Gun Control

DeletedUser31931

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?

That is true. I read a very interesting article about how there was a number of Americans who had to be taken to hospital and operated on because they had stuck their gun down their waste-band with the safety off when they thought it was on and then they had accidently shot themselves in the (for want of a polite word, mods please excuse me.) manliness. This was because the owners had no idea about how dangerous guns were and assumed that they were as safe as houses as they never went off unless on purpose in the movies. Therefore they didn't buy holsters which are the safest places to put a gun on your body. (I've done a firing course on hand-arms. I would know. P.S. I am a Brit though and this examples are from America.) However. If someone has a gun in Britain they have to have a license (or be a gang member in which case they can end up doing the same things as the aforementioned people did.) and to get a license I believe you have to have done several safety courses. Thus everyone in Britain who has a gun is aware of how dangerous a gun is and makes sure that the safety is on, that it's in its holster, etc.)
 

DeletedUser

Meh,

"This entire debate about gun control really isn't about gun control, it's about mental health (control)."
 

DeletedUser31931

My point exactly. We are all led into a mental state where we do not actually understand how dangerous guns are because of the movies.
 

DeletedUser

This is an international forum, I do not wish to have a US only discussion.

Later......
And do not forget: gun ownership in America is a right. Driving is a privilege. ;)

I just knew you would do that!

But if you think gun ownership is a right, why start a thread on gun control? Your mind is clearly made up, so it just looks like baiting.

And allowing only special sectors to drive would not be ok, would it?
Absolutely it would. You really want convicted drunk-drivers, epileptics, children, the blind and infirm to be able to drive?
You have to be a fit driver, just as you have to be a fit gun-toter. Most people aren't imho.
To deal with your other point, this is not about gun ownership - it is about behaviour. Whether a gun can be carried in a public place, licenced or unlicenced, commissioned or decommissioned, concealed or unconcealed, loaded or not, type and calibre. Although I chose the example of speed limits almost at random, it turns out that driving and gun-ownership are a lot more similar than you appreciate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

My point exactly. We are all led into a mental state where we do not actually understand how dangerous guns are because of the movies.
Wow, what a gross distortion of what I argued earlier. Umm, is there a problem with your reading comprehension or are you just trolling?

To reiterate the point, the issue is not truly about gun control, but about who can control guns. This ties in specifically with mental health and the need to ensure unstable peeps, those who may pose a danger to self or others, are incapable of accessing guns, either through purchase, borrow, or theft.

Btw, I think it's safe to say a zombie would never be allowed to purchase a handgun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

But if you think gun ownership is a right, why start a thread on gun control? Your mind is clearly made up, so it just looks like baiting.
Dear Lord. I don't THINK, I know. Is in the second amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I am now truly convinced you don't know what you are talking about, you argue for the sake of arguing like I sensed from your first post. Who is baiting? You!

Absolutely it would. You really want convicted drunk-drivers, epileptics, children, the blind and infirm to be able to drive?
You have to be a fit driver, just as you have to be a fit gun-toter. Most people aren't imho.
To deal with your other point, this is not about gun ownership - it is about behaviour. Whether a gun can be carried in a public place, licenced or unlicenced, commissioned or decommissioned, concealed or unconcealed, loaded or not, type and calibre. Although I chose the example of speed limits almost at random, it turns out that driving and gun-ownership are a lot more similar than you appreciate.
Ah and how you like to twist! No, I referred to the same special sectors you clearly named above: police, army and so on. There are already regulations in place that do not allow certain citizens to own a gun, as there are regulations that do not allow certain people to drive.
Hs got the point exactly.
PS: In Romania for example, one has to pass a psychological test to get a drivers licence.
 

DeletedUser

Dear Lord. I don't THINK, I know. Is in the second amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I am now truly convinced you don't know what you are talking about, you argue for the sake of arguing like I sensed from your first post. Who is baiting? You!


