Gun Control is ridiculous

[Alt+F4]

Alright so don't become that person. I never said grab a gun every time you hear a noise. Just be prepared thats all.

I teach high school. I'm always prepared.

 

[Quad4_72]

I teach high school. I'm always prepared.

Haha. Alright. I will tell ya what though. Even if you are apposed to guns, if I see someone robbing and trying to kill you, I will go ahead and put a couple of rounds in them. Deal?

 

[fuelair]

I take it you think this is acceptable?

If so, where do you draw the line? Would 8,000 make you reconsider?

Compare cars, prescription meds, boats, household chemicals, get back to me - your argument.

 

[Azure]

It's a verifiable claim.

You don't have any evidence, then? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up any of your contentions?

If you're going to demand evidence for something that simple to figure out, I suggest you find a new line of work.

 

[Alt+F4]

Haha. Alright. I will tell ya what though. Even if you are apposed to guns, if I see someone robbing and trying to kill you, I will go ahead and put a couple of rounds in them. Deal?

Thank you dear!

 

[Ranb]

What about the killings that result from someone using a "household gun"?

Will "education" prevent those?

Since some gun deaths in the home are accidental, education can help. Why is this not obvious to you?

Ranb

This is a repeat of what I asked in post #27, care to answer?

 

[luchog]

Seriously, is there some new argument about guns and gun control that hasn't been discussed in the threads here?

Because, remember, Claus is not only the world expert on firearms and firearm laws, but is the sole arbiter of appropriate and worthwhile discussion for the forum.

 

[luchog]

Good point. People being more educated about guns I think would be a very big step in preventing accidents. Many times, the head of the household will purchase a gun and either not know enough about it himself, or fail to teach his/her family members about it. Hence, the accidents.

I would certainly not object to a "firearm license" something along the lines of a "drivers license", which would require a demonstration of reasonable knowledge of firearm safety and local regulations; and perhaps a background check. This could replace the current CPL, waiting period, and individual background checks for firearm purchases.

 

[Azure]

I would certainly not object to a "firearm license" something along the lines of a "drivers license", which would require a demonstration of reasonable knowledge of firearm safety and local regulations; and perhaps a background check. This could replace the current CPL, waiting period, and individual background checks for firearm purchases.

Bingo.

I agree 100%.

Sadly, gun control seems like a more viable option to politicians these days. We don't want to advocate more people getting guns, or firearms training, do we?

 

[Skibum]

We don't want to advocate more people getting guns, or firearms training, do we?

Heck no, It's much easier to keep an armed population in check if they don't know how to use their weapons.

 

[Azure]

Heck no, It's much easier to keep an armed population in check if they don't know how to use their weapons.

Spoken like a true believer...

 

[Ranb]

Mandatory firearms safety training in school would be a good idea. But some people would object to it just like they do sex education.

Ranb

 

[luchog]

What about the killings that result from someone using a "household gun"?

Will "education" prevent those?

Do you have hardcore data to back up your contentions or merely opinion?

Since you're so keen on questioning everyone else, and demanding that people don't bring up points that have already been answered, how about some old questions on the subject that you've never bothered to answer.

How are automatic firearms, with a straight-line effect zone capable of the exact same sort of indiscriminate damage explosives with an areaeffect zone, regardless of the skill of the operator?

How can the physical size of a bullet be the sole deciding factor in it's lethality, despite substantial medical evidence to the contrary?

And since I know you'll deny every having been asked or having avoided answering these questions, here's a collection of all of them, with links to the relevant posts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1284748#post1284748

Quite disingenuous of your to complain about rehasing old debates, since you never actually contributed anything of substance to any of them.

 

[volatile]

Speaking as a Brit, I have to say I'd definitely feel safer if all those burglars, rapists and muggers that we already have had easy, unfettered access to firearms, and if those morons who pile out of bars and clubs onto the streets on Saturday nights at 3am looking for a fight were allowed to carry concealed handguns.

It's obvious, you see, that the easy availability of high-powered, ballistic weaponry to anyone who wants one makes the world a much safer place.

 

[luchog]

I've never considered protection to be my job. That's the responsibility of law enforcement (and the military).

Not in the USA. In the US, law enforcement has no obligation to protect you. That fact has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

And even if it was, do you believe that your law enforcement and military are omniscient and omnipotent? Because unless they are, then there is the possibility, indeed, a strong likelihood, that you will encounter a situation where you are in need of protection, but there is no one else available to protect you and your forced to protect yourself. Saying it will never happen is nothing more than wishful thinking and complete ignorance of the world around you.

