Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:My guess is that you know about as much about Nazi Germany as you do about the history of any other place in the world. NOTHING.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you fucking Australians might be susceptible to another Hitler!

Now you've got me totally confused. If this isn't what you were trying to suggest then what was it that you were trying to suggest?

Sarcastically speaking, that's exactly what I was trying to suggest!

Sarcasm is not for the dilettante amateur, Bob, so I suggest you leave it to those with a natural talent for it.

Obvious Leo wrote:Sarcasm is not for the dilettante amateur, Bob, so I suggest you leave it to those with a natural talent for it.

Possibly one of Bob's more funny rants, since a blond-wig-haired Hitler clone is doing so well in the Presidential Primaries in the USA right now.

Obvious Leo wrote:Sarcasm is not for the dilettante amateur, Bob, so I suggest you leave it to those with a natural talent for it.

On the other hand, I thought anybody could recognize sarcasm, especially in a philosophy forum, but that just goes to show you that even I can be wrong (outside of the spiritual, political and economic, of course).

Sarcasm should be applied with a scalpel, Bob, not with a machete, lest it be mistaken for bombast.

"Duh, but you a crim could get put away for holding a gun - get it?"

Duh, that happens now, with the law as is. Adding new layers of law will accomplish nuthin'' except make communitarian types feel good.

Obvious Leo wrote:Sarcasm should be applied with a scalpel, Bob, not with a machete, lest it be mistaken for bombast.

On the other hand, you have to understand that I was talking to an Australian.

henry quirk wrote:"Duh, but you a crim could get put away for holding a gun - get it?"

Duh, that happens now, with the law as is. Adding new layers of law will accomplish nuthin'' except make communitarian types feel good.

Duh no it does not. Without a proper Federal Licensing system, effectively anyone can own a gun as their constitutional right, as you well know

It's not a perfect system (licensing would not be either) but here it is...

http://felonyrestrictions.com/Owning-a-Gun.php

...as you say "a crim could get put away for holding a gun".

As I say 'that happens now'.

henry quirk wrote:It's not a perfect system (licensing would not be either) but here it is...

http://felonyrestrictions.com/Owning-a-Gun.php

...as you say "a crim could get put away for holding a gun".

As I say 'that happens now'.

Without a licensing system, this law is a hollow gesture, and, as you well know is not enforced.

As I say, it's not a perfect system. Did a little poking around and found a ton of information on the subject...unfortunately, different sources say different things. An ABC story, for example, sez it's easy for a felon to buy a gun from a legit dealer, but two reports - a 2012 FBI stat dump and a more recent Dept. of Justice assessment - say different.

Since this is Mr. Obama's FBI and Justice Dept., and since he's an anti-gunner, I'm inclined to believe their reports over those issued by media, but that's just me.

However, let's assume you're right and current law is hollow: how will licensing improve the situtation?

Again: all the 'mass shootings' of the past few years, in the U.S., were done by folks who wre not felons.

How would licensing have stopped Lanza, or Roof, or Huberty, or Hennard, or Hasan, or Whitman, or Holmes, or Cho, or Dear, or Alexis, or Harris and Klebold, or Houser (who did his dirty work in my state), or any of the others who got their mitts on guns (some in highly gun-controlled communities or states)?

Look here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... .html?_r=1

How would licensing prevented any of these whackadoodles from doin' what they did?

Why not just admit that licensing is not a solution, but merely a step. I'd have a lot more respect for your position (while disagreeing with it) if you just fessed up with your 'real' solution, that being the Austrailian solution (which won't work in the US).

Really, the only way gun violence is going to stop, or be curtailed, in the US, is through makin' the hoops impossible to jump through. 'I'm sorry, sir, but our records show you were ticketed for speeding fifteen years ago so you're ineligible for gun ownership'. 'Miss, I'm sorry, but records show you were treated for mild depression seven years ago, so you're not allowed to purchase a firearm'. 'Our records show you wrote several inflamatory letters to your local paper over the past three years, because of this, you're unable to purchase, own, or use a firearm'. In the US near-absolute gun control can come about through incrementalism on the local level. The federal route is a waste of time.

henry quirk wrote:As I say, it's not a perfect system. Did a little poking around and found a ton of information on the subject...unfortunately, different sources say different things. An ABC story, for example, sez it's easy for a felon to buy a gun from a legit dealer, but two reports - a 2012 FBI stat dump and a more recent Dept. of Justice assessment - say different.

Since this is Mr. Obama's FBI and Justice Dept., and since he's an anti-gunner, I'm inclined to believe their reports over those issued by media, but that's just me.

However, let's assume you're right and current law is hollow: how will licensing improve the situtation?.

Felons live with other people, who have a right to own guns. Any knock on the door, the felon just says it belongs to his room-mate/wife/friend. But with a licence, the gun owner becomes responsible for the ownership, maintenance and the use to which the gun is put, and the reg number of the gun is linked to its registered owner. Licensing would require a test, which would include safety and knowledge of the responsibility.
Big sentences for possession with no licence. Loss of licence for mis-use.
And since no one really as a legitimate use for a gun, the casual trading and ownership of guns would reduce.
It works with cars, why not with guns too?

Maybe this;"How would licensing prevented any of these whackadoodles from doin' what they did?", is the worng question. Ask yourself why this does not happen outside the USA?

If a car is stolen then used criminally, is the owner responsible?

Mebbe in Britain, but not in the US.

Under your scheme: guns will still be stolen, still used in crimes, and - again - licensing wouldn't have stopped the mass murders that seem to passionately drive the gun vs anti-gun discussion cuz even though, for example, Lanza's mom would be, under your scheme, responsible, all the Sandy Hook kids would still be dead.

#

"Ask yourself why this does not happen outside the USA?"

Je suis Charlie.

#

"no one really as a legitimate use for a gun"

I believe I saved my life with my gun. I feed myself and mine with my gun. I say I have a legit use for my gun.

henry quirk wrote:If a car is stolen then used criminally, is the owner responsible?

Mebbe in Britain, but not in the US.

They can be held responsible if they have failed to notify of the theft.

"Je suis Charlie." indicates you have not really thought about it.

Mass shootings happen even where guns are forbidden, so - yeah - I thought about it.

Do you mean to say mass shooting done for political reasons are different than those done for whackadoodle reasons?

My point: guns are not the problem....easy access to guns is not the problem.

#

"They can be held responsible if they have failed to notify of the theft."

If some one stole my car or gun you better believe I'll report it, just like any other sensible person would. Who wouldn't report such a thing?