DeletedUser
People use guns to defend themselves of others use guns to attack them. What if we ban guns. Then no would attack the people and no one would need to defend themselves. 
DeletedUser
Uuumm, you don't need a gun to attack someone, you can kill someone with a spoon if you know what you're doing.
DeletedUser
We don't need guns as well then.
But seriously, is that "Uuumm...." at the beginning of both your posts the sound of your brain struggling to engage?
DeletedUser
Yup.
I'm in thicko mode today.
I'm in thicko mode today.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
People use guns to defend themselves of others use guns to attack them. What if we ban guns. Then no would attack the people and no one would need to defend themselves.
If you read the whole thread, you would see already pointed out that there are ways to obtain a gun illegally and there are many such weapons on the streets today. Imposing gun control will disarm honest owners, not those who wish to do harm.
No you don't. But you will think twice knowing that the other person has a gun to defend himself. I hear this many times spoken out against gun control. People believe that burglaries will skyrocket if government takes people's guns away. And it makes sense.
DeletedUser
That would be similar to supporting my idea. Why do you need to own a gun when you have no use for it. What would you do with illegally bought/smuggled guns. If you bring it out on the streets, you would simply get arrested for carrying one when a ban was imposed by the government. Fine, you hide it in a bag. Then if you are out to kill someone, you get arrested as well for killing and carrying a gun. I don't suppose you need a gun to defend yourself when no one will attack you. Otherwise, I can't find a better reason why you need a gun.
DeletedUser
@Glorry: I really wish you would read carefully the whole thread. I do not appreciate people dropping in in the middle of a discussion and throwing in their 2 cents when they did not hear what has been said before. You really need to read before you post.
People are violent. You think kids in gangs care that they can get arrested for illegally owning a gun? Most of them are never caught, whether they shoot someone or not. All they care about is the "power" that guns presumably offer them.
Your presumption that nobody will attack you is very flawed. I repeat: people are violent, crime does not end with the imposition of gun control. Like Braetwalda pointed out: in UK there's a gun ban but they have knife problems. Why do you think that is? Cause nobody will attack you cause they don't have a gun? Your suppositions are childish, but they would be fine if you would just take your time and READ! I will not point it out a third time that you disregard the discussion flow and just drop in. I will just ignore your point of view.
DeletedUser20688
Then what is the antidote? Acquiescence? Hope in humanity?
Yes, your example is clear. Also it was firearms that enabled the oppressive Taliban to be diminished. Cyclical and self-originating? So are you suggesting that before firearm technology a similar scenario didn't exist? If so please enlighten me to the past Eden that I didn't read about in a Judeo-Christian Myth text. I mean certainly the Occidental world during the Crusades was a completely polite society even though, you know, people wore armor a lot and wielded various tools of death as they walked the streets.
Eli Makepeace said:
By the way: it's "Taliban"
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guns don't kill people, physics kills people.
So, how about if we outlaw physics? I'm sure the zombies wouldn't object.
So, how about if we outlaw physics? I'm sure the zombies wouldn't object.
DeletedUser20688
Guns don't kill people, physics kills people.
So, how about if we outlaw physics? I'm sure the zombies wouldn't object.
Exactly. Zombies really are the main reason everyone should have firearms training.
Seriously, guns are horrible instruments of death. Countless souls have had their lives unjustly cut short brutally by a bullet. I for one don't want people to be butchered. I also try not to perceive the world in a monolithic light. Also, I have not been consistent in my definitions. Certainly there has to be government oversight with firearms. In terms of weaponry it's hard to argue that a modern day assault rifle is nothing but the most insidiously efficient instrument of death mankind has ever devised.
However, so was the longbow during its heyday. Before that it was the Dane Axe and so on and so on.
Ok so let's follow the total ban logic. Were do we start? Well you'll have to use force to make every single firearm owner give up their weapons. Sure we will make this a campaign with a trusted leader - seriously. Most citizens will comply but not all. So, you'll have to use guns as part of the force that helps acquire the last few resistors. Oh noes! Gosh you've gone and become a hypocrite especially when you kill the last hold-outs most likely on their private property. O wait! You could train master swordsman that can cut bullets down from the air with their titanium alloy ninja-to. Then you wouldn't be a hypocrite at all. Of course that's silly! But in the end you'd be using guns to get the job done to save humanity from firearm technology. You'd be the only one in society that has them. Wow, a world of possibilites opens up then. Of course, we would absolutely trust the savior of society that had to put this to an end. They would be completely without faults or any desire for power.
