Gun Control

[DeletedUser]

Whenever something violent involving guns happens, the subject of "gun control" is brought up. But when someone defends him/herself using a firearm, gun control is never mentioned. Do you think that gun control can effect in any way the violence in the world? In what way?
I think gun control will only disarm good people who own guns for protection. A person who wishes to do harm to others by using fire weapons, will purchase the guns illegally if he cannot purchase them legally. There's such a wide underground market, that it won't make a difference. The difference would be in stories such as this one: http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.UBFf77Ty9BA Without a gun to protect herself, the story would be: 18 years old mother raped and killed, 3 month old baby kidnapped, suspects never found.
What do you think?

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Well we have a handgun ban throughout the UK with some pretty strict laws/licensing concerning shotguns. Also neither our police (with the exception of a few specialist units) nor prison officers carry firearms and although it hasn't conpletely erradicated gun crime it has caused it to become a rarity (or at least it doesn't make the news).
However we seem to have a pretty bad knife problem instead.

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you talking globally, or only in the very limited context of US society?

Do you think that gun control can effect in any way the violence in the world? In what way?

Legislation will not make people more or less violent, which is a frame of mind or being, but keeping them away from guns will tend to make that violence less lethal.

I think gun control will only disarm good people who own guns for protection. A person who wishes to do harm to others by using fire weapons, will purchase the guns illegally if he cannot purchase them legally.

That's interesting. Do you think that all US criminal homicides are caused by illegally owned guns? Because that's what you're effectively saying. If a potential murderer could as easily get a gun illegally as legally then why wouldn't he? He would only take the legal route if it were somehow easier, but that goes against your argument because then legal gun ownership would be facilitating criminals.

The difference would be in stories such as this one: http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman...perators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.UBFf77Ty9BA Without a gun to protect herself, the story would be: 18 years old mother raped and killed, 3 month old baby kidnapped, suspects never found.
What do you think?

Really? You know for a fact that they planned to rape and kill the mother and abduct her baby, rather than, say, steal her tv? Because that's not in your link.
You could use the same scenario to argue that hunting knives should be banned.

But all this is just hypothetical. Where is your data? Or is it just enough to have a gut-feeling that something is so to justify holding it as an opinion?

 

[DeletedUser20688]

To coattail on braetwalda's comments and to try and express mine, I'd love to snap my fingers and have a world instantly bereft of all firearms, ammunition, the ability to produce firearms, etc. I hope anyone would deduce the logical scenario that would follow - people will still kill each other with more brutal implements like machetes, swords, axes, knifes, clubs, etc.

That is what fascinates me about gun control advocates is that they contemplate the removal of firearms as this miraculous monolithic ease on society.

So realistically "gun control" is about having certain citizens possess firearms as opposed to all legally-qualified citizens. So basically "gun control" at its core is advocation of a leftist police/militia state. Security over freedom!

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you talking globally, or only in the very limited context of US society?

At whatever level you wish to discuss. This is an international forum, I do not wish to have a US only discussion.

Legislation will not make people more or less violent, which is a frame of mind or being,

That's exactly my point

but keeping them away from guns will tend to make that violence less lethal.

I think you're wrong. Like I mentioned before, it is easy to get a gun illegally. If it wasn't, teenagers in street gangs would not be shooting each other so often.

That's interesting. Do you think that all US criminal homicides are caused by illegally owned guns? Because that's what you're effectively saying. If a potential murderer could as easily get a gun illegally as legally then why wouldn't he? He would only take the legal route if it were somehow easier, but that goes against your argument because then legal gun ownership would be facilitating criminals.

No, I don't think all homicides are caused by illegally owned guns. You misunderstood. What I said was that if one wants to harm someone using a gun, whether obtained legally or illegally, he will do it with non-the-less. Making it illegal to own a gun will not stop people with bad intentions, like you said above, will not make the world less violent. It will not change the weapons used either, just the way they are obtained.

