to be wearing a ballistic vest....(Stab vest on the other hand....maybe.....)

JamesSand wrote: Interestingly enough, it is also illegal for a private citizen to own ballistic body armour...

Wait a minute... you can't own a completely defensive form of protection from the gun toting psychos?? Well that says it all right there!!! Conspiracy!!! Obviously perpetrated by the govt so when they come for the children you can't protect yourself!

Senan, Why Do you have more of a problem with how someone cut rather than the action of cutting itself? There's no difference between "gun deaths" and other deaths. You're excusing those deaths just to focus on one form of murder..

This is why I changed the discussion. Of course gun deaths will go down if you enacted gun control. However, murderous violence will still exist. Eventually, they'll outlaw other weapons. Swords, axes, lightsaber? The UK already have stations where you can turn your swords in..

As jedi, we should seek to end violence at its source. As violence itself is not civilized behavior and causes imbalance in society and in The Force.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

JamesSand wrote: Interestingly enough, it is also illegal for a private citizen to own ballistic body armour...

Wait a minute... you can't own a completely defensive form of protection from the gun toting psychos?? Well that says it all right there!!! Conspiracy!!! Obviously perpetrated by the govt so when they come for the children you can't protect yourself!

You might be closer to the truth than what you think. People who thirst for control don't want educated, civilized, well armed people. They're harder to control. Do you think benevolent powers run the world right now?

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote:
You might be closer to the truth than what you think. People who thirst for control don't want educated, civilized, well armed people. They're harder to control. Do you think benevolent powers run the world right now?

Do you think they dont?

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: Senan, Why Do you have more of a problem with how someone cut rather than the action of cutting itself? There's no difference between "gun deaths" and other deaths. You're excusing those deaths just to focus on one form of murder..

Except I can’t stab 58 people to death from 400 yards. Seriously? You want to compare mass shootings with an AR to attacking someone with an axe? I’m focused on the most prevalent, egregious, and more easily addressed problem than preventing ALL murder. Let’s start with the most obvious.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: This is why I changed the discussion. Of course gun deaths will go down if you enacted gun control. However, murderous violence will still exist. Eventually, they'll outlaw other weapons. Swords, axes, lightsaber? The UK already have stations where you can turn your swords in..

As jedi, we should seek to end violence at its source. As violence itself is not civilized behavior and causes imbalance in society and in The Force.

We can’t prevent all violence, so we shouldn’t try to prevent any. Got it. We’ll just expect everyone to be civilized despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Sounds very Jedi. :huh:

And the Force balances itself, partly through extremely violent acts. Supernova, hurricanes, stepping on an ant... they are all destructive and natural in their own way, and all functions of the Force balancing itself. It is pretty egotistical to think our behavior has any impact on the Force at all, because it acts around us and through us, not because of us.

If you want to get sarcastic and call people out about being "very Jedi" :Lets see knife attack in China kills 33 and injures 130, truck attacks have killed over 40 and injured close to 500 in France, 12 dead and 56 in Berlin. Bombs kill 130 and hurt again almost 500 in Paris. Do you see a trend? Gun bans did NOTHING to stop these mass killings. People did them anyhow. Heck there are still gun attacks in these nations which shows that someone that really wants a gun will get it no matter what law you try to put in place.
In Australia, biker gangs MAKE guns that are banned for crying out loud.

How sensible is it to focus on a tool when changing the tool has done NOTHING to stop the attacks in other nations where your suggested method was tried. It did not stop mass killings and it did not lower the death or violent crime rate. So overall the measure was useless because nothing changed except the tools used.

So rather then focus on the tool when banning one tool does not stop this but just changes the tool used. Should we focus on the ideology of the people committing the attack? Maybe revamping our mental health system? Maybe actually making sure our government does its job rather than failing to report people into the system? Or do we repeat the acts of other nations because yea it might make you feel good but the reality is that it changes nothing?