Yeah it does sound pretty absurd doesn't it.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I already pointed out one fallacy in this claim, which you are now making for the third time. I didn't pursue it because you didn't understand it the first time.
Here's another one: you might just as well say that speed limits only hurt the law-respecting driver as bad drivers will speed come-what-may. In fact, it seems to work for just about any law. But of course laws do actually affect criminal behaviour. That's why we have them.
If you're going to try to "correct" people, at least get your facts right.
"Taliban" and "taleban" are both accepted transliterations, but I had to use one or the other, right?
DeletedUser20688
I stand corrected. I guess that's what I get when I try to press back on snarky intentions.
Also again I believe we have two discussions here: one is about "gun control's" definition in terms of government and civilized culture and the other is an immediate extrapolation of "gun control" to mean the elimination of firearm technology from society and the human mind. it seems to me though that those that wish to speak to the first conversation quickly jump to the second one as being a reasonably accomplishable feat.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
sooo... anyway, gun control. Exactly what constitutes control is what is often "presumed" in a debate.
Of course gun control is a good idea. The issue is, how much gun control?
If we are to use UK as an example, then complete denial of gun ownership seems to have some positive results as far as reducing gun use in the commission of crimes. But, if we are to use Mexico as an example, complete denial of gun ownership has demonstrated itself to leave the populace completely disarmed and unable to defend against gun-wielding criminals.
Why such a difference? The UK is essentially an island, with limited borders and strict entry into the country through travel ports and causeway. Managing gun entry is easier than, say, Mexico with its large land borders. Mexico also struggles with national identity in much the same way as the United States.
Examining such, the U.S. has a lot of similarities to that of Mexico (worse, we have zombies!).
There, examined the extremes of removing guns altogether. Now, when we examine no gun control, we come into the obvious, which is that of arming convicted violent offenders and patients with serious mental health issues (DS, DO). As it stands, the Supreme Court has ruled the U.S. Constitution allows citizens to possess guns for self-protection. So the extreme of "no guns" is simply not an option. So then, we're stuck with something in the middle, something that dominates all gun control debates but is uniformly argued from dichotomic stances, when in actually both stances are demonstratively problematic, particularly for the United States.
In many States there are laws in place to restrict obtainment of guns. Violent offenders and persons who have been hospitalized (against their will) for DS or DO are incapable of obtaining a gun without being cleared of their psychiatric diagnosis (unlikely, in this social climate). In this particular case, the Aurora incident, the person who claims to be "the Joker" was being treated by a psychiatrist at the university he attended. However, he was never hospitalized against his will, as far as is known. Thus, he was able to obtain all the guns legally.
Which comes then to --- are we truly looking for additional controls on gun ownership or more liberal accounting of mental disorders? Perhaps anyone undergoing any psychiatric assistance whatsoever, or are prescribed psychotropic drugs should be denied the ability to purchase guns, and all such weapons would need to be temporarily confiscated until such time as they are deemed stabilized or no longer requiring treatment.
In this case the U.S. State & Federal Acts of the past, such as the The Mental Health Study Act (1955), Community Mental Health Centers Act (1963), Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (1967), Florida Mental Health Act (1971), Mental Health Systems Act (1980), etc were properly funded, maybe things would be different. As it is, the mental health systems are woefully inadequate and such concerns as mental health issues being addressed, and access to weaponry properly restricted, we would likely have far different results.
Because, when you get right down to it, each and every case of mass murder was the result of mental health disorder or gross emotional breakdown, which could have been properly addressed if we had "proactive" mental health treatment programs instead of mostly reactive treatment programs and a more liberal interpretation of DS/DO, was existed prior to some of the above-mentioned acts.