Ah and how you like to twist! No, I referred to the same special sectors you clearly named above: police, army and so on. There are already regulations in place that do not allow certain citizens to own a gun, as there are regulations that do not allow certain people to drive.
Okay, so you've backtracked from claiming you want an international discussion to focus on the parochial US situation.
Just to remind you, you started a thread, stated your opinion, and when I asked about the reasoning that led you to that opinion, you started called me "wrong" and started to attack notions that I had not expressed but which you attributed to me. You also said you did not want to reason, only for people to express their opinions. But this is "D&D" - debate and discussion.
So, start a thread and when someone questions your position accuse them of baiting. Well, if you really want opinions, mine is that gun-control is quite a complex issue that has to consider national cultures, histories and current social factors. It is not susceptible to glib, ready answers and off-the-shelf arguments and simplistic generalisations such as you seem to find attractive. My honest opinion is that you would be out of your depth in such a discussion, which is why you both avoid it and express anger.
 

DeletedUser

I am yet to express anger, which you cannot really honestly sense in writing. I am many times "read" wrong, maybe cause English is not my first language. But I never get angry when I debate. Your entire recollection of what happened is filtered by your imagination and your desire to twist everything around. If you cannot twist things by discussing the actual subject, you then do what nobody should ever do in a debate: attack the person. And in order to avoid an infraction, you attack me personally by criticizing my debating style and judgement (quote: poor logic / end quote). I don't think this is debating and I didn't really want a real true debate in its pure definition, I wanted a discussion, but you are obviously incapable to have a pleasant discussion and give your honest opinion. So excuse me, but I will ignore your posts in this thread from here on. You clearly have no basis for your statements, yet you do not express them as an opinion, but as facts. I cannot express how wrong that is and it is actually useless to do so. I did not wish to discuss your debating approach and arguing style, but you forced me to.
This thread is about people's personal opinions in general about gun ownership/control. If it is alright for a government to ban gun ownership all together and why. If further limits should be imposed and why. I do not wish to derail anymore and if you cannot stick to it, then please go off topic somewhere else.
 

DeletedUser25847

here is my American opinion on gun control. Everyone should be given one chance as soon as they abuse that chance, i.e. They attempt to kill someone, they lose that chance. In a perfect world there is another one chancer to drop their ass, in an imperfect world we have to wait for the police. Overall, there is no reason for a disabled person to be denied unless they show a reason not to.
 

DeletedUser

In my personal opinion mankind will always war they will always find a way to war so if we implement a more aggressive gun control (and in a perfect sense do away with guns all together) it will not lower crime just crime with guns. Throughout history mankind has invented ways to kill each other and in sense commit crime so i do not believe gun control will change any of that
 

DeletedUser15641

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.

Some people just have guns not for protection but to hunt animals so do they get disarmed too?Maybe they also want to protect themselves.

In my personal opinion mankind will always war they will always find a way to war so if we implement a more aggressive gun control (and in a perfect sense do away with guns all together) it will not lower crime just crime with guns. Throughout history mankind has invented ways to kill each other and in sense commit crime so i do not believe gun control will change any of that

I know that Russia now knows a new secret weapon of bio gas which makes you feel want to leave the battle field without fighting via ending the war before it really starts but maybe that's a bit off topic well yes agreed but there is a new super weapons which might stop war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I know that Russia now knows a new secret weapon of bio gas which makes you feel want to leave the battle field without fighting via ending the war before it really starts but maybe that's a bit off topic well yes agreed but there is a new super weapons which might stop war.

That would be a great invention/discovery i haven't heard anything of that but that is very interesting. But even if that is a reality, which with today's scientific improvements i have no doubt that it, what would stop the side that has it force the other side to retreat then gun them down whilst the retreating is going on. Most wars are fought for personal gain someone has to get something out of it.
 

DeletedUser

It amuses me somewhat, how people in this thread think that the legal availability of guns (be it for everyone or no one) can possibly be a solution to armed teenager street gangs.


PS: Why stop at firearms? If the criminals own firearms, too, then it's only a 50/50 chance. Hence: Every honest citizen should be allowed to legally own tactical nukes! Obviously this will scare all those burglars, parking lot stealers and other criminals off! Only then honest law-abiding people can keep their family and home safe!
 