Really? You know for a fact that they planned to rape and kill the mother and abduct her baby, rather than, say, steal her tv? Because that's not in your link.
You could use the same scenario to argue that hunting knives should be banned.

Did you read the story? Do you think a guy would try so hard to break into her house knowing she is inside just for a TV? She waited over 20m for the police to arrive, while talking to the dispatcher. The 2 men knew she was inside, alone with a baby and tried for half an hour to break in. No, it did not cross my mind all they wanted was a TV. I don't think a burglar goes in a house for only a TV knowing there's a single young woman with a baby inside.

But all this is just hypothetical. Where is your data? Or is it just enough to have a gut-feeling that something is so to justify holding it as an opinion?

Is not a gut-feeling, is what I believe, based on what I observed. It is futile to name every story and incident that let me to my opinion. We would discuss this forever if we were to dissect every story like you attempted above. I thought I was entitled to an opinion without having to use a mile long pin-board to point to each and every event that led me to it. I also asked for other opinions, not for the road taken to get there

 

[DeletedUser]

With zombies becoming mainstream it seems counterproductive to disarm the uninfected.

 

[DeletedUser]

PS for Eli: I see you posting what you believe to be "facts" with no data. I posted an opinion and you asked for "data". I don't believe is necessary. But I do think it is needed when you post "facts" (what you think are facts anyway, since I don't see anywhere in your post where you say it is your opinion) and your post lacks proof completely. It also lack an opinion and I believe strongly is what I asked for in the OP
Being the opposition just for the sake of it doesn't make for a better debate thread (in my humble opinion)

@HS: I really didn't see you as a doomsday prep. Got a bunker ready and all?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think of it this way. It's a lot harder to do a mass-murder with a knife. I strongly beliave that guns shouldn't be available to civilians... but I also agree that it's useless if there are plenty of ways of getting a gun illegaly. I my opinion the only ones that should be allowed to have guns should be the army. The police could do just well with a taser. There are even shotgun tasers.
As for personal protection guns that fire rubber balls or tasers work just well.
Recently I was watching a show and they were talking at one point about the fact that force feeding geese can give them cirrhosis and thus making their liver a lot bigger. As a remark to the fact that americans declared this practice illegal, he said... americans take really good care of animals but they bomb and shoot the hell out of people. Well he said it as a joke but it's a "it's funny because it's true" jokes.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Well gun control wouldn't stop violent crime because as already mentioned the street gangs use knives instead however although I can't categorically state that gun crime is non-existant in the UK I can safely say that we haven't had anything like Columbine happen over here, since the banned was passed.

I think you're wrong. Like I mentioned before, it is easy to get a gun illegally

I beg to differ I haven't the first clue to where i'd get a gun from and I don't fancy walking around Nottingham to try and find out

 

[DeletedUser]

I beg to differ I haven't the first clue to where i'd get a gun from and I don't fancy walking around Nottingham to try and find out

Uuum...maybe from a gunsmith's?

 

[DeletedUser20688]

I my opinion the only ones that should be allowed to have guns should be the army.

I really shouldn't stir this pot but...hey, its D&D. So, just out of curiosity, what happens when a despotic leader of said military decides to take over the government or just attack the civilian population? Please do not speak about paranoia either. I've heard that weak rebuttal before.

Also, mass murder can be committed with arson or explosives. So, assigning connotation of mass murder to guns is not accurate even remotely speaking. Again, gun control ultimately resolves to forging a police state regardless of the intentions.

 

[DeletedUser]

How on earth do you think civilians could defend themselves from an army? Even with guns...well with might work in undeveloped countries but first world countries? Plus the idea of a despotic leader sounds a bit far fetched when it comes to democratic countries.

l
Also, mass murder can be committed with arson or explosives. So, assigning connotation of mass murder to guns is not accurate even remotely speaking. Again, gun control ultimately resolves to forging a police state regardless of the intentions.

