Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
X4 Alcohol is regulated, sure a total ban would never work and it's not being proposed, but establishments get alchahol licences, why would a firearms licence be so different to implement?
I'll grant you Fry though, he's applying a native British perspective (and a pretty sheltered one at that) to the US, which is silly. I'm British and I know enough people with guns that seeing someone with a gun isn't an automatic reason to worry, it's a reason to be carful but that's because there's a guns round and nobody wants an accident.
to build on that I live in the uk and my sister's boyfriend went shooting just yesterday on a gun range, we let people shoot rabbits up our land all the time. If I saw somebody in central London with a gun I'd freak, likewise a handgun anywhere (but that's due to our laws), but the idea that all people with guns should be fled from is silly.
edited 27th Dec '15 3:53:58 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat sounds perfectly reasonable and sensible to me, too. I have a healthy respect for guns, just as I have a healthy respect for power tools and automobiles. They're powerful machines that can cause horrific damage, if misused. But that doesn't stop me from using them, which I do every day in my normal routines.
As for "universal" licensing, consider the vast geographic differences in various states of the US. Something that might seem prudent in a densely populated urban area, such as New York City, may be totally unacceptable to people living in the wide open spaces of Montana. You may find that the local County Sheriff, who would be tasked with enforcing said laws, is personally opposed to them. And so are the citizens who elected him. A law that exists only on paper isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.I can't disagree more. The fact that we have anti-jaywalking laws tells us "Eh, you probably shouldn't jaywalk" even though you don't get arrested for doing it. You shape social expectations. There's the "ooooo, I'm being so bad!" aspect of it, where people will do things just because it's not permitted, but by the same token, they'll only do it to an extent because they realize they're not really supposed to be doing it.
A lot of social behavior adjustment is just trying to take advantage of the Warm Fuzzies (as my departed father used to call it) people get from playing by the rules.
Note: this original argument applied more to copyright law than to, say, gun control, but the point stands. The idea that laws that aren't enforced are worthless is bullshit.
Now, laws that are both unenforced and also no one even knows they EXIST, that's bullshit.
A major problem with arguing "Gun Control" is that most people associate it with "Gun Bans"-which are kind of different issues. I think most people are actually more moderate on the issue than we think. Not that many people support complete unrestricted access to firearms, and not that many people want to ban a bunch of firearms outright. That's just what the politicians keep arguing about.
Leviticus 19:34I live in a country full of laws that are known and not enforced and people just don't break them because row row fight da powah, they break them because there is no consequence.
From littering to illegal carry, it doesn't matter, if a law can't be enforce people will start to ignore it sooner or later, and that will put the law abiding citizens in a major disadvantage on a daily basis.
People will stop getting the kicks of feeling good for following the law when they realize their lives can become easier or get what they want if they don't and this is something I speak from experience. I've seen people bribe cops, litter in front of patrolmen, disrespect every traffic law in the book, omit taxes, steal things and murder. All of that because they could get away with it.
I have no right of self defense, neither do my living relatives, most of them are women and they are getting increasingly scared of going out due to increasing criminality because the state is failing to impose the existing laws.
So yes, if a law isn't enforced it will stop being followed.
Most politicians have been pushing for gun bans, specially towards the so called assault guns despise of things like Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban having no impact in the murder and crime rate in the US.
They didn't push for things like universal gun license, which would be good for those traveling across states, since no one wants to go from Vermont to New Jersey and be screwed by interstate laws and at least a mandatory handling and safety training in order to be awarded the license.
Instead they are pushing for bans like and non-sense restrictions like 10 rounds magazines, banning weapons with pistol grips and that shoulder thing that goes up.
edited 27th Dec '15 4:31:12 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
X5 I don't think that the unwillingness of local cops to enforce a law should mean it's not made, we still have laws against cops killing people and racial motivated murder even though some areas are deeply racist and embrace police violence.
Now there's a good point in there, a federal law should be build to the standard that everywhere needs, not force the standard of one area onto everyone. So you go real basic, make it pretty much administrative. You get a federal gun licence and present that whenever you buy a gun, suddenly no more messing about with background checks, you do it once (every X years) to get your licence and that's it. Also there's nothing inherently rural about hating the government, registering your gun the same you do your car works fine everywhere.
It's only when you get into detailed specifics that it's problematic, and you can have additional local laws for that if need be.
Yeah the US left have a big problem with going Then Let Me Be Evil when it comes to gun law, they've spent so long being blocked from doing anything sensible that they've decided to just go off the deep end and ruin any reputation they ever had, which is stupid of them.
edited 27th Dec '15 4:54:19 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYou're using the wrong cost/benefits analysis.
The question isn't "will the law stop being followed in any case." The question is "will the law stop being followed in ALL cases."
The cost of having the law on the books if no energy is spent of enforcing it is nearly zero. Therefore, the breakeven point is very low. Even if only a small percentage of people abide by the law just because™, that's still more than zero.
I recall one such incident, a number of years ago, but on a state level rather than a federal level. The state legislature (I forget which state) pushed through some "universal gun licensing" policy, but set the duty of implementing it squarely on the shoulders of the county sheriffs departments. The sheriffs claimed that they didn't have the manpower to do all the paperwork required, didn't have the budget to hire additional personnel, and the state was giving them no additional funds to do it with. It went to the state supreme court, which ruled that the legislature couldn't force local government to perform additional work without compensation. On that basis, the law was ruled unconstitutional and overturned.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
I carry both on a daily basis, a general use switchblade on my pocket and a stiletto boot knife on my belt, the only people who know I have them at any given time are my close friends and a few of my relatives.
The few people outside my friends circle who knew that used to think that was weird until one of our colleagues was murdered with a wire cord around her neck from a few blocks away from college.
The chances are, you've been around some armed citizen and you didn't realize, because most of them don't show their guns on public.
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
I don't know, I lived in downtown Baltimore and it was way safer than what I am used to when I go back to Rio or visit São Paulo even with its fame of being second only to Detroit when it comes to being a violent city.
Also it isn't a total hellhole, not yet at least, but being allowed to have legal means of self defense should be a right everyone can have.
edited 27th Dec '15 7:32:12 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges

Maybe I am being reactionary, and maybe I am oversimplifying things. But I'm telling you guys flat-out that these "regulate all users/confiscate all guns" tactics Will. Not. Work. Here. There are simply too many unregistered firearms already in circulation, and too many people (on both sides of the law) willing to simply ignore such legislation.
If you don't believe me, look up Prohibition.
Fry, you're only underscoring my point.
edited 27th Dec '15 3:47:00 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.