DeletedUser

Look, if people will just learn to keep their guns on a leash, and have the courtesy to bag casualties instead of leaving them to collect flies on someone's driveway, the problem will be solved. Granted, there will always be those with allergies to gun oil, or those with phobias, but hey... everyone's entitled to walk their guns, right?
 

DeletedUser16628

All of these folks have had very similar logical arguments: "there are too many guns," "statistics will show that households with guns are four times more likely to have gun-related deaths," "this is unthinkable in a civilized society"... and so on.
While I understand that these folks feel helpless when confronted with situations like this, I cannot abide their departure from common sense and plain old logic, especially by folks who should know better. These people are educated. They are not naive. They are not ignorant.Let's put this all in perspective. First, we need to look at the historical context. America is a very young country and it was settled by an invasive, conquering mentality. Firearms played an integral part in every aspect of our history, whether we like it or not. We gained our freedom with bloodshed. We expanded westward the same way. We kept the peace in frontier towns with lethal efficiency. That history is less than a century past. Add to this the glorification of violence that America has foisted upon the world. Sure, we aren't the only country with violent TV shows, movies and video games... now. But who developed these forms of entertainment? Whose culture spawned this worldwide phenomena? We did that's right.

Now for a few modern comparisons. Many claim that we should have gun control laws such as England and other parts of Europe and these folks cite the gun crime statistics of these locations to justify their claims. There are lots of problems with this logic. First off, we aren't England. If you want to compare America to someone, why not compare America to America,Yeah I'm losing my mind now right. You see, we have cities that have gun regulations similar to (if not more strict than) those of England. Anyone know which cities these are? Well, the most well-known would be Washington DC. That's right. Up until very recently, it was completely illegal to own a handgun in DC. I say "up until recently" because the law was just struck down. So, anyone want to take a guess at how effective DC's gun laws were (remember, they were just struck down)? The city has consistently ranked as one of the worst with regards to violent gun crimes or my pet name Murder Capitol USA.

This is a perfect example of how it isn't the gun legislation but the cultural differences that are perpetuating the crimes we experience. We are not like Britain.

We are also not much like Canada... or Switzerland. Both of those places have pretty much the same (if not higher) gun per household statistics but both also have dramatically lower gun-related crimes. Chalk another one up to "cultural differences".By the way I'm retired military and have my life and protection permit with much more to say on this subject
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16628

Okay now Logically speaking, the very trite phrase bandied about by the NRA, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people," is quite true. And much as Cenk Uygur (Google that)would have you believe it is the bullets doing it (rather than the people OR the guns), which is not the case. I have had several boxes of ammo sitting in my house for years and they haven't killed anyone yet. Much as I respect Cenk's intellect (and I DO respect his intellect), he stepped off the barge on this one. His article and that of Jane Smiley ("What I Think About Guns") were two of the most obvious examples of misplaced logic of all those that appeared on the site. Jane Smiley goes so far as to say that guns have no other purpose than to kill. Sorry, but that is akin to saying that alcohol serves no other purpose than to get people drunk. Both statements are false. But then, on the other hand, our nation's history with alcohol is very much applicable to the current gun control debate. Just ponder for a moment the word "Prohibition". What did that do for alcohol in this country? What type of society arose as a result of these short-sighted and yet morally-defensible laws? Gun laws are no different. And just as there are many acceptable uses for alcohol, there are also many acceptable uses for guns. And those who want to legislate them out of existence are no more enlightened than the moral stalwarts of the prohibition era who thought laws would magically make alcohol go away. We all know that didn't happen. All that happened was that formerly "law-abiding" citizens were now "outlaws" for searching out "speakeasies" and building moonshine stills. I would have fit in perfectly in that era.

