Topic: Gun Control (Read 33703 times)

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #100 on:** May 19, 2006, 05:49:20 PM »

And Judgie, I don't think you realize just how easy it is to get a gun here. If I wanted to, I know I can get my hands on a gun.

Second, you still haven't addressed the idea that the only people who are affected by gun laws are those that abide by the laws. The very definition of a criminal is someone who violates the law, and while you said that it would make it tougher for a criminal to get a gun, I disagree. It's very hard to limit the number of guns that get into the hands of criminals, especially because state law varies.

Third, we have a right to own firearms here in the US, for many reasons. One is to defend ourselves from a tyrranical government, debatable given the technology that the army possess though gurrilla fighters seem to pull it off in other countries, but another is to defend ourselves from other people. If you deny someone the ability to defend themselves, you deny them the right to defend themselves.

Quote from: TheJudge

The reality is that the more accessible the guns are, there is a higher chance of someone being hurt by them regardless of the intent (homicide, suicide, accident, etc)....I think these kinds of measures would benefit society overall and that there would be less deaths caused by guns under this environment vs. a place where anyone can have any gun and where there are zero gun laws...A lot of people are impulsive and some act without thinking.

A knife, a tableleg, a fist, a baseball bat, a car, a bomb, etc... are all things that can be used to kill someone, easily in some cases, and in the heat of the moment are easier to get. Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. I have yet to see a gun start running around shooting people screaming, "I hate you all!"

Quote from: TheJudge

I also don't think everyone is entitled to own guns. I compare it to driving. It's a privilege, not a right.

It is in America, and I'll be damned before I support someone violating my rights, whether I exercise them or not.

Quote from: TheJudge

Additionally, anyone who owns a gun should be required by law to store it properly and that means having a trigger lock on the gun, and having the gun stored in a gun safe and having the safe locked.

Agreed.

Quote from: TheJudge

...the guns that I would allow on the market are not as easy to conceal as handguns. They are not as portable.

There is a video on google that disproves this, and when I get the link I'll post it.

Edit: http://www.jesseshunting.com/photopost/data/561/513demohi.wmv

Use "concealed weapons baggy video" if you want to try and find other sources. I don't know the site, but I linked it from a random forum I found.

Quote from: TheJudge

I'd love to collect people's fingers but I can't do so legitimately. It's the same idea.

If the only reason you think collecting fingers is immoral is because it is against the law, you have some series problems. The law shouldn't dictate morality. Here, the goal is SUPPOSED to be in protecting our rights, at least according to the Declaration of Independence.

Quote from: TheJudge

"But what about the collectors Judge?" Screw them I say. Collect stamps instead. If certain guns are made illegal, then you'll have to collect something else.

Why should they collect stamps instead? Their point is about people who use guns in ways contrary to the argument for gun laws, (I.E. to kill people or shoot things) while yours seems to ignore that.

Quote from: TheJudge

Imagine if the government legalized pot. You could go to any corner store and get your pot. You could grow your own if you wanted to. Don't you think that overall, something that becomes visible, accessible and normalized will also end up being used by more people?

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this. This sounds like a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief", where because the consequence of accepting this are negative, you shouldn't believe it. It doesn't actually address the points made, it simply shows that "If you believe this, bad things will result!"

Eg: "God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"

This may seem disjointed, but I was trying to break it up to answer each piece as I thought over it.

TheJudge · « **Reply #101 on:** May 23, 2006, 08:07:29 AM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey

This may seem disjointed, but I was trying to break it up to answer each piece as I thought over it.

I think you did an excellent job. It's not easy to try and "rejoint" my long posts! Anyway, you bring up some good points and I'd like to clarify some of mine if I may.

First, you point out that it's easy for you to get a gun. From what I understand, it's like that most of the places in the US. I personally don't think it should be that easy to get a weapon. Note that I also don't think it should be impossible. There are legitimate reasons why people want guns. I'm just saying it would be nice to have a process in place, to minimize as much as possible, giving guns to people who don't use them responsibly.

Quote from: Crystalmonkey

You still haven't addressed the idea that the only people who are affected by gun laws are those that abide by the laws

I tried too, and I just confused you in the process. I tend to do that some times! Let me try again.

