The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

Don't tell me you actually took some politically correct public school horses**t seriously. They might as well write a self-help book called "How to be a good little self-defeating chump" since that pretty much sums up the brainwashing. If self-preservation is morally equivalent to initiating force, then imprisonment is morally equivalent to kidnapping. I mean, it doesn't matter who started it, you're both using force so that makes you just as bad as him! I don't know about you, but I think physically defending myself is a little more important than being a sacrificial lamb for some idealistic garbage that goes against your own best interests to begin with.

Tensu - cartels in Mexico are not so powerfull because they have superior firepower, but because they have bought most of the law enforcement and politicians they needed. You never eliminate drug problem by fighting it on the streets. It is alibism. You have to track down the money.

Again Europe is full of drugs, too. History of racism? Gas chambers could talk. It simply seems that our criminals use guns/kill less. And common people use them much less.

Anyway. Sure thing the gun law is not a magic wand that resolves everything. It doesn't eliminate all murders. We have strict laws, but some murders too. But - and this is important - it reduces certain kinds of murder plus it reduces the total of all violent deaths.
"The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US."

http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-90 ... in-uk.html


sliqua-jcooter - well, true. Would add more but don't want to discuss it any further

right, but where no guns are needed in the first place


These words are just poetic devices. Real criticism is this:
"Performance is all that counts. Dramatically changing world needs dynamically changing minds.
So, what is your performance in crime fighting? "
Your performance (which is based on your laws) is... poor.
Now, lets assume (that only ) half of America's households have guns. You say "it saves lives, more guns less crime". But man, it works only in theory, in your head. Because clearly everyone in US who wants a gun can have it (if legal one or illegal doesn't matter)
Now Tensu says drugs and gangs are the cause. So, how exactly do YOU fight (with your gun) against them? How exactly do you use your gun face to face this people. What excatly do YOU do?



see above. How do you actively fight against this very people with your gun in hand. I am sure you know where they hang around in your town, so what exactly do you do when you walk in there?

That's not true. The areas with the highest crime rates in the countries are conveniently also the places with strict gun laws. We can argue causality and go back and forth about chicken-and-egg, but the correlation is definitely there.

LA/Compton - CA's gun laws make it very difficult to own guns, and nearly impossible to carry one. They prohibit all guns *except* a few that they put on a list. Their state constitution does not recognize the right for private citizens to own guns.

Chicago - IL does not allow concealed carry at all - and open carry is prohibited throughout most of the state. To buy a gun, a person must first receive a firearm owner identification card. Illinois also does not have preemption of gun laws - so individual areas can enact local laws tougher than IL state law.

New York - Well, wikipedia puts it best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

Washington, DC - Up until recently, guns weren't allowed. Period. With intervention from the Supreme Court, residents can follow an extremely convoluted process to purchase a gun. Each person may only possess 2 guns, and there are very strict regulations on how to store them. Carry is still prohibited. For a good look at how insane the DC policy on gun ownership is, read this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/gun ... ng-gun-dc/

These cities have some of the highest crime in the nation - and they also have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. I'm not trying to say that gun control causes high crime - but it certainly doesn't do much to stop it.

In these areas, it isn't possible for a person concerned for their own safety to buy a gun legally - and if they buy a gun illegally, they're a criminal, and are facing up to 10 years in jail if they're caught. So, effectively, these people who may have been able to defend themselves against someone who wanted them dead, are left without a means to do so.

I'm sorry but are you implying that bad people who use guns for bad reasons hang around only in specific areas and never leave that area?
They never go out of their way and come to you with the direct intent of harming you?
Frankly there aren't any gangs where I live because it is rather out in nowhere.
So gun violence isn't a big issue here, however if I were to move to a larger city where it was a problem I would sure as hell want the right to own a gun in case some nutcase started banging on my door at 3 am.

That aside, you do know that you don't even need to fire a gun to save your life, right?
Many criminals would turn tail and run at the sight of a gun in their face.
In that way the simple existence of a gun in your home saved your life without anyone being harmed.
Contrary to your apparent belief, most pro gun people don't actually want to have to shoot anyone.
Like in all things, some people do but its the minority.


The man in new york had that gun for 20 years without shooting anyone with it.
So do you think he shouldn't have been sold that gun?
I'll answer that for you, he absolutely should have been.
Should any of the people who have gone on shooting sprees have been sold those guns?
Frankly, probably yes.

Unless by their own admission or that of a serious and ongoing psychiatric review they were proven to be a threat to others.
Or by an ongoing psychiatric review were found to not have the mental fortitude to understand the responsibility of a gun to the point where they were a threat.
Or by ongoing review were found to be physically unable to control their actions while using the gun.
Or by a conviction of any violent or drug related crime.
However, in the case of a crime said person should have the ability to regain their right.
As previously stated for drug related crimes having a year of drug free testing and rehabilitation.
For violent crimes, there is already a system in place to regain your right through working with the local police to prove you are no longer a danger.

But that isn't where it would stop now is it.

How strict are you willing to see your gun laws get?
Say now that my brother is in jail for 30 days for possession of marijuana.
He should no longer be eligible to purchase or own a gun. Right? I'm not arguing by the way. He f****d up, he's an addict and he got his ass in jail.
So what about me, my mom and my father? Can we own guns? Whats stopping us from giving or him taking our guns though?
So I guess by that logic it's to dangerous to let me buy a gun as well now because I might let him into my apartment and not notice when he walks out with my gun case.

