EDIT: Adding stuff in based on other posters. Sorry for the long post.
One definition of toy:
3. An amusement; a pastime
Ergo:
Cars are a primary mode of transportation. For most people, probably not toys. High-performance sports cars are more expensive, and insurance is more expensive for such cars. DUCY?
Boats used by the Coast Guard are not toys. Boats used as recreation are toys.
Woodworking tools used by someone making furniture for their job are tools. Woodworking tools used by someone as a hobby are toys.
Guns used by police officers and soldiers are tools. Guns used by Joe Six-Pack are toys.
It really isn’t a difficult concept. You’re trying to change the terminology because it makes you feel better about having a gun, but if you’re going to call ‘shootin’ guns’ a ‘recreational activity’, guns are toys.
You can try and make fun of my hobbies all you want. None of my hobbies involve equipment made only to kill. I can see shooting at a shooting range, specifically with guns made for use at a shooting range. Probably not my cup of tea, but not a problem.
Reckless driving -should- be punished as severely as drunk driving.
Guns are dangerous. Kids shouldn’t be handling them. They should not be widely available. They should be expensive, very hard to get, very very much a PITA to own, regulated to the hilt, and gun infractions should be punished severely.
Buying/selling a gun should not be easier than buying a car.
I am Joe-blow Public, and the reason I “like” being able to own a gun is that I hate the idea of the government saying “shut up and do what you’re told, you goddamn peasant”. It’s about empowerment.
The single most common theme I’ve seen in posts in favor of gun control is the sheer contempt with which the intelligence and responsibility of the average citizen is regarded. Apparently the social philosophy espoused by Thomas Hobbes- that the public are a mob of savages only kept in check by the iron fist of authority- is alive and well.
Just what exactly makes soldiers and law enforcement officers more trustworthy with firearms than any given member of the public? I can only think of three things:
[ul]
[li]Before they’re allowed to begin training, they undergo a rigorous background check.[/li][li]By undergoing and completing a long and intense period of training, they demonstrate that they’re knowledgable on how to use guns safely and responsibly, and that they’ve demonstrated a committment to obeying the law.[/li][li]While serving as police officers, their character and actions are under continuous monitering and review.[/li][/ul]So which of those things are somehow inapplicable to public gun owners? If you decry the irresponsible use of guns, maybe the answer is more responsibility, not fewer guns.
I’ll tell you what–if you apply the exact same logic and rules to sports cars, I’ll buy it.
Why a punitive sales tax? Does that make me somehow a better gun owner, or does it just increase the number of illegal smuggled-in guns because it forces a black market? Basic rifles and firearms are not hard to make for a even halfway competent metalsmith–automatic guns and conversions? Certainly. Reliable firearms? Yes, difficult? Zip gun to shoot that fucker down the street or your cheating wife? Not expensive at all, and the more you artificially inflate the price of normal firearms ownership, the more illegal ones will appear on the market. Prohibition doesn’t work in a democracy, we’ve proven than with alcohol and we’re proving it now with drugs.
Why a blanket rule on owner responsibility? If you steal my locked and alarmed car and crash it into a school bus, should I be responsible? (certainly I should be charged with contributory negligence if said car (or gun) was unlocked with the keys in, but that’s not what we’re talking about)
Why recurring training for guns and not cars? Why more intense training for guns than for cars?
Are you charging the license fee per-gun on collection pieces or actively fired and used guns? Is this going to be nominal like car registration or are you trying to punish people who have the gall to own guns again–if the latter, have you taken into account the black market effects of artificial price increases?
Why roll your eyes, no response to the obviously correct statement that inanimate objects are not fully self sufficient and malevolent beings?
Despite your repeated attempts to “hick it up,” ‘shooting guns’ is a perfectly acceptable activity.
In the United States, and the Free World, things have to be banned, not allowed. That is, until there’s sufficient demonstrable reasoning behind banning something, it’s allowed.
This is easily proven false a hundred ways.
I’ve got 14 firearms in my house that have never shot a living thing, and they never will so long as I own them (here’s hoping).
You see destruction, and you see an effect on our society that I simply do not.
It’s fantastic that you think guns cause it, but I don’t see the connection. I see guns used in crimes more frequently in the USA than the UK, but I also see hands, fists and baseball bats used more frequently in the USA than the UK. Does that mean the problem is with our hands, fists and baseball bats, or does it mean that the problem is our inner cities?
If you also knew much about the USA, you’d know that the vast majority of violence with firearms (90%+) happens in an astronomically small portion of our country (less than 10% of our geography) and in some of the most gun-restrictive areas of our country (LA, CA - NY, NY - Detroit, Michigan - Chicago, IL - etc).
Because they’re cathartic, useful (although hopefully I’ll never have to use them) and a perfectly reasonable passtime.
I don’t “gun love,” but thanks for trying. And once again, you read far more into inanimate objects than I do.
And I think it’s very, very telling that you made up… rather, are the only one who knows these mythical people.
I’ve lived in quite a few areas of the country (admittedly, never Colorado or Alaska – although I do have friends in both) and no one I know shares the particularly warped sentiment of reality the people you knew did.
The first part (expense) is a piss poor idea, however I’ll address the last (which is decent) in a moment.
As I explained upthread, it’s not about the word itself, it’s about the connotations of the word. A novelty item is a better description, and doesn’t have the reckless connotations that a toy does.
Just because some of us use them as recreational items doesn’t mean that those of us who use them for self defense don’t deserve to have them.
You’re conflating all gun owners with some of the gun owners who have posted in this thread.
Those 8 year olds shoot under strict adult supervision, much in the same way that 19 year old shot under strict adult supervision.
And you still didn’t answer the question.
Yeah, and I’ve seen the ones that don’t use guns as well.