Suppose there is a law in place today that all handguns are banned, except for when they are used by military personnel and the police while they are on duty. Let’s just pretend this new law came into effect this morning. Anyone who currently owns a handgun is required to dispose of it by bringing it over to their local police station, and they have 30 days to do it. Let's just say this is the situation, and let's not talk about whether it's wrong or wrong, or if you agree or disagree. It's just a scenario. Now, what do you think will happen over time of this is to stay in effect? sure, in the short term, some would comply and some would resist. Not all hand guns will be disposed off and not everyone will declare that they even have a gun. But still, a lot of handguns will have been removed from circulation. In the longer term, what would happen is that the government would start making an example of those who resisted and didn't turn in their handguns. Eventually, handguns would be much more difficult to obtain and anyone who has one would be sent to jail. It wouldn’t' be impossible to get a handgun, but it would be much more difficult. The legislation would therefore have a direct impact on EVERYONE, not just those who abide by gun laws. I'm not saying that the ones who want to get their hands on handguns will suddenly have a change of hearth because of legislation, I'm saying it will make it much harder for them, and it will even discourage some of them.

I tried to illustrate this with the legalization of pot but you go a completely different message that what I tried to convey. In fact, I was even more confused by your reply "God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"
because that wasn't the logic I was going for at all.

What I mean with the pot thing is that if tomorrow we make it legal, and it's available anywhere, and over time there will be more users than there are today because it's acceptable, normalized, and available. It has nothing to do with beleifs. I think it's the same idea with guns and my opinion is that the exact opposite effect can take place with the implementation of gun laws. I'm not saying this shift in mentality will occur over night. It's a long term thing.

The video you posted actually supports my point that handguns are easier to conceal. Note that out of 13 weapons laid on the table, 11 of them are handguns. Also note that while this boy was able to stick a full length shotgun in his pants, it's not like he was mobile. You couldn't really just walk around town with something that huge in your pants and... wait. That's funny! But seriously, I think the video, which I had seen before, only adds weight to my point. Thanks for posting it!

The last point I want to make is in regards to the death stats you have posted. First off, I have never claimed that gun death numbers are more significant than what you posted. You are correct, there are dangerous products out there that result in deaths. And what are we constantly trying to do about those? Reduce them. 20 years ago, you didn't see ads on TV that were trying to encourage you to quite smoking. Things change. Because people want to make a difference, because they are more educated, because they evolve.

When I was young, using seatbelts was optional. Now, if someone in my car refuses to wear the seatbelt, I ask them to walk. We invented airbags to help reduce the number of deaths and injuries, and vehicles constantly go through extensive safety tests. Look at who won the American Inventor show! A guy who wanted to prevent children deaths in car crashes with his revolutionary concept. The point is that in all the cases you listed where deaths and injuries are numerous, we constantly try to make changes to reduce those numbers. And we not only do things through product improvements, but through legislation as well. There is a reason why we have speed limits. There are certain vehicles that you cannot drive on the road. There are all kinds of restrictions out there that were put in with the intent of protecting people. Why can't we use legislation in the same way when it comes to guns?

12AX7 · « **Reply #102 on:** May 23, 2006, 01:45:59 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

There are all kinds of restrictions out there that were put in with the intent of protecting people. Why can't we use legislation in the same way when it comes to guns?

We already do. What you are advocating is banning them (except "certain" cases).
And actually, if we "use it the same way", you will have to ban those cars, swimming pools, etc, too. (except in "certain" cases.) : )

12AX7 · « **Reply #103 on:** May 23, 2006, 02:01:22 PM »

Judge, do you realize what one has to do to aquire a gun legally here? First; yes- it's true that ALMOST "anyone" can own a gun. IF you are not a felon (or ever have been), have ever been admitted for pyschiatric evaluation, or ever had any drug-related charges. But to carry that gun anywhere off your property, you must have a permit. To aquire this permit, you must apply for the license; requiring you to submit fingerprints for the background check; and review of you case by a judge; who will determine whether or not to grant your permit. The above rules apply as well; in a more stringent application (no felons, mentals, drugs, etc).
Then; with the permit, at the sporting goods store when you purchase a firearm; you must fill out an ATF form , and the store calls the federal NICS background check to see if you clear.
All of this is to purchase and own/operate a firearm under the existing gun laws.
by comparison:

Out from under the gun laws, I know bunches of people I can go and purchase just about whatever firearm/explosive/weapon/drug/pussy/etc I want - SANS any "permit" or registration process. So gun laws severely impact the law-abiding gun owners, with minimal- if any- effect on a non-law-abiding person (criminal). If there were no guns here on the shelves or legally owned (to be stolen by criminals); they would be smuggled in. And yep; I'd be just as inclined to get one then as I am now.

TheJudge · « **Reply #104 on:** May 23, 2006, 02:13:13 PM »

No no no... I am not advocating for banning all guns. You say "certain" cases as if I'm being real harsh here and I'm not. What I proposed leaves room for all kinds of guns out there. I'm just taking away the fully automatics and handguns. There is a big difference. So again, I don't advocate for banning all guns.

Now, lets look at if we "use it the same way". Lets take the car example where you apperently think that applying my logic would mean banning all cars. It's not the case. Today, certain vehicles are banned from the road for various reasons. Some are in such a bad shape that they can't pass the inspection, others are just too big while some have too much horsepower. The restriction are specific and targeted. I don't see why guns can't be restricted in the same way, and doing so doesn't go against the current laws. You'll still have the right to bear arms. But instead of taking your pick from this huge pile of guns, you can exercice you right from this smaller pile. That's all.

The distinction you fail to make between guns, cars and pools is their purpose. Guns exist for one reason only: to blow shit up. To kill. They are a weapon. Swiming pools were not created with the intent of drowning people, altough that sometimes happens. Cars were not made to kill people, but accidents happen. When someone takes a gun, points it at someone else or at himself and pulls the trigger, that's not an accident, that's using the product for what it was designed to do. Based on that alone, I think they have to be treated differently. You can't just compare them to one another.

TheJudge · « **Reply #105 on:** May 23, 2006, 02:30:01 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7

Out from under the gun laws, I know bunches of people I can go and purchase just about whatever firearm/explosive/weapon/drug/pussy/etc I want - SANS any "permit" or registration process. So gun laws severely impact the law-abiding gun owners, with minimal- if any- effect on a non-law-abiding person (criminal). If there were no guns here on the shelves or legally owned (to be stolen by criminals); they would be smuggled in. And yep; I'd be just as inclined to get one then as I am now.

I understand that. There would be a black market as a result of restricting guns. But it's not a good reason not to do it anyway. Generally speaking, people prefer not to have cocaine on their streets, which is why they made it illegal. But there is still cocaine on the streets regardless. There is a black market, there is money to be made, but the individuals who participate in those activities represent a minority of the population. Most people don't want drugs. Some do but most don't. Shoudl we legalize prostitution just because it's going to happen anyway? I don't think so. Should we legalize explosive just because people can get them anyway? I don't think so. There are moral motives behind it all.

It would be interesting to find out the next time you have an election how people feel about handguns. When they go out to vote, if they were given the opportunity to answer the simple question about if they want handguns banned or not, it would be interesting. I think the majority would vote for banning them, but until the question is asked, that's just an opinion of mine.

Vespertine · « **Reply #106 on:** May 23, 2006, 03:03:00 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Quote from: 12AX7
Out from under the gun laws, I know bunches of people I can go and purchase just about whatever firearm/explosive/weapon/drug/pussy/etc I want - SANS any "permit" or registration process. So gun laws severely impact the law-abiding gun owners, with minimal- if any- effect on a non-law-abiding person (criminal). If there were no guns here on the shelves or legally owned (to be stolen by criminals); they would be smuggled in. And yep; I'd be just as inclined to get one then as I am now.

<snip>

It would be interesting to find out the next time you have an election how people feel about handguns. When they go out to vote, if they were given the opportunity to answer the simple question about if they want handguns banned or not, it would be interesting. I think the majority would vote for banning them, but until the question is asked, that's just an opinion of mine.

