Gun Control is ridiculous

[Lonewulf]

With a knife? Once guns are banned, knifes will be next.

In some states, knives over a certain size are regulated. I have a friend that always carries a knife with him wherever he goes, and he knows the laws for 'em in Illinois.

...I also know a guy that trains with knives in Wisconsin. He's an ex-policeman, but we haven't talked about the knife laws there.

Don't even think of California, though. I think that they've banned everything up to (and including) pie-throwing.

I lived in Korea, and they had some pretty harsh gun laws there too... couldn't even fire a bow, with the projectile weapons laws. But violence wasn't a big thing there (outside of the American soldiers stationed there, though crime was still EXTREMELY rare). However, this comes back to my point about cultural differences and cultural attitudes. Heck, Koreans are crazy! One woman woke up to a Korean burglar, an elderly gentleman, and you know what happened? He bowed to her while backing out the door, going, "Sorry! Sorry! Sorry!", and apologized to her. Then he left. I think she was too stunned to try to stop him...

 

[Azure]

It wouldn't eliminate it. It would reduce it.

Getting rid of private gun ownership altogether would reduce it even further.

Here, since you lack, well, everything, I'll point something out for you.

Private gun ownership is important in the US, because as a free society, the people should always have the power to bring down a corrupt government, if the need arises.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States

In other words, the 2nd amendment is not there because some gun-happy fool wants to carry around a concealed handgun, but it exists so that the power to take back the government is always within reach.

 

[rtalman]

No sale on the wild geese. If one or more of these rulings support Skibum's absurd claim, please quote the specific text.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales (which I cited previously), the Supreme Court of the United States, citing precedent in their own finding of law in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs. stated thus:

We held that the so-called “substantive” component of the Due Process Clause does not “requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.

”

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-278P.ZO page 6

 

[Lonewulf]

Private gun ownership is important in the US, because as a free society, the people should always have the power to bring down a corrupt government, if the need arises.

To be fair, I highly doubt that handguns would do a darn thing against a well-armed police or military force. Just try stopping a SWAT team with a 9mm, much less an Apache helicoptor or an urban combat vehicle. Plus, there's advanced training and tactics; just look at the casualty rates in Somalia, between the residents there and the armed personnel on the site. Far more of the Somalians died than the Delta or Rangers (I think it was, like, 100:1 ratio).

However, I translate that to also mean that you have the ability to defend yourself against group(s) that may want to do harm to you or your family, including through theft, attacks, rape, murder, etc. This includes gangs and the like.

 

[Loss Leader]

.Eliminate the suicides (which would happen regardless of whether or not the person had a gun), and then what do you have?

That statement ignores the very real fact that guns are very good at causing death. Assume that every single person who tried to commit suicide with a gun would attempt suicide another way if guns were not available. Do you really believe the rate of success would be anywhere near as high?

And then factor in how many people would refrain from suicide if the fast, convenient and far more certain avenue of a gun was unavailable to them.

Some cultures can have guns and not use them. For whatever reason, that is not true in the US. That being the case, the best way to prevent gun deaths is to prevent guns. It is an absolute good.

 

[Lonewulf]

That statement ignores the very real fact that guns are very good at causing death. Assume that every single person who tried to commit suicide with a gun would attempt suicide another way if guns were not available. Do you really believe the rate of success would be anywhere near as high?

Overdose, jumping off bridges, plunging knives your chest, hanging yourself, electrocute yourself...

Hell, overdoses are easy. You just need to get your hands on pills that you can kill yourself with.

But didn't try to think about that, did you? Just leapt to the conclusion that guns were the only viable way, didn't you?

And then factor in how many people would refrain from suicide if the fast, convenient and far more certain avenue of a gun was unavailable to them.

Jumping out in front of a semi seems pretty fast and convenient to me. I don't think that any real method of suicide is "fast and convenient", though. It sure takes a helluva lot just to think, "Okay, this is it, I'm gonna die".

Some cultures can have guns and not use them. For whatever reason, that is not true in the US. That being the case, the best way to prevent gun deaths is to prevent guns. It is an absolute good.