Even if you completely factor out firearm murders, you still have a higher murder rate than other countries (and that ignores the fact that banning firearms wouldn’t make firearm homicides go away, since criminals don’t exactly care about the law… also, they’d just murder with other implements).
Already required.
Impractical, but I’m not entirely against it if it can be shown to work efficiently.
However, on a philosophical standpoint, I’m against any central database of gun owners/owned firearms.
Ridiculous. There’s absolutely no need for an annual fee – especially if you make it expensive as you stated up thread.
That’s absolutely ridiculous. Why should there be a license fee for each gun owned?
With cars, there’s a reason – there needs to be a centrally maintained database that costs money to maintain, and the excess revenues go towards roads, etc. But with firearms, you’re taxing for the fuck of it, and it’s unreasonable.
I’m not for this. It’s already required to be 18 to own a gun unless it’s your parents and you own it in the same way a minor owns an automobile (namely, it’s not in his/her name, they’re just the primary user).
I think it’s ridiculous to restrict what a parent may or may not do with their child, especially considering that shooting a firearm is only potentially risky if you’re reckless, which the majority of firearm owners are not (as evidenced by the proportionately low rates of accidental shootings in the USA, where there are some hundred million gun owners).
Again, I’m against a central database of gun owners/firearms, but in theory it’s a good idea.
I certainly believe that if you don’t report a firearm stolen, it’s a bad thing.
And this is where we will definitely disagree.
There’s no reason to tax firearms, first of all. We obviously disagree on what taxes should be used for (Me thinking that they should be used for government revenues, and to pay for things that are specifically related to the tax. Gas tax, fighting greenhouse effects, building roads, etc. Car tax, building roads, etc, alcohol tax, fighting the adverse effects of alcohol via alcohol recovery programs, etc), where you think taxes should be levied 'cause the government feels like it.
Second, you say that the “toys” should be taxed, but they’re not all toys. Many people use them for self defense or hunting. Those that use them for hunting often need the low expense, high value meat that comes from hunting. Missing a season can make or break their annual budget. I’ve used the example of my Aunt, Uncle and their two children before, who operate at a constant budget shortfall due to their eldest sons continual medical problems.
Every. Single. Dollar. Makes a huge difference to them. “Heavily” taxing the purchase of a firearm would put it out of their budget (actually, they own several, family heirlooms), or licensing them would bankrupt them. It’s an unreasonable imposition to put on some of the poorest, literally sustenance hunters in our country.
They should neither be expensive, nor a PITA. You want them to be expensive and a pain in the ass to punish people who decide they want a firearm, and I don’t want to be punished just because of your lack of understanding.
Here’s one link. I know it has an agenda, so you’re welcome to search some more, but the fact is that the murder rate in the US is high for a reason that can’t be explained by just guns. We could ban every gun tomorrow and the rate would not decrease dramatically because a) guns wouldn’t completely go away b) criminals wouldn’t comply c) guns aren’t the full problem.
Most of these were covered well above, but:
Congratulations, you just propped up the black market. Some gang member who wants to shoot someone can find the right people and buy one for cash, and not have to worry about all these laws and fees. Is he supposed to worry about increased punitive measures? Deterrence is usually pretty weak in these cases.
Why 16 to use? You wouldn’t think that someone slightly younger can shoot in an adults presence, so that responsible shooting safety can be taught? A sixteen year old is less likely to want to be seen in their parent’s presence in public, and maybe a bit more headstrong and cocky.
In a lot of places, you can be held responsible for your gun.
Some do, but not others–mostly the punitive taxation he discusses. I’m on record as thinking cars and guns provide a compelling case (ranges from near-necessity to luxury, ranges of difficulty and danger, common theft target) for being treated nearly the same, with reasonable but firm requirements for training and licensing.
NETA: What I don’t agree with is punishing responsible gun owners (the majority by far) with taxes or increased scrutiny for no reason other than “guns are bad, m’kay?”.
Background checks - nope. Anyone can get a driver’s license, included paroled murderers and rapists.
Recurring training - nah. At least not for drivers who have clean or fairly-clean records. I understand some places require retesting past a certain age, though.
Owner responsibility - nah. If my car is stolen or is borrowed by someone else and gets into a lethal accident (or even a crime), the car might conceivably be confiscated, but I personally wouldn’t face criminal charges.
One more fact to be considered is that guns are easy to build (for a trained person).
I buy the barrels and trigger parts and machine the other parts myself.
A metal lathe and mill are nice to use but a look at gunbuilding sites will show what can be done with a drill and handfiles.
So one thing the ban (excessive tax, permit, etc) people need to know, guns don’t appear magically, they are a manufactured product. One that can be benchmade.
And that, kind sir, is another reason to like guns.
I enjoy making steel parts that fit together within .001s of an inch, have the correct clearance for function, are properly heat treated for strength and wear resistance, and can withstand tens of thousands of pounds per square inch of pressure.
“Basic rifles and firearms are not hard to make for a even halfway competent metalsmith”
I see Zeriel has already made this point.
Remember, making something illegal doesn’t make it go away, it only makes it more expensive.
Let’s assume I take you at your word, FE3O4ENAIL. I don’t know that I would have posted what is, with few exceptions, a Federal crime, but maybe that’s just me.
Unless you are using the trigger group out of one of a very few firearms (where the trigger group is legally considered to be the firearm) or you have the appropriate permissions from the BATFE (the appropriate FFL and SOT), you have just confessed publicly to a very serious crime.
Guns are not bad, in fact they are pretty harmless and good fun for parties.
They are a neat party trick for every chidrens birthday part and you can just randomly tag people with it. The once that got tagged will show up with some red spots.
Everyone should have one or two, they are like the blender or TV - brilliant and complety harmless - after all, it’s not guns killing people, right!