Judge, I think you'd be surprised and disappointed in those poll results. I realize that it's your opinion, and all I'm offering is a counter-opinion, but when it comes down to eliminating a constitutionally protected right, I think you'll find that most Americans will balk at that.

TheJudge · « **Reply #107 on:** May 23, 2006, 03:09:48 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

Judge, I think you'd be surprised and disappointed in those poll results. I realize that it's your opinion, and all I'm offering is a counter-opinion, but when it comes down to eliminating a constitutionally protected right, I think you'll find that most Americans will balk at that.

I agree entirely but I'm really not trying to eliminate a constitutionally protected right. I'm trying to limit what type of "arms" you have access to, but not preventing you entirely on your right to bear arms as a whole. It was never the intention. The question would have to be formulated accordingly.

Vespertine · « **Reply #108 on:** May 23, 2006, 03:09:57 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

No no no... I am not advocating for banning all guns. You say "certain" cases as if I'm being real harsh here and I'm not. What I proposed leaves room for all kinds of guns out there. I'm just taking away the fully automatics and handguns. There is a big difference. So again, I don't advocate for banning all guns.

Now, lets look at if we "use it the same way". Lets take the car example where you apperently think that applying my logic would mean banning all cars. It's not the case. Today, certain vehicles are banned from the road for various reasons. Some are in such a bad shape that they can't pass the inspection, others are just too big while some have too much horsepower. The restriction are specific and targeted. I don't see why guns can't be restricted in the same way, and doing so doesn't go against the current laws. You'll still have the right to bear arms. But instead of taking your pick from this huge pile of guns, you can exercice you right from this smaller pile. That's all.

The distinction you fail to make between guns, cars and pools is their purpose. Guns exist for one reason only: to blow shit up. To kill. They are a weapon. Swiming pools were not created with the intent of drowning people, altough that sometimes happens. Cars were not made to kill people, but accidents happen. When someone takes a gun, points it at someone else or at himself and pulls the trigger, that's not an accident, that's using the product for what it was designed to do. Based on that alone, I think they have to be treated differently. You can't just compare them to one another.

Judge, I don't quite understand why you're lumping handguns in with assault rifles.
Aside from that question, here's my other comment. You are absolutely correct, guns exist so that people can shoot at things. The men who thought to include this right in the Bill of Rights had a very valid reason. They had just finished fighting for their freedom against what they considered to be a tyrranical government. They wanted to ensure that protections were in place so that the populace could do this again if need be. As for my own protection, second amendment or no second amendment, I feel that I have a right to protect myself by whatever means necessary if someone is in my house and attemping to bring harm to me. For me, that means owning a gun and knowing how to use it.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #109 on:** May 23, 2006, 06:44:33 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

As for my own protection, second amendment or no second amendment, I feel that I have a right to protect myself by whatever means necessary if someone is in my house and attemping to bring harm to me. For me, that means owning a gun and knowing how to use it.

As I said, denying someone the ability to defend himself or herself is to deny them the right to defend himself or herself.

12AX7 · « **Reply #110 on:** May 23, 2006, 07:57:28 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Guns exist for one reason only: to blow shit up. To kill.

Wrong. There is also an entire industry out there for recreational target shooting. Chuckle if you must, but to completely ignore that is to be false about the entire issue.
There is also an entire indutry in collectibles. (True; the guns weren't created for this purpose, but the vast majority of collectibles actually DO only exist to be collected now.)

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, btw. I have found that there seems to be a profound difference in how Americans view certain things and how others view them. This is one example; guns. Almost NO ONE who is other than American sees ownership as a right (constitutional or otherwise). Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that. So I fully expect us to mainly disagree on this subject, with neither of us giving up. Aint that cool, though?

Odd_Bloke · « **Reply #111 on:** May 23, 2006, 08:24:03 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7

Wrong. There is also an entire industry out there for recreational target shooting. Chuckle if you must, but to completely ignore that is to be false about the entire issue.

Surely, to a great extent, this has to do with the fact that guns are available. In the UK, sans right to ownership, there is not a recreational shooting industry at all, as far as I'm aware...