 

[luchog]

The point of that line is that if criminals don't expect people to have guns in their homes, they won't:

1) break in looking for guns
2) bring a gun to shoot back

Firearms are prohibited in New York City and Washington DC. No law-abiding citizen owns a firearm. So you're claiming that criminals never break into homes in either of those cities? You're claiming that criminals never kill anyone in those cities?

 

[luchog]

That is indeed one option. However, as it has been proven again and again that if approached by armed criminals the best option is to surrender, your suggestion is always going to come off second best.

That's why firearms are used an estimated 8 million times a year to prevent crimes. Because all those firearm holders simply dropped their firearms and surrendered, and the criminals got embarrased and walked away.

 

[Malachi151]

To a certain extent, gun control laws are absolutely ridiuclous. Businesses will post signs outside saying no firearms allowed. Do they honestly think that is going to stop a criminal from coming into their business and stealing/shooting people? All that does is prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

The Dems love their gun control laws but yet they do not seem to have effected anything. Waiting periods are imposed and there are background checks, but a criminal can get a gun on the street just as easy. It seems that all gun control laws do is prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves. Now I do agree with some of the laws, but a good majority of them are useless.

This may be a little bit old and somewhat biased, but some very good points are brought up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

So you are saying that private property owners don't have the right to oppose firearms on their property?

The funny thing is that I recall that even town in the American "wild west" had gun control laws. In many cases you had to check your guns when you came into town.

But, apparently you want to take away property owners rights here it seems.

But, what constitutes a "gun"?

Technology is progressing. In a few years people will have access to technology such that one person with a small hand held device may be able to walk into a place and instantly kill hundreds of people without harming himself.

Should these devices be allowed?

Can I own a nuclear weapon? Why not?

Why does America have orders of magnitude higher homicide rates than the rest of the developed world, because we don't have enough guns?

What happens when we develop phaser technology such that a person with a wrist watch type device can kill hundreds with the press of a button, shall we arm everyone to the teeth with such technology?

So, what I get from this whole thread is:

#1 Property owners should have no rights to regulate their private property

#2 Criminals will always use weapon anyway, so we shouldn't regulate weapons at all, lest we harm the non-criminals

#3 The empirical data showing reduced crime and reduced murder rates in countries that regulate guns more heavily is ignored here by supposedly empirical people

#4 People here would like Cuba, where all children get firearms training with automatic weapons in school

 

[luchog]

And I'll be damned if I am going to let that remote possibility rule my life.

So, because of your morbid fear of appearing to have fear rule your life, you'll refuse to take simple, convenient, and unobtrusive precautions against the possibility.

Excuse me if this sounds flippant, but it sounds like you have been in some bad neighbourhoods. I think it is safe to say that your experience is quite different from mine.

You have no idea what kind of neighborhood he was in. This sounds like an unwarranted assumption made in order to preserve your own viewpoint.

I have a friend who lives in one of the best neighborhoods in town, in a city with one of the lowst crime rates in the nation. His house has been broken into twice.

Another friend was waiting for the bus in another one of the more affulent neighborhoods, when he was attacked by two knife-wielding black street thugs. He always carries a firearm, and simply having it in his hand was enough to drive them off. No shots were fired, and he escaped uninjured.

Two aquaintances, one very much anti-gun as you are, were leaving a nightclub on the edge of the financial district, and were attacked and severely beaten by a group of drunks from a nearby upscale sports bar.

A classmate in college, environmentalist and seriously anti-gun, was at a protest in a small rurall town when he and his group were attacked by a bunch of rednecks armed with tire-irons and lengths of chain (from nearby logging trucks). There were some minor injuries before one of the protestors pulled a pistol and convinced the rednecks to leave. I don't recall if there were shots fired. My classmate stated that he was seriously reconsidering his views on firearms after that.

I've been accosted and harrased in several parts of town, because I'm openly transgendered. This has happened just as often in the upscale parts of town as in any other.

 

[shanek]

As CFLarsen has already begun to do, at some point those who want to continue arguing in favor of firearms ownership need to address the line of diminishing value.

Are 802 accidental deaths acceptable? If so, then what number is no longer acceptable?

Well, along with that you also need to consider the deaths that would be added on without gun control. The video in the OP said that guns are used 2-3x as much to protect as they are to kill. How many of those would result in deaths if the person didn't have a gun? I have a feeling it's a lot more than 802.

I think that's what you were getting to with your ratios, but I just wanted to make sure the point was made.