No it isn't, as has been described all throughout this thread. Explain to me how you will rip the guns ALREADY IN POSSESSION out of the hands of EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN? Because, if you don't do that, then not only have you made criminals out of the average citizen, but you've also kept guns in circulation while making it so that the law-abiding citizens do not have access.

Why you cannot see this, I do not know. You can take your "absolute good" (this sounds almost like a religious statement!) and take it elsewhere, because it is not an absolute good here.

 

[Quad4_72]

Well this thread has officially drained me. With over 500 posts in one day, Id say its time for a little break. I will check on it later.

In the mean time, I am going to go legally carry my handgun wherever I want

 

[Lonewulf]

Well this thread has officially drained me. With over 500 posts in one day, Id say its time for a little break. I will check on it later.

In the mean time, I am going to go legally carry my handgun wherever I want

Exercise those rights before someone takes them from ya!

 

[Loss Leader]

Because, if you don't do that, then not only have you made criminals out of the average citizen, but you've also kept guns in circulation while making it so that the law-abiding citizens do not have access.

You speak as though there is a class of people called "law-abiding citizens" and a class of people called "criminals." It doesn't work like that. The people in whose hands guns are most dangerous ARE the law-abiding citizens. Guns are used against family members, guns are used drunkenly and guns are used in anger. The average gun death is an act of passion. It is an act with little to no forethought. It is an accident. It is a heated exchange between people who know each other.

And about half of all gun deaths are suicides by "law-abiding citizens."

Guns turn "law-abiding citizens" into criminals. It gives the average person too much access to too much power. And the proof is in the papers every single day.

 

[Lonewulf]

You speak as though there is a class of people called "law-abiding citizens" and a class of people called "criminals." It doesn't work like that.

Actually, it does.

Criminal: Defined as breaking the law.

Law-Abiding Citizen: Does not break the law, as he abides by it.

Quid pro quo.

Now, I'll grant you that there's ways of turning someone into a criminal in ways that are wrong. (I.E., by making it illegal for them to possess the firearms that they have)

However, someone that kills someone else has commited a crime worthy of making them a criminal, whether it's a crime of passion or not. And you can bet that they would be just as likely to harm another without a gun as much as with.

The people in whose hands guns are most dangerous ARE the law-abiding citizens. Guns are used against family members, guns are used drunkenly and guns are used in anger. The average gun death is an act of passion. It is an act with little to no forethought. It is an accident. It is a heated exchange between people who know each other.

And many use axes, knives, and other objects to kill. That's not as mentioned. Why? Because it's not with a gun.

Fact: People are more likely to fall into a blind rage ("I see red") when using a knife than a gun.

And about half of all gun deaths are suicides by "law-abiding citizens."

And, as mentioned above (which you seem to have so conveniently ignored, as so many gun control advocates seem to do), there are other nifty ways to commit suicide.

Personally, I don't feel the urge to save everyone that wants to commit suicide, though. If they really want to die, then who am I to put a stop to it? I consider someone committing suicide to be "less than" someone raping or killing another person against their will.

Guns turn "law-abiding citizens" into criminals.

Or law abiding citizens become criminals through their actions, actions with which were not induced upon them by firearms. Guns are a tool, like anything else.

As mentioned before, there are societies where people have guns and gun crimes rates are pretty low. Therefore, guns do not create the criminals, criminals use the guns.

It gives the average person too much access to too much power.

Your definition of "too much power" does not fit mine. That is a matter of opinion, a subjective matter.

And the proof is in the papers every single day.

What proof? Seriously, what proof?

"In the papers"? Oh, yes, the lovely reporters! The guys that report gun deaths over axe or knife deaths all the time!

You'll have to do better than that if your only "proof" is to use the mass media.



Now, please, SOME gun control advocate answer this question:

HOW DO YOU REMOVE GUNS FROM AMERICA? EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM? IN WAYS THAT THEY WILL NOT FALL INTO THE HANDS OF STREET CRIMINALS?

Until you can answer that very very basic question, then you have no case.