Quote

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, btw. I have found that there seems to be a profound difference in how Americans view certain things and how others view them. This is one example; guns. Almost NO ONE who is other than American sees ownership as a right (constitutional or otherwise).

As someone outside the US, I'm not sure I have the right to comment on this, but I am largely channelling Michael Moore's spirit. Canada, for example, has many, many fewer deaths caused by firearms and yet has a much higher level of ownership (they are a hunting nation, eh). IMHO, the only thing that can explain this is that (some) Americans view guns in a different way. Obviously it's impossible to comment on what causes this difference, but that's not going to stop me. Possibly the fact that ownership is a constitutional right convinces some 'red-blooded' Americans that they need to own a gun in order to be American. After all, the constitution says so... It is an unhappy coincidence that these people are often also the people you least want to own a potentially lethal weapon...

Quote

Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that.

As a Brit(isher), I have to disagree with you. We have a binge drinking culture like no other. I can't pull up any ready statistics, but we're worse, I assure you. Any Saturday night in any even slightly major population area is a reminiscent of Spring Break (though less good natured).

Quote

So I fully expect us to mainly disagree on this subject, with neither of us giving up. Aint that cool, though?

To quote Family Guy (and maybe someone else): Sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Yours,
Dan

pbsaurus · « **Reply #112 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:04:30 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7

... Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that...

Yeah tell that to the Irish

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #113 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:26:35 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Generally speaking, people prefer not to have cocaine on their streets, which is why they made it illegal.

But again, that isn't a reason to make something illegal. The basis of our government is on defending our rights, and one of the ways it is supposed to do that is by breaking up factions.

A faction, according to Madison, can be made up of a minority OR a MAJORITY, and just because people don't like cocaine, or swearing, or whatever example you want to use, it doesn't give you a justification for making something illegal.

So even if everyone loves it, the above applies.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #114 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:31:51 PM »

Nice zinger, bringing up Madison like that

Odd_Bloke · « **Reply #115 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:36:16 PM »

From a purely economic standpoint, it is the job of the government to limit consumption of demerit goods*. Cocaine is obviously a demerit good and, it would appear, so are guns. Thusly, the government should be trying to limit the consumption of guns†, as they reduce, through deaths, the size of the workforce. This reduced workforce leads to less competitive domestic industries, which leads to an increase in prices for consumers, as well as a reduction in quality of living. In addition, the US will become a less powerful global entity.

Honestly just looking for an excuse to use footnotes,
Dan

* A demerit good is one which reduces the effectiveness of the workforce through it's consumption. A classic example is smoking.

† That is to say, the purchase/use of guns.

12AX7 · « **Reply #116 on:** May 23, 2006, 10:08:34 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Quote from: 12AX7
... Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that...

Yeah tell that to the Irish

But I didnt say "indulge"... I said "post about it"... shewt; teh Irish would drink us under the table, lol. But they dont crow about it constantly. At least; I havent seen that.

12AX7 · « **Reply #117 on:** May 23, 2006, 10:18:05 PM »

Quote from: Odd_Bloke

Quote from: 12AX7
Wrong. There is also an entire industry out there for recreational target shooting. Chuckle if you must, but to completely ignore that is to be false about the entire issue.
Surely, to a great extent, this has to do with the fact that guns are available. In the UK, sans right to ownership, there is not a recreational shooting industry at all, as far as I'm aware...

What does that have to do with their purpose? The recreational shooting point was made to illustrate that killing and or blowing stuff up are not the only reason guns exist; it wasn't commentary on their availabilty.

Quote

As someone outside the US, I'm not sure I have the right to comment on this

You have the right as a HUMAN BEING to comment on any damn thing you please!

Quote from: Odd_Bloke

Canada, for example, has many, many fewer deaths caused by firearms and yet has a much higher level of ownership (they are a hunting nation, eh).

You have some factual stats to back these statements up? How do you know their ownership is higher? How do you know they have fewer deaths?

Quote from: 12AX7

Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that.

Quote

As a Brit(isher), I have to disagree with you. We have a binge drinking culture like no other. I can't pull up any ready statistics, but we're worse, I assure you. Any Saturday night in any even slightly major population area is a reminiscent of Spring Break (though less good natured).

