"Why don't we treat this like every other thing that we use? I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U. S. citizens, and we're allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit these people from buying a gun." - President Barrack Obama
There were a whole bunch of responses to this statement, particularly of the "To restrict someone based off what they read is a dangerous course. I don't care if it's a book, a website or a letter, it is punishment without due process. Restricting the rights of a person without due process is the opposite of what we claim to be about." (Observations99) variety. Now obviously Americans take their civil liberties very seriously but what is the alternative? The same argument that is applied here - visiting a terrorist organisation's website does not make you a terrorist was previously used as a defence against child pornography websites, that looking at these things did not make you a paedophile...which is now understood to be nonsense. Websites generate revenue from hits - by visiting a criminal website you may be supporting that crime financially. It has been established that there is no legitimate reason to look at child pornography 'for research'; similarly there is no legitimate reason to be visiting an ISIL website. Waiting for a paedophile to physically hurt a child is irresponsible, waiting for a terrorist sympathiser to mount an attack is waiting too long. If someone is pointing a gun at a woman and her child do you wait for them to pull the trigger or do you call for help / attempt to intervene / cause a distraction BEFORE they get shot? Preemptive measures will always be unpopular and someone will inevitably suffer for it BUT is the right of the individual greater than that of the masses? I don't think so. I would rather be wrongly subjected to restrictions than have my children slaughtered because those restrictions couldn't be applied to someone who really deserved it. The idea that a person's travel can be restricted on suspicion but their ability to buy weaponry can't...totes illogical.
"Safety laws are applied to all individuals equally - both law abiding and non-law abiding.
The example Obama uses is that everyone must get a driver's license and pass a test to prove they can safely drive a vehicle. Even if you are a known felon, child molester, tax avoider, etc you can still get a license. Then everyone must register their vehicle regardless of how they acquired it. Again.. doesn't matter what laws you have broken (or not broken) in the past. I will also mention that a car is considered a deadly weapon depending on how it is used.
The only time special scrutiny is applied is after you have committed a crime directly related to driving (drunken driving, reckless driving, etc). Then your license and ability to drive be revoked or curtailed." - Sean
This statement raises some interesting points: the ownership restrictions on cars doesn't affect the majority and we don't question the existence of those restrictions anymore (once upon a time driving licences hadn't been invented and literally anyone could get behind the wheel without censure). Virtually anyone can own a car, virtually anyone (in America) can own a gun - but is that really such a good idea? And cars have to be registered, taxed, insured; the driver licenced...why isn't this applied to guns? Why are people free to buy multiple weapons without checks? Why aren't they required to purchase insurance against the use of those guns - to cover you if a bullet ricochets and hits someone or damages their property, for example? Procedures that would have minimal impact on the responsible but be something of a deterrent to others. A car has a valid, practical use...hunting is the only valid, practical use of a gun and that doesn't apply to most American gun owners.
"How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? Nobody. Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car (analogous to a background check for every gun purchase), Nobody. Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? Nobody, they call for stricter penalties on the perpetrators. Yet you demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? Because you want to take our guns, you have no interest in banning cars." - George Mason
Okay, this is gonna be fun...
- How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? - It's harder to commit a crime with a car that can be easily traced back to the owner. It's a deterrent and it means the gov't know you have that car...shouldn't the gov't know about that home arsenal you're putting together?!
- When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? - not sure how alcohol and the crime committed by drunk drivers is linked here, but the sale of alcohol is licensed and restricted.
- Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? - plenty of people actually. The ability of cars to travel at well over the legal limit is contentious. The popular UK car Vauxhall Corsa has a top speed of 113 MPH; 43 MPH over the top speed limit in the country. Totally unnecessary to enable people to break the law.
- Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car? - actually again plenty of people would like this to be a thing. Just imagine how many lives would be saved each year!
- Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? - again, this is actually a thing. It'd do a lot for public health too. And coming from the nation that came up with prohibition that's just funny.
- You demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? - because a car is a transport vehicle, because alcohol is an intoxicating substance but a gun is a WEAPON PURELY FOR KILLING. WHY ARE YOU TOO FUCKING DUMB TO SEE THAT???
Also, why are you so hung up on linking alcohol and driving? Car drivers can't use mobile phones, eat or drink while driving. Driving while on drugs, driving while tired...there are many factors in non-deliberate road deaths and I don't know about America but in the UK there are all sorts of rules and regulations aimed at preventing these things. A person receives points on their licence for infractions and at a certain point will lose their licence. A person who receives certain medical diagnoses can lose their licence as unfit to drive...why doesn't this apply to gun ownership? Infractions like improper storage and wrongfully discharging a firearm would incur penalty points; visiting terrorist websites and diagnoses such as psychotic illness would involve a revoking of a licence. No one can just go buy a car, they have to have a valid driver's licence...allowing any idiot to go buy a gun is all kinds of nuts. Only a true dumbfuck would put an individual's 'right' to own an offensive weapon over the rights of innocent people to not get slaughtered.