 

[fuelair]

Guess I really don't get this mindset. You would take a human life for $200 worth of electronics?

Man, that's callous.

You are clearly incompetant at interpretation. If the person is not armed, I follow the law and harm him only to the necessary extent to hold him for the police. If he has a weapon, unless I am a class A moron, I must conclude he is ready and willing to use it - and most attacks of the theft type end with the victim injured or dead so, I pull and unless he drops his yes he dies (the odds that he will have a nastier bullet than I are vanishingly close to zero as my carry is Black Talons) if he drops his he stays where he is while I get to where my back is covered and call 911. He goes for me or his, his problem. It is not the 80 dollars for the phone, it's the threat he poses to me if he has a weapon. If he doesn't no dead, if he follows instructions no dead.

In all fairness though, if by callous you mean I have no problem with people who commit violent crimes - or crimes that might reasonably turn violent - being eliminated then yes I am callous. Thoroughly callous. Proudly callous. Happy to rid/help rid my little part of the world of a thing that lives on terrorizing others
callous. Why yes, yes I am.

 

[Lonewulf]

You are clearly incompetant at interpretation. If the person is not armed, I follow the law and harm him only to the necessary extent to hold him for the police. If he has a weapon, unless I am a class A moron, I must conclude he is ready and willing to use it - and most attacks of the theft type end with the victim injured or dead so, I pull and unless he drops his yes he dies (the odds that he will have a nastier bullet than I are vanishingly close to zero as my carry is Black Talons) if he drops his he stays where he is while I get to where my back is covered and call 911. He goes for me or his, his problem. It is not the 80 dollars for the phone, it's the threat he poses to me if he has a weapon. If he doesn't no dead, if he follows instructions no dead.

What do you mean???

If you have a gun, you must OBVIOUSLY want to shoot everybody with it!!! There is NO such thing as JUSt threatening with a gun!!!1

You evil evil evil vigilante gun using republican american gun-slinging cowboy

(...ramble continues on...)

...maniac!!!1 Getting rid of guns is the Absolute Good, as dictated by All that is Holy!

You should kill people in a more civilized way -- with knives!

 

[Azure]

You are clearly incompetant at interpretation. If the person is not armed, I follow the law and harm him only to the necessary extent to hold him for the police. If he has a weapon, unless I am a class A moron, I must conclude he is ready and willing to use it - and most attacks of the theft type end with the victim injured or dead so, I pull and unless he drops his yes he dies (the odds that he will have a nastier bullet than I are vanishingly close to zero as my carry is Black Talons) if he drops his he stays where he is while I get to where my back is covered and call 911. He goes for me or his, his problem. It is not the 80 dollars for the phone, it's the threat he poses to me if he has a weapon. If he doesn't no dead, if he follows instructions no dead.

In all fairness though, if by callous you mean I have no problem with people who commit violent crimes - or crimes that might reasonably turn violent - being eliminated then yes I am callous. Thoroughly callous. Proudly callous. Happy to rid/help rid my little part of the world of a thing that lives on terrorizing others
callous. Why yes, yes I am.

Woot, woot.

 

[The Fool]

You are clearly incompetant at interpretation. If the person is not armed, I follow the law and harm him only to the necessary extent to hold him for the police. If he has a weapon, unless I am a class A moron, I must conclude he is ready and willing to use it - and most attacks of the theft type end with the victim injured or dead so, I pull and unless he drops his yes he dies (the odds that he will have a nastier bullet than I are vanishingly close to zero as my carry is Black Talons) if he drops his he stays where he is while I get to where my back is covered and call 911. He goes for me or his, his problem. It is not the 80 dollars for the phone, it's the threat he poses to me if he has a weapon. If he doesn't no dead, if he follows instructions no dead.

In all fairness though, if by callous you mean I have no problem with people who commit violent crimes - or crimes that might reasonably turn violent - being eliminated then yes I am callous. Thoroughly callous. Proudly callous. Happy to rid/help rid my little part of the world of a thing that lives on terrorizing others
callous. Why yes, yes I am.

very calm and calculated post, I imagine you think thats how you would be if you were in a firefight. The only thing you left off is blowing the smoke from the barrel before you reholster.