I'll take your word for it, because I dont know anything about your binge-drinking over there; but I DO know - as I posted - that I dont see nearly anybody else other than Americans POSTING PRAISES about it. You know - "WoooHooo BEER!!! I got sooooo drunk last night..", etc..

Quote from: Odd_Bloke

Thusly, the government should be trying to limit the consumption of guns

Again - THEY ALREADY DO.

For anyone not familiar with what the current gun laws and practical application of such, I HIGHLY suggest reading about it. Here's a good reference:

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60

Odd_Bloke · « **Reply #118 on:** May 23, 2006, 10:50:50 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7

What does that have to do with their purpose? The recreational shooting point was made to illustrate that killing and or blowing stuff up are not the only reason guns exist; it wasn't commentary on their availabilty.

Point taken. However, I'd be interested to see how many people who shoot recreationally would also be willing to defend themselves (i.e. killing/blowing stuff up) with firearms, even if not needed. Or perhaps, even more specifically, how many of those shooting recreationally do so in order to increase their effectiveness should they need to use a gun in anger.

Quote

You have some factual stats to back these statements up? How do you know their ownership is higher? How do you know they have fewer deaths?

Turns out I was incorrect about the level of ownership, but the table half-way down http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html seems to support my point. Also:

Quote from: MichaelMoore.Com

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Quote from: 12AX7

I'll take your word for it, because I dont know anything about your binge-drinking over there; but I DO know - as I posted - that I dont see nearly anybody else other than Americans POSTING PRAISES about it. You know - "WoooHooo BEER!!! I got sooooo drunk last night..", etc..

I think this is probably a level of exposure thing. More Americans have the chance to post this sort of thing (which they take advantage of). In addition, most Brits who get that wasted on a regular basis are incapable of spelling their own name, let alone typing it...

Quote

Quote from: Odd_Bloke
Thusly, the government should be trying to limit the consumption of guns

Again - THEY ALREADY DO.

When I say limit, I really mean ban. In the UK (at least), smoking would've been banned long ago (we've thankfully now got legislation banning smoking in public places coming into effect soon) if it didn't make so much money for the government and if it wouldn't almost certainly mean defeat for the incumbent government at the next election. There is no point in allowing people to own guns whatsoever, other than the fact they (and, misguidedly, the Founding Fathers) seem to think they should be allowed.

Dan

12AX7 · « **Reply #119 on:** May 23, 2006, 11:36:57 PM »

Quote from: Odd_Bloke

When I say limit, I really mean ban. In the UK (at least), smoking would've been banned long ago (we've thankfully now got legislation banning smoking in public places coming into effect soon) if it didn't make so much money for the government and if it wouldn't almost certainly mean defeat for the incumbent government at the next election. There is no point in allowing people to own guns whatsoever, other than the fact they (and, misguidedly, the Founding Fathers) seem to think they should be allowed.

Sounds to me like intolerance. You dont smoke, apparently, so you feel smoking should be banned. You dont own a gun, (or have the right to own one) so you apparently feel no one else should, either. People with this mindset are more dangerous than the criminals here with guns.

Vespertine · « **Reply #120 on:** May 24, 2006, 12:09:21 AM »

Quote

<snip>
There is no point in allowing people to own guns whatsoever, other than the fact they (and, misguidedly, the Founding Fathers) seem to think they should be allowed.

If you'll reference my earlier post, you'll see the explanation about why the founding fathers included the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. How on earth can you call the founding fathers misguided for wanting to ensure that the people of the nation they created had the ability to stand up to yet another tyrranical government?

TheJudge · « **Reply #121 on:** May 24, 2006, 07:58:57 AM »

By the way, I am glad we are all enjoying this conversation. It seems it's been a while since we've had a good debate around here.

Quote from: 12AX7

Quote from: TheJudge
Guns exist for one reason only: to blow shit up. To kill.

Wrong. There is also an entire industry out there for recreational target shooting. Chuckle if you must, but to completely ignore that is to be false about the entire issue.

That falls into the blowing shit up category. My brother in law is into clay shooting big time. I know there are sports out there and I don't ignore them. They usually use shotguns for these type of games. I have been hunting for over 15 years.