You see, part of the problem of those acts is that they depended upon John F. Kennedy's personal belief that mental health institutions created mental disorders, that social interaction and a feeling of "belonging" to the greater community was essentially the cure for many mental health disorders. We, of course, now know his views were just plain wrong. Unfortunately, at the time most of these studies and acts were put into effect, the majority of experts agreed with Kennedy's belief on mental health (trivia --- Scientology was birthed in 1952 and is an example of that "wrong" thinking that existed at the time).
What we now know full well is that mental disorders are not self-treatable and are not "fixed" by being de-institutionalized. Mental health is an issue that needs to be managed, sometimes medically treated, but definitely not deemed as something in which "voluntary" treatment is the basis. The ill-funding of existing programs, the strict definition of mental disorders that presently prevents proactive treatment in the U.S., and finally the limited application of restrictions for gun purchases in association with mental disorders has ultimately left a huge window of opportunity for such instances as what occurred in Aurora.
So, there it is. This entire debate about gun control really isn't about gun control, it's about mental health.
Of course gun control is a good idea. The issue is, how much gun control?
If we are to use UK as an example, then complete denial of gun ownership seems to have some positive results as far as reducing gun use in the commission of crimes. But, if we are to use Mexico as an example, complete denial of gun ownership has demonstrated itself to leave the populace completely disarmed and unable to defend against gun-wielding criminals.
Why such a difference? The UK is essentially an island, with limited borders and strict entry into the country through travel ports and causeway. Managing gun entry is easier than, say, Mexico with its large land borders. Mexico also struggles with national identity in much the same way as the United States.
Examining such, the U.S. has a lot of similarities to that of Mexico (worse, we have zombies!).
There, examined the extremes of removing guns altogether. Now, when we examine no gun control, we come into the obvious, which is that of arming convicted violent offenders and patients with serious mental health issues (DS, DO). As it stands, the Supreme Court has ruled the U.S. Constitution allows citizens to possess guns for self-protection. So the extreme of "no guns" is simply not an option. So then, we're stuck with something in the middle, something that dominates all gun control debates but is uniformly argued from dichotomic stances, when in actually both stances are demonstratively problematic, particularly for the United States.
In many States there are laws in place to restrict obtainment of guns. Violent offenders and persons who have been hospitalized (against their will) for DS or DO are incapable of obtaining a gun without being cleared of their psychiatric diagnosis (unlikely, in this social climate). In this particular case, the Aurora incident, the person who claims to be "the Joker" was being treated by a psychiatrist at the university he attended. However, he was never hospitalized against his will, as far as is known. Thus, he was able to obtain all the guns legally.
Which comes then to --- are we truly looking for additional controls on gun ownership or more liberal accounting of mental disorders? Perhaps anyone undergoing any psychiatric assistance whatsoever, or are prescribed psychotropic drugs should be denied the ability to purchase guns, and all such weapons would need to be temporarily confiscated until such time as they are deemed stabilized or no longer requiring treatment.
In this case the U.S. State & Federal Acts of the past, such as the The Mental Health Study Act (1955), Community Mental Health Centers Act (1963), Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (1967), Florida Mental Health Act (1971), Mental Health Systems Act (1980), etc were properly funded, maybe things would be different. As it is, the mental health systems are woefully inadequate and such concerns as mental health issues being addressed, and access to weaponry properly restricted, we would likely have far different results.
Because, when you get right down to it, each and every case of mass murder was the result of mental health disorder or gross emotional breakdown, which could have been properly addressed if we had "proactive" mental health treatment programs instead of mostly reactive treatment programs and a more liberal interpretation of DS/DO, was existed prior to some of the above-mentioned acts.
You see, part of the problem of those acts is that they depended upon John F. Kennedy's personal belief that mental health institutions created mental disorders, that social interaction and a feeling of "belonging" to the greater community was essentially the cure for many mental health disorders. We, of course, now know his views were just plain wrong. Unfortunately, at the time most of these studies and acts were put into effect, the majority of experts agreed with Kennedy's belief on mental health (trivia --- Scientology was birthed in 1952 and is an example of that "wrong" thinking that existed at the time).