"my carry is Black tallons" Lol.... Do you carry a gun for protection or that special feeling?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

27 pages in 2 days? That's why I avoid these discussions. Debating about it is a waste of time. CFLarsen has been against firearms from the start and 100 threads with hundreds of pages later and he still has the same belief. So debating it doesn't change the beliefs of those debating it. Nor does it change the belief of onlookers. There are no onlookers. Most people see these huge threads discussing these beaten and bruised topics and scroll right past them.

 

[Lonewulf]

very calm and calculated post, I imagine you think thats how you would be if you were in a firefight. The only thing you left off is blowing the smoke from the barrel before you reholster.

Very calm and calculated post. I imagine that's how you would be in every argument. Nice use of ad hominems.

"my carry is Black tallons" Lol.... Do you carry a gun for protection or that special feeling?

Question: If a 6'6" man came charging at you with intent to kill, would you want to shoot him with a round that wouldn't have any noticable effect as he beat your face in, or a round that would have a decent amount of stopping power?

Oh, wait! I forgot. That assumes that you actually have any knowledge on guns, instead of mouthing off on someone in ignorance. Please, continue. You're certainly showing why Gun Control is ridiculous.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Because as I said, if he's determined to kill, he's going to, and the only thing that will stop him is whatever means the would-be victim has of defending himself.

Sorry, but that is not true. If he does not have the ABILITY to kill while risking little physical harm, then that is clearly relevant to whether he wll kill or not.

What if the teacher had had a gun?

Lets see. armed nutter intending to carry out a massacre walks into a school where a class of children are being looked after by a teacher who has no reason to think this day is different to any other in her career. What do I think is going to happen? Well, me guess is he would have shot her first and then killed the 16 kids because he knows why he is there while she doesn't and therefore her gun would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

What do you think would have happened if Hamilton DID NOT have a gun?

 

[CFLarsen]

13 pages in a day and a half. Pretty good for a gun control thread. I think it almost lives up to the gun control threads of yore. Don't you think, Claus? Nice to see the newer generations are still full of spunk.

Carry on.

Full of spunk, but also full of baloney. Apart from luchog's claim of 8 million annual defensive gun uses, I have yet to see a new argument or claim from any of the gun proponents here.

For some reason, it doesn't register that criminals are law-abiding citizens gone bad. Anyone can become a criminal, but, strangely enough, it will not happen to gun proponents. No, they have "training", so we can trust them. The others, who are so untrustworthy that gun proponents want to have guns? Well, here's a gun, if you feel unsafe.

But gun proponents don't feel they live a safe life, quite contrary. What I have seen are the usual arguments based on deeply rooted fear and paranoia. And those are the ones we should trust with guns?

I have to admit, though, that it is quite baffling to see someone use pre-gunban news stories as an argument for how bad it will be once guns are banned.

Such is the quality of gun proponent argumentation.

 

[Darat]

All of those happened BEFORE GUNS WERE BANNED. For pity's sake!

Just as an point of information (I often trot this out in gun control threads).

The change to the law in England & Wales in 1997 removed in the region of 50,000 handguns from the homes of the general public. The total number of legally owned firearms in the UK was just over 3 million prior to the 1997 act and was still just over 3 million after the act.

In the UK you have not been legally able to carry a firearm on your person in public nor have a loaded gun in your bedside cabinet since the late 1930s

The last UK handgun legislation only affected people who owned handguns as a hobby not people who had guns for "personal protection". (The act itself was simply a knee-jerk reactionary piece of legislation egged on by a massive media campaign.)

 

[Darat]

27 pages in 2 days? That's why I avoid these discussions. Debating about it is a waste of time. CFLarsen has been against firearms from the start and 100 threads with hundreds of pages later and he still has the same belief. So debating it doesn't change the beliefs of those debating it. Nor does it change the belief of onlookers. There are no onlookers. Most people see these huge threads discussing these beaten and bruised topics and scroll right past them.

Not true - debating in "gun control" threads on this Forum changed my mind regarding guns and gun control.