I think when it comes down to it, the real issue I have is with the gun culture Americans appear to share. You seem to think that having a hand gun in your house will provide you with protection. That seems to be a general consensus in the states. I don't think like that. I value all human life and I don't think I would be able to shoot someone who was robbing my house. You seem to think you can resolve anything with guns. I prefer to let the guy rob me because I don't want his blood on my conscience for the rest of my life. I pity the individual and I feel that if someone has to sink that low to survive, it's because of another problem which society can work on, like poverty and education.

I don't want to have to go through the whole legal process to prove that I acted in self defense. I don't want to risk having a dickweed judge who'll charge me for 3rd degree murder. What if the person you shot was someone you knew well? Do you want to live that experience? I'd rather just let the robber go on with his business, call the police, and deal with my insurance company later. That's why I have insurance. Americans on the other hand, and I'm generalizing here, seem to think it's better to shoot the guy if given the opportunity. That's the culture difference.

Quote from: Vespertine

The men who thought to include this right in the Bill of Rights had a very valid reason. They had just finished fighting for their freedom against what they considered to be a tyrranical government. They wanted to ensure that protections were in place so that the populace could do this again if need be.

If that was the primary reason they include this right in the Bill of Rights, then the bill of rights is obsolete. It no longer is a valid reason because it no longer represents the context in which it was written. I've said it before, the context has changed. Stop hiding behind a law that was created based on things that are no longer valid to maintain your gun culture. It wasn't intended for that.

Quote from: Vespertine

Judge, I don't quite understand why you're lumping handguns in with assault rifles.

Because, my dear, I view them as being more dangerous than other types of guns. Assault riffles for the number of rounds per minute they shoot out, and handguns for how easy they are to conceal and transport. These are the weapons criminals use the most. It is also because I don't agree that guns make people safer, and the statistic of gun related injuries and deaths in America prove it.

Odd_Bloke · « **Reply #122 on:** May 24, 2006, 09:20:16 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7

Sounds to me like intolerance. You dont smoke, apparently, so you feel smoking should be banned. You dont own a gun, (or have the right to own one) so you apparently feel no one else should, either. People with this mindset are more dangerous than the criminals here with guns.

I did mean that from a purely economic standpoint (and people with purely economic standpoints are exceedingly dangerous

) rather than from a humanitarian/rights PoV. Personally, I think smoking should be banned in all public places, as I suffer from (admittedly mild) asthma. Guns I'm less clear as to my actual opinion on.

Quote from: Vespertine

How on earth can you call the founding fathers misguided for wanting to ensure that the people of the nation they created had the ability to stand up to yet another tyrranical government?

OK, perhaps I overstated the point. When the Constitution was drawn up, if people were armed, they could defend themselves from the government's army. After all, they were on an even keel barring cannon (which most people could not afford/would not want but the government would have). However, this is now less relevant. Unless you intend to sell cruise missiles and helicopter gunships to Americans in general, the government's army will be able to beat them, regardless of how many modified AK47s they may own. Surely this means that this article of the Constitution is antiquated?

Cheers,
Dan

TheJudge · « **Reply #123 on:** May 24, 2006, 09:23:41 AM »

Quote from: Odd_Bloke

Personally, I think smoking should be banned in all public places

It is over here, and altough there was resistence at first, people wouldn't wat to go back to the way it was now.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #124 on:** May 24, 2006, 12:08:32 PM »

Quote from: Odd_Bloke

However, this is now less relevant. Unless you intend to sell cruise missiles and helicopter gunships to Americans in general, the government's army will be able to beat them, regardless of how many modified AK47s they may own. Surely this means that this article of the Constitution is antiquated?

Cheers,
Dan

How is this less relevant today? The insurgents in Iraq with their McGuyvered explosives are doing quite well against the "Coalition of the Willing's" modern weaponry. The Guerrillas in Vietnam had similar success.

For me gun control is a pretty much non-issue. I don't own one, never have, nor ever intend to. This is my personal choice. When it comes to others, I have no problem with them owning or not owning guns. It is their personal choice. Statistically my odds of being a victim of gun violence are still very low.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Gun Control (Read 33703 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7