• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

Ashles said:
Yes I think overdoses, deaths and injury to others (directly or due to, for example, driving under the influence) is less due to them being illegal than it would be if they were legal. Are you going to propose otherwise?
Click to expand...

Actually I was going to propose that the thing that has been banned for a while has more deaths then firearms which are not banned. For example, drug induced deaths outnumber deaths by firearms by about 8000 deaths:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death
 
Quad4_72 said:
I have many guns, one of them being an AK47. I am in the military, and it is my profession to be proficient with firearms. Why should I not have the right to own and practice with such weapons just because some nut wants to go on a shooting rampage?
Click to expand...

You should have that right. Though how would you feel if in order to practice with such weapons you *had* to go to a range to retrieve your weapons that were held in a locked safe at said range? Or you could hold such weapons yourself, being trained in their use via the military, but had to transport them to the range in a locked safe.

You'd still have the right to own and shoot such weapons, just not quite as freely as you have today.

What if gun ownership laws were tied to national service. Say for example joe public was permitted to own at most a small calibre, manual (i.e. not auto/semi) handgun for "self defence" or was permitted a low calibre rifle/shotgun if they were registed members of a shooting club, or needed the weapons for their work, say hunting.

If you wanted access to bigger and better weaponry an individual would have to serve in the military for a minimum of 2 years.

There are a plethora of options on gun laws available.

As gumboot has said more eloquently than I can. The ability to hold guns for self defence and the perceived need of the majority of the people in the US to have a gun for self defence is the fundamental difference between the gun control laws as they exist in the US and other countries.

The US has a unique gun culture, it also has some of the highest rates of violent crime, and gun death in the western world.
 
Ambrosia said:
You should have that right. Though how would you feel if in order to practice with such weapons you *had* to go to a range to retrieve your weapons that were held in a locked safe at said range? Or you could hold such weapons yourself, being trained in their use via the military, but had to transport them to the range in a locked safe.

You'd still have the right to own and shoot such weapons, just not quite as freely as you have today.
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting that this would stop a majority of gun violence? Seems to me that if someone wanted to commit a crime their weapon, they would just go sign their gun out from the range and then transport it to wherever they wanted to commit said crime.

What if gun ownership laws were tied to national service. Say for example joe public was permitted to own at most a small calibre, manual (i.e. not auto/semi) handgun for "self defence" or was permitted a low calibre rifle/shotgun if they were registed members of a shooting club, or needed the weapons for their work, say hunting.

If you wanted access to bigger and better weaponry an individual would have to serve in the military for a minimum of 2 years.

There are a plethora of options on gun laws available.

As gumboot has said more eloquently than I can. The ability to hold guns for self defence and the perceived need of the majority of the people in the US to have a gun for self defence is the fundamental difference between the gun control laws as they exist in the US and other countries.

The US has a unique gun culture, it also has some of the highest rates of violent crime, and gun death in the western world.
Click to expand...

See this is just where we will differ on opinions. I don't think a person should have to serve in the military before they are allowed access to a rifle, or have to be a registered member of a gun club.
 
Noztradamus said:
When Bible Believing Christians demand a say in how biology is taught in schools, a great many people ridicule them.

When it comes to guns, those same people feel free to demand the same say, with equal lack of knowledge, understanding, or thought.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that.

One side of this debate is not open to change, has a fixed position of belief from which modern events will not change them, likes to ignore any amount of evidence showing their position could do with review (choosing to re-interpret any data to bolster their position), and is pointing repeatedly to a document hundreds of years old which cannot be questioned.

Interesting...

Kevin, you miss this 14 guns stolen in naval base theft November 30th, 2012
Click to expand...

Is there a name for the logical fallacy of implying a new law should not be implemented because it might not be 100% followed (even if it might be an improvement on the current state of affairs)?

I'm sure the Bandidos, Comancheros, Four Aces, Gypsy Jokers, Muslims, and Rebels would be delighted to add gun ranges to the one stop shop list of military and police armouries.
Click to expand...

So no-one in America should be allowed guns because no-one, not even the police or military are in your opinion competent to guard them? Is that what you are saying?
 
Quad4_72 said:
Actually I was going to propose that the thing that has been banned for a while has more deaths then firearms which are not banned. For example, drug induced deaths outnumber deaths by firearms by about 8000 deaths:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that this is necessarily comparable, though. The mechanisms through which making drugs illegal makes them more dangerous are well understood. I can't think of a plausible scenario where the same is true for guns (people go to black market dealers who supply them with substandard guns that kill more people?) And, in fact, where the supply of guns has been massively reduced through bans (here and in Australia), it doesn't seem to have introduced an increase in deaths.
 
Dcdrac said:
They need to retricted ven more then and totally cut off from the civillian popuation.
Click to expand...

I have this to say: Good luck on getting semi-automatic weapons banned from civilian use in the USA. It would be like trying to ban abortion (as in utterly impossible).
 
Ambrosia said:
You should have that right. Though how would you feel if in order to practice with such weapons you *had* to go to a range to retrieve your weapons that were held in a locked safe at said range? Or you could hold such weapons yourself, being trained in their use via the military, but had to transport them to the range in a locked safe.

You'd still have the right to own and shoot such weapons, just not quite as freely as you have today.

What if gun ownership laws were tied to national service. Say for example joe public was permitted to own at most a small calibre, manual (i.e. not auto/semi) handgun for "self defence" or was permitted a low calibre rifle/shotgun if they were registed members of a shooting club, or needed the weapons for their work, say hunting.

If you wanted access to bigger and better weaponry an individual would have to serve in the military for a minimum of 2 years.

There are a plethora of options on gun laws available.

