The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

The thought of wanting to own a gun is alien to me. My purpose here is such that I would ask anyone here - pro or anti - to not read that in an 'I want to take your guns away' sense. I want to learn about why people want guns. Obviously, over the years most (if not all) of those I've gotten into such conversations/debates/'your mother' with have been from the US, and the culture of the US - use of guns and all - is pretty strongly represented over here (the UK, btw). So I was curious as to how it is outside the US.

You know that Rubin's Vase? You can shift between seeing it as a vase or two faces. So, I'm trying to see both POVs. I don't think my mind would change - I've always felt quite safe, I don't hunt, not interested in shooting as a pastime, and they don't interest me as artefacts - but I'm interested in trying to see the other side, and I'm trying to give my imagination the push.

I commend your efforts to see things from another viewpoint, as a longstanding gun rights advocate I don't see that too often, especially from people outside the US who's anti-gun leanings have often been seeded and reinforced by the state itself from a very young age. It's particularly hard if you've never lived here, as the raw numbers without context can make the US seem like a relative war zone, when in actuality it's very peaceful here, with the exception of a few urban centers where the real problem is economic blight. It's very easy if you live outside the US to look at the crime numbers and the gun numbers and draw a false conclusion, especially if you don't have personal experience with firearms ownership, which is pretty much all of Europe and much of the commonwealth. A large point of this whole thread was to force such people to look beyond the guns at the socioeconomic differences in the various countries of the world that lead to much, much greater variances in the crime rates than does the availability of firearms.

In short, if you take a steadily employed, otherwise well adjusted person and put a gun in his hand, it doesn't just turn him into a violent offender, while a desperate person looking at few good options will use whatever is available to him, be it a lead pipe or a pistol, to try and improve his personal situation. Further, to many desperate people, honor or respect is all that they see themselves as having, so violence is more likely to break out over seemingly petty causes than in less marginal populations, thus driving the violent crime rate up on two fronts. It's not the guns, it's the desperate people who turn to them.

if he is standing in front of me with gun, I would simply do what he wants. Maybe if he makes some big dumb mistake I would consider to play Rambo, but doubt it.



Don't know, seems people feel safe in status quo.

Ancalagon - WMDs, flamethowers or whatever you want, it does not matter. There are many irresponsible people out there, that's the point of gun control efforts. Irresponsible citizen with pistol => strick gun law. Irresponsible government with WMD => international treaty and embargo.




Nicely said. I just got an impression that people here prefer guns as an solution. If you don't, ok. I have to admit I have mess in nicks sometimes...



Smoke machines are not very suitable for this kind of businesses. Don't remember I have said anything about metal detectors, I assume you have mistaken me. Sure security is not cheap. But you need to decide if you want real unbiased security, or some false subjective feeling only. And we are back at start. We discussed many security measures - all were dismissed by you (plural) as insufficient. I got an impression that you (plural) consider guns as only universal solution. Maybe we should all put our cards on the table to make it clear.

And yes, insurance is security measure


Banks rely on this when they don't try to stop robbers. They know bad guys came for money, not to harm anyone. Sure they could make it harder for them, but it is too expensive. And it increases the risk of bloodbath. That's why insurance is one of the best risk management tool in this specific case.




More attackers = less chances to defend succesfully regardless of what you have in your pocket. Or you want to suggest that gun makes any big difference? Be more specific, best with examples of scenarios you have in mind.



Sure, firearm as the last one for common citizen.



Exactly. And this is what gun control folks want to maintain. Because without gun control and proper training, you would achieve a country full of armed guys "obviously causing more trouble than you need to".
Do you really want to rely on "anyone's long and hard thinking about legal and psychological ramifications..."??? This is not enough. We are not so awaken to manage this. We are old kids with lethal matches. You need to set minimal limits, train and test people before giving them such responsibility. When someone comes to you saying "hey, I was thinking and found out I can take care of your savings. Let me handle then" - You do? When someone says "let me take care of you daughter for few days" - you do? Now the same person says "I want gun" - and here the gun law takes place. If he is mature enough, has proper knowledge, skills, physical and psychical condition - than ok. But if not, sorry man, do and play with different toys.




an aspie detecting condescending tone in online discussion All definitions lied, we are capable of this!
No, you are right. I am sorry if I offended you. Just take it easy, it was unintentional.



Someone wise said poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas. I like this kind of debate because we talk about ideas here. So lets keep it that way. I see no point discussing me here, although I have to correct you - I love to shoot, wish it wasn't so expensive and I am afraid only of guns aimed at me...



That's why it is important not to allow this people to possess them, not so?

Hopper wrote:

Burglary aside, I’m certainly not concerned with anyone waltzing in and taking my guns away. My concern is more along the lines of legislating prohibitively high tax on ammo sales driven by emotion after a series of well publicized (sensationalized) shootings.



First off; thank you for taking an intelligent approach to this.
I have to admit that I have an Asperger’s driven obsession with firearms. I have always been fascinated with them and I don’t come from a gun family. We always had a few in the house but I was the only one with a true interest. Even if I was obsessed with something entirely different it’s a given that I’d still own a few guns.
I love just about everything having to do with them.