I mean clearly, to stop a bad man from getting a gun you must take the guns away from his family so they can not inadvertently or otherwise supply him with a gun.
Then what about his wife or girlfriend... we'll definitely have to take her gun away too.
Now how about his friends? Well a good friend might give him a gun and a bad friend might take a friends gun...that's a tough one, might have to take his gun away eventually if we decide its to risky.
Oh and neighbors, what if he breaks into his neighbors house when they aren't home and takes theirs. Better monitor them as well, just in case.


I'll take a little more gun crime any day over some stuff nosed bureaucratic who lives in a gated community with security guards at every entrance telling me who is and isn't an "acceptable risk" to own a gun or a replica sword or an airsoft or a large knife or a bow.

Not *needed* no, but enjoyed. When you take killing away from guns you're left with a really cool piece of technology. There are those of us here who like shooting guns just on it's face value. Being able to protect yourself is a nice benefit, but being able to go to the range is fun. Shooting skeet is fun. I would imagine someone would say hunting is fun.

So, in a perfect world - guns wouldn't be used for killing - but they would exist to be enjoyed.

sliqua-jcooter - sorry but this is not a correct way to debate. Don't tear my thoughts/sentences into single words. Follow the context. I clearly said:

Yes, we definitelly could and should. But let me just say: there are fishing areas with almost no fishes, yet with strict antifishing laws. We can argue causality and go back and forth about chicken-and-egg, but the correlation is definitely there.

PS: I do agree many antigun arrangements are just stupid populistic BS. But many doesn't mean to oppose them all automatically.

Mike_Garrick - no, I imply nothing. I just want to hear your answers and work with them.


I do. That's why some people who can't have real carry gas pistols in Europe. And many criminals too. Do you think this may have an possitive effect on our deaths stats of death?



not at all.
But, what is the point of having a gun on the kitchen table while you are not home? In Europe, it is considered stupid, risky and therefore illegal. So you would go to jail with your brother if you let him misuse your gun by such recklessness. There are some reasonable safety rules you need to follow. It is quite complex, not just "all you want is to take away our lovely guns". Not at all.


I understand your point of view. But you have forgotten that in EU, every (legal) gun is registered. And therefore people hardly ever commit crimes with own or "borrowed" guns.

So a man who really needs to murder someone with a gun (often hitman), uses one from black market. 90% of the population doesn't have acces to the black market, therefore they use knife or piece of rock.

Now again: most of people do not have guns (legal or illegal). Therefore when they get fired, frustrated, cheated - they do not use any. Got the point? Imagine you argue with someone heavily. And you both hold a glass. It is very likely one of you will throw it. Now replace glass with gun...
So it is not exclusively about "career criminals". It is about common people making mistakes with guns in their hands. In Europe this mistake ends up with black eye, while in US it is homicide.




yeah, and that is exactly what you do. But most of the people here simply don't want to leave in society tortured by crime.




Sure, and I am one of them. I definitely don't live in a perfect world, but in a world where I can enjoy guns and shooting plus walk around without gun or fear at the same time. I could hunt too with no problem at all, but I admire and love animals


PS - EU decided in 2000(?) that we reach 50 per cent reduction in the number of road deaths by 2010. People opposed the measures of course. I was not a big fun of some of them, too. But take a look



http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safe ... dex_en.htm

It worked and now they want to go 50% down again by 2020. Don't know how, but wish them luck.

It's hard to play chess with someone who's playing connect 4, or in this case more like connect 2.

Have you ever been to America? I've lived here all my life. There's no way that half of American households have guns.

Ancalagon - NRA-ILA Firearms Fact Card 2012
"American households that have firearms: 40-45%"
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles ... -2012.aspx

How dare I assume 50% sharp, I demand maximum punishment!

Dox - not bad. Teach me to play chess, please.

The difference between 40% and 50% is tens of millions of people - that's pretty significant.

It is not productive to continue this way. These numbers are just rough estimates.
I said lets assume half, you say lets assume less. So be it, it doesn't change a s**t.

I just thought some of you would find this amusing:

My 11 year old daughter is now saying she wants to shoot riffles. I was signing a permission slip for my son to use the gun range this weekend, and she wanted to know when she could learn. As in seriously. So now when she hits 14 she plans to join the BSA Venture Troop affiliated with the NRA. She decided she could wait until she was 14, since I wasn't sure what her options would be at this age.

Too funny. There was never, ever a part of me that wanted to shoot. At her age I thought all guns should be outlawed.

My parents wouldn't let me have toy guns; you can see how well that worked out...

^

I think it works that way with most things, all the addicts I know were the kids who's parents wouldn't let them taste beer or drink soda, while most of the lassaiz faire parented kids turned out just fine. I was building crossbows from pens and rubberbands pretty early, and when the gun toy ban was lifted I quickly moved on to pellet guns and paintball, which quickly became silenced and converted to full auto. I can date myself by noting that I learned about such things from BBS sites and contraband copies of The Poor Man's James Bond, while todays would be juvenile delinquents can simply fire up Google.