As gumboot has said more eloquently than I can. The ability to hold guns for self defence and the perceived need of the majority of the people in the US to have a gun for self defence is the fundamental difference between the gun control laws as they exist in the US and other countries.

The US has a unique gun culture, it also has some of the highest rates of violent crime, and gun death in the western world.
Click to expand...

I don't consider my guns as being for self defense. I don't keep them ready for that. I don't expect to use them for that. It's not why I own 2 rifles and 2 pistols.

There was no real opposition to this shooter until a police officer arrived. He could have had a single shot weapon. It's not like it takes long to reload one...especially if you are a crazed lunatic...
 
Why is it that citizens of the USA feel they need a firearm for protection, and not the citizens of every single other western country?
Click to expand...
Ziggurat said:
Because we think that citizens should be able to defend themselves without having to depend upon the state. This isn't simply a question of how effective personal defense is versus state protection, it's also a matter of principle. Do you surrender the ability to protect yourself to the state in the hope that the state will do a better job? How much personal responsibility are you willing to cede to the state? What will you let them keep you from doing? Your answers and my answers need not be the same. This idea that America has to come to the same conclusion as most other developed countries is rather peculiar. I would think one could see that having a variety approaches to the structure of society would provide benefits. It doesn't upset me that the rest of the world doesn't adopt the American model, why should it upset you that America doesn't adopt a European (for want of a better term) model?
Click to expand...
Also a good point.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Actually I was going to propose that the thing that has been banned for a while has more deaths then firearms which are not banned. For example, drug induced deaths outnumber deaths by firearms by about 8000 deaths:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death
Click to expand...

Oh well I guess that makes guns safe then.

I might go and have a look and see if anything turns out to be more dangerous than drugs, then I will have made drugs safe too.

Hardly anyone dies from anthax. I guess that means anyone should be allowed to produce anthrax spores.

:rolleyes:
 
Ambrosia said:
~~~
Say for example joe public was permitted to own at most a small calibre, manual (i.e. not auto/semi) handgun for "self defence" or was permitted a low calibre rifle/shotgun if they were registed members of a shooting club, or needed the weapons for their work, say hunting.
Click to expand...

Apart from unpermitting the most shotguns now in common use, just what do you consider a low calibre shotgun? Just .410? Or .410 and 28 guage? Or would you allow 20 guage as well? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Quad4_72 said:
So you are suggesting that this would stop a majority of gun violence? Seems to me that if someone wanted to commit a crime their weapon, they would just go sign their gun out from the range and then transport it to wherever they wanted to commit said crime.
Click to expand...

Which is a lot less convenient than getting your weapon out of it's box at home.

I'm not suggesting this would stop a majority of gun violence. I am saying it would slightly reduce gun violence. In this instance the person who acts on a spur of the moment thing might instead pick up a much less powerful weapon they had at home, or perhaps cool down a little en route to the range, or perhaps having the cops called as soon as they left the range with their illegally removed gun would make a difference.

It'd make little difference to a premeditated crime.

See this is just where we will differ on opinions. I don't think a person should have to serve in the military before they are allowed access to a rifle, or have to be a registered member of a gun club.
Click to expand...

Why not? I'm genuinely interested in why you might feel that way.
 
Come to think of it, I had a faulty M16 once in the Army. I had to qualify at a different post and couldn't use "my" rifle. The rifle I was issued to qualify with was defective. It would basically only operate as a single shot. It wouldn't feed or cycle properly most of the time.

I had no real trouble qualifying with it, despite the timed targets and having to baby the rifle.

At the halfway point, I was offered the chance to come back later with a different rifle, but it was hitting what I aimed at, so I declined.
 
Noztradamus said:
When Bible Believing Christians demand a say in how biology is taught in schools, a great many people ridicule them.

When it comes to guns, those same people feel free to demand the same say, with equal lack of knowledge, understanding, or thought.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what "demands" you're talking about here.

The fact that creationism isn't taught in many schools (and isn't officially taught in ANY public schools) suggests a small number of cranks are behind the biology demands.

I assume most of those cranks would also oppose additional restrictions on gun ownership, or even rolling back current restrictions. The fact that there is widespread opposition to additional restrictions on gun ownership suggests that the cranks in group 1 are likely only a tiny subset of group 2.

Can you clarify?
 
Ambrosia said:
Which is a lot less convenient than getting your weapon out of it's box at home.

I'm not suggesting this would stop a majority of gun violence. I am saying it would slightly reduce gun violence. In this instance the person who acts on a spur of the moment thing might instead pick up a much less powerful weapon they had at home, or perhaps cool down a little en route to the range, or perhaps having the cops called as soon as they left the range with their illegally removed gun would make a difference.

It'd make little difference to a premeditated crime.
Click to expand...

So with regards to the prevention of mass shootings, keeping the weapons at the gun range would basically have no impact.


Why not? I'm genuinely interested in why you might feel that way.
Click to expand...

I think everyone should have the right to a rifle (With the exception of felons, mentally disturbed, etc). A prime example would be hunters. Why should a hunter have to register his rifle at a gun club to go hunting?
 
Speaking of selective gun restrictions.

I was invited to go hunting with some guy I know in Sweden. I'm not a hunter, but I went along for the ride.
He showed me his, well, arsenal. Which he kept in a total of three gun safes.

I kid you not, this guy could start a friggin' revolution from his garage.
Shotguns, sniper rifles + scopes and 40 cal pistol.

But he can't keep them loaded and readily accessible in the house.

If his son had been a school shooter, the kid would have to get access to the safe.
Not full-proof, but at least a barrier.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
As someone who is very uncomfortable around guns I have to ask: since when are laws of societies based on what is necessary ?
Click to expand...
I would suggest that it would be better phrased