Aside from the pleasure of them there is a personal responsibility side to it. Very few people in society will actually do harm to anyone or even wish to. Still, there are enough wolves in society that we have to be aware of them.
Not obsessed to the point of paranoia but aware and prepared to meet that threat if it comes to us.
You simply cannot rely on the police for this. Any cop worthy of wearing the badge will tell you you’re on your own and it’ll only be luck if one happens to be available when you really need one.

I could go more in-depth but this is the gist of it.

OK, well there are several reasons I want to own guns, none of them particularly more important to me than any other reason. I also carry my gun with me, and I do so openly (as opposed to concealed carry).

1. I enjoy shooting. I think it would be really hard for me to justify owning a gun if it didn't bring me some kind of enjoyment. Skeet shooting is particularly awesome, even though I suck at it. I semi-frequently go to the range with a group of friends and unload hundreds of rounds.

2. I believe that my carrying a gun openly as I go about my business contributes positively to the community. If I walk past someone considering robbing a store and he realizes that there is someone who has the ability to stop him, he might re-consider. I obviously don't know if this has ever happened, but the possibility alone makes it worth it to me.

It also exposes people to the idea that it's not just the cops and criminals that have guns. Simply being a normal person who has a gun and doesn't rob a store or rape anybody may change some minds.

3. I want to be able to offer resistance to anybody who tries to harm me, or those I care about. This isn't some vigilante justice thing, I'm concerned with people who would have no issue at all stabbing/shooting me and taking my wallet - or raping my sister - or stopping somebody randomly shooting into crowds. So far, I haven't even come close to needing to deploy my firearm, and I suspect that I probably never will. The closest I've ever come was when I saw a guy hit a deer, get out of his car, and was standing over the deer trying to play vet. The deer was fine, but stunned, and all of a sudden lept up and started flailing around - very nearly seriously injuring the motorist. Had the deer decided to attack the motorist instead of running off, I might have had to do something - but that's not what happened.

4. I believe very strongly that the rights I am afforded in my country should be celebrated - and any attempt to erode those rights adversely affects the others. A legal precedent for curtailing the 2nd amendment is very easily adapted to curtail others.

Me: The patient has an underlying condition that's causing him to act out violently, we should treat that condition.

You: No, just strap his limbs down so he doesn't hurt anyone, that's what's important. Restrain everyone else too, just in case.

Actually, make it be 4.

4. The 'recreational' practices that you can make with a gun happen to all be practice at being better at killing with them and unless you use blanks are still very dangerous if performed by the wrong person. Hence still need some regulation.


Combining 4 and 3, does your "car freedom" goes away simply because you need a license to practice and organize races?

^
Why does your opinion matter again? I'm still waiting on my previous query.

No, let's find out this patients first, than use your treatment approach. But how, if you refuse to make any diagnostic tests? HOW


And I would like you all to write down, what do you imagine under "gun control"? Because you write about poor hunters and sport shooters quite often evoking they lose their hobby. So... gun control, strict gun laws, what does it mean in you imagination?

There was a list of possible regulations given in the OP.

Also, you've said the words 'take them away' multiple times, so if you aren't trying to take all guns away from everybody, maybe you should say so specifically.


Practicing cooking skills is really just practicing getting better at torturing people, since it involves using knives to cut flesh and applying extreme heat to cook flesh. Cooking is also extremely dangerous if performed by the wrong person, potentially starting grease fires.


I don't remember anyone advocating a 'car freedom'.

yes. And YOUR opinion is?

People should be free to own and use guns, as long as they've never committed a violent crime - or have been determined to be a danger to themselves and others by a court of law. Once they use that gun to commit a crime, they are no longer allowed to use or own guns.

Or, to put it another way: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I don't have to imagine what you think, since you said "That's why it is important not to allow this people to possess them, not so?", and that wasn't the only time in the thread where you said that sort of thing. Like I said the first time I responded to this query, if that isn't what you really meant, then you ought to say so.

In general, all the pro-gun-control people have been pretty vague about exactly what they want and exactly why they want it. They appear to agree with you that all guns should be taken from everybody. They certainly don't disagree with you enough to actually say so.

Ancalagon - ok you are afraid to say your opinion, I respect that.

sliqua-jcooter - gross
So it doesn't matter that I am an heroin addict or secret service has 1500 pages file about my activities in Al Qaeda's training camp - I may have a gun. Right?

My opinion on what?

On what definition people in the thread are using for what strict gun control means? If so, it seems to me that there is little or no disagreement with the idea that this represents something more or less along the lines of 'take all guns away from everyone'.

On the gun control issue itself? In observing this thread, I haven't seen a good solid logical argument with facts presented against guns, despite the fact that the OP invited such. I have seen lots of knee-jerk reactions, and I think the theory that gun-control advocates are emotionally frightened by guns fits the observed reactions. I'm not going to let one thread about a topic make up my mind permanently, but this thread certainly has me leaning in an anti-gun-control direction.

I am asking, what "gun control, strict gun laws" means to you. What do you imagine when someone says this words. So is it "take all guns away from everyone"?

Because if so, it is not what I mean. And this may play a big role in misunderstandings we see here.
For me it means laws in EU/Commonwealth. So in one sentence - laws that prohibits unreliable people to get one.