What we now know full well is that mental disorders are not self-treatable and are not "fixed" by being de-institutionalized. Mental health is an issue that needs to be managed, sometimes medically treated, but definitely not deemed as something in which "voluntary" treatment is the basis. The ill-funding of existing programs, the strict definition of mental disorders that presently prevents proactive treatment in the U.S., and finally the limited application of restrictions for gun purchases in association with mental disorders has ultimately left a huge window of opportunity for such instances as what occurred in Aurora.
So, there it is. This entire debate about gun control really isn't about gun control, it's about mental health.
DeletedUser28032
Well no because all you've got there is an arms race, you will not deter a professional criminal from robbing your house with the thought that "The owner may have a gun" after all robbing peoples houses is his chosen career. All it means is that he is going to make sure that he's tooled up for when he robs your house and also because he suspects you have a gun he is going to make sure that he has a bigger gun than you.
The other thing I would ask is how many of these people who buy guns for "protection" actually know how to use it and are willing to do so?
DeletedUser20688
I actually know three couples all from different backgrounds and represent different races that are low to upper middle class citizens that regularly visit a gun range to practice their gun accumen.
I'm 99% confident that of those 6 people they are all willing to shoot an intruder dead if they break into their homes and threaten their lives and their families. I suppose some commentary will now sneak into the thread about the concept of private property and criminal intention.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser34315
Orgo, very well said, on almost every post you've made here.
Hellstrom, you've got a very good point-
Using the UK as a model of gun control is flawed for countries like the US, since guns are MUCH easier to get in a country the size of the US, with 2 equally large countries bordering it.
I've got a handgun, a hunting rifle, and a shotgun i own for protection and for fun shooting. I know perfectly well how to handle all of my firearms safely and effectively. I've shot animals, shot moving targets, etc. If a person was threatening to harm me, or more importantly, my family, i would not hesitate to use my firearm to stop him.
Hellstrom, you've got a very good point-
Using the UK as a model of gun control is flawed for countries like the US, since guns are MUCH easier to get in a country the size of the US, with 2 equally large countries bordering it.
I've got a handgun, a hunting rifle, and a shotgun i own for protection and for fun shooting. I know perfectly well how to handle all of my firearms safely and effectively. I've shot animals, shot moving targets, etc. If a person was threatening to harm me, or more importantly, my family, i would not hesitate to use my firearm to stop him.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
There's a difference between speed limit and a ban on driving all together. Your analogy is flawed.
Petty criminals do think twice.
As for your question: I'd say the majority do. I don't think there are many people who'd buy a new car to keep it in the garage and never drive it. It is the same with guns. If you have no interest in them, you probably will rather get an alarm system than a gun. If you are interested in owning a gun, you wanna have some fun with it too. Also, if you get a CCW you have to know how to use it and practice.
DeletedUser28032
Fair enough, I am willing to accept that the majority of people know how to use their weapon of choice, it was just something I honestly didn't know about
It might deter a street kid from robbing your house as a spur of the moment thing but i was more on about professional criminals who do it for a living, those type of people are more liable to just take the fact you gun into consideration and bring one of their own.
Yeah I think an outright ban would be next to impossible for the US, when all is said and done the population of the UK in comparison is tiny and also I suspect that at the time of the ban the number of privately own guns within the UK was pretty low (Though admittedly I was only ten at the time)
DeletedUser
Poor logic has let you down again. Every restriction is a ban of some kind - namely the activity that falls within the restriction. Also, the gun control argument is only about restriction, not banning, as nobody seriously thinks that members of the armed forces, presidential guards, police officers attending certain crime scenes etc. should not have firearms.
All analogies must fail at some point, but the one I offered does not fail in the way you mistakenly posted.
DeletedUser
Sorry but while restriction = limitation, ban = prohibition. I don't think limitation and prohibition are synonyms, same for restriction and ban. But this is not the only reason why your analogy is flawed. You talked about speed limit. In gun ownership case, speed limit = limit on # of guns allowed, types of guns allowed and ammo amount. But we are not talking about this, but about WHO should be allowed to own a gun. To make the analogy work, you'd have to refer to people allowed to drive. And allowing only special sectors to drive would not be ok, would it?
And do not forget: gun ownership in America is a right. Driving is a privilege.
And do not forget: gun ownership in America is a right. Driving is a privilege.