More gun laws would do the same thing for guns, but at a much scarier level. Guns would become a black market commodity. What does that mean? It means the value of guns would skyrocket. There would be a huge business in the manufacture and sale of illegal weaponry just as we now "enjoy" in our "War on Drugs". Organized crime would become heavily involved and now criminals would be breaking into homes to steal guns. Think about it. The owner would not be able to report an illegal firearm as being stolen. The illegal firearm would be worth a LOT of money on the black market. It's a no-brainer. Burglaries would rise exponentially. The same thing happened with alcohol during prohibition. As a result, the wronged gun owners would be left taking the law into their own hands to recoup their losses and we would end up with the street violence and gang warfare that prohibition spawned. Some will even argue that Prohibition did more to bolster organized crime than any other factor of the time period. We are doing the same thing now with drugs. And these folks want to add GUNS into the mix?!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser28032

Well, the most well-known would be Washington DC. That's right. Up until very recently, it was completely illegal to own a handgun in DC. I say "up until recently" because the law was just struck down. So, anyone want to take a guess at how effective DC's gun laws were (remember, they were just struck down)? The city has consistently ranked as one of the worst with regards to violent gun crimes

Well the main problem i can see with this is that DC is a city not a country and so although it was comepletly illegal for a resident to buy/own a handgun it doesn't stop a guy from Detroit driving into town with a gun. so unless DC was put inside of a glass bubble or had everyone strip searched before being allowed to enter it is doomed to fail. Any gun control laws made would have to be country wide to have any effect which as i've already pointed is going to be very difficult.

As for the making guns illegal will only promote crime argument well that simply doesn't work as the things you've mentioned; illegal arms dealing/manufacture, armed gangs etc already exist.
Gun control will not stop criminals or organised crime it will however greatly reduce the chances of someone killing a load of school kids because "They don't like mondays"
 

DeletedUser

The guy driving from Detroit is just as required as the DC resident to obey that law. Having a permit in one state does not mean you can carry in any state. Some state CCW (such as Florida's) allow you to carry in several states, but those are not several of your choice, those are several chosen ones by the authorities. And states/cities that do not allow their residents to carry, do not allow ANYBODY to carry.
Okay so if you agree that the circulation of guns will not be removed, then how does the chance of gun related crimes reduce?
 

DeletedUser16628

Sorry Duduie I'm on a roll here with my thoughts and get to the meat of the beast and let's lay aside the utter futility of gun legislation at this point and lets look at gun ownership in a more important aspect, especially for those progressives who are yelling so loudly for gun control. I am referring to the "personal right" and "individual freedom" aspect. Much as (Jane Smiley) wants everyone to believe that the only thing guns are good for is killing, it just ain't so.

To be fair, what Jane's statement should have been is that guns are only good for shooting (there is a BIG difference between "shooting" and "killing"). What you (or any other gun owner) shoots is entirely up to you. There are, however, many gun sports that involve no killing whatsoever (trap shooting, silhouette shooting, marksmanship competitions, biathlons, collecting, etc.). Likewise, hunting is considered a legitimate use for firearms the world over and it happens to be what I like to do 3-4 times a year.whether or not you enjoy these sports is of no consequence to anyone but yourself. If someone wants to use a firearm for legally-acceptable uses, that is their right. Just because you may not enjoy what they are doing is no reason to deny them the opportunity to do it. If we get into that type of mindset we will be tossing democracy aside in short order. Denying someone the right to use and possess something based solely on the idea that someone, somewhere, may use said device to do harm is not just naive, it is downright stuck on stupid. Where do we draw the line? Silverware? Baseball bats? Let's get a little more creative... how about Drain-o and gasoline? Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer? Toilet bowel cleaners? These chemicals and compounds (and many other commonly available) can be used to create horrendous explosive devices and lethal poisonous gases that could kill more people in seconds than a gunman could in an hour... just ask the survivors of the Oklahoma Federal Building disaster. Do you suppose anyone did a background check when Timothy McVeigh bought fertilizer?

But we still haven't arrived at the crux of the argument--the real reason why gun control is a losing argument. That specific point is the one non-lethal use of a firearm that we haven't discussed. The use that is at the crux of the entire argument. It is the specific reason for which the Second Amendment was written. What is that specific use?

Deterrence,Deterrence,Deterrence

This is why police carry them. This is why the military amasses them. This is why many homeowners purchase them. And, most importantly, this is why the Second Amendment protects them. An armed populace is the best defense against an oppressive government and ours is getting there as we soon will be swiping a card to poop.

Such statements may sound trite and outdated to many in our society, but those folks probably aren't reading their newspapers much--or they aren't very good at "putting two and two together".Okay I have more just got to go run the hounds real quick.
 
Top