I don't see that as a contradiction or as a reason to have guns. Yes, you could drive a car into a crowd of people. The only thing that prooves is that where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[DeletedUser20688]

They would defend themselves and resist with...I dunno..guns? So you are suggesting that throughout mankind's history regardless of the form of government the concept of a military (or in my train of thought "those with all the weapons") coup or overthrow of society is an unlikely occurrence? This isn't about health bars or weapon ammo drops. This is about people, death, and tools of death-dealing.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Uuum...maybe from a gunsmith's?

No because that would be a "Legal" gun

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't see one happening in a democractic society. I think it wouldn't matter if people had guns or not, it would be like Germany atacking Poland with tanks and Poland defending itself with cavalry. BUT, coalitions such as UE or NATO would not allow such an overthrow to happen or at least they woulnd't stand doing nothing.
i think we are going off topic.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Country biggest for gun crime is ... the ones that have no gun control... the less they have generally the more problems they also have ... its as simple as that...

What ive always found amusing is the argument for semi and automatic weapons and all that other hardware some have.. seriously if you think you need an Uzi or an M16 rather than say a simple rifle, hand gun or single shot weapon you must be nuts.

Some seriously paranoid goofballs out there that think protection and rights extend to having an arsenal in the basement...Whats all that about, in case your back yard is invaded by a foreign army ?

 

[DeletedUser20688]

The only thing that prooves is that where there's a will, there's a way.

That also proves my point. People will kill because they want to do so. The tools to accomplish this task are ancillary to the deed. So focusing on banning the existence of guns is a futile effort.

Also you seem to think in absolutes when it comes to the "military" and paramilitary groups like NATO as if they always negate violence or an imbalance of power. I'm sorry but that is absurd. I agree though that this line of discussion is fading into an off-topic area.

I still haven't seen a point made that makes gun control logical. Also VK makes a great point. That kind of weird gun fetishism does make gun control thumpers appear to have a good case...unless you believe in zombies then it's completely justified.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Also, mass murder can be committed with arson or explosives. So, assigning connotation of mass murder to guns is not accurate

Although there are many and varied ways of killing large numbers of people, methods such as Arson, explosives and chemical weapons require a fair amount of skill to use effectively which the average person doesn't have, not to mention a whole load of preperation needed to create it, A gun on the other hand is relatively easy to use and can be easily concealed.

That also proves my point. People will kill because they want to do so. The tools to accomplish this task are ancillary to the deedSo focusing on banning the existence of guns is a futile effort.

Although people will always find a way of killing one another, if you remove or drastically reduce the number of guns within the population you will immediatly prevent reduce the number of accidental deaths caused by guns and make it that little bit harder for the criminals.
Besides having some control over who has a gun has got to be better than having no control?

 

[DeletedUser20688]

Ok again this is far too subjective. Sorry to be gruesome but with a long trench coat a lumber axe is concealable. If a stout psychopathic male goes into a room filled with less physically able people say 15 or 20 folks with the intent of butchering all of them, I'm betting that he shall.

I do agree with the concept, without supporting data, of one individual being reduced in their capacity to commit mass murder if guns were miraculously and magically removed from the equation. However, that does not completely undo the possibility of mass death. I also don't subscribe to a solution that presents the lesser of two evils just to satisfy the need to eliminate guns. Again, that only leads to oppression because: 1. I do not think it's possible to completely eliminate firearm technology unless society itself collapses and 2. Ergo, one group woud have firearms while the other does not. That scenario will always equate to an oppressive society.

 

[DeletedUser]

The only place I've visited where there seemed absolutely no gun control was Afghanistan in the early 80's. Guys walked around with carbines, even carried them on buses and no one batted an eyelid.
Fifteen years later they were living under the Taleban. So when I hear people claiming that gun ownership is an antidote to oppressive government I just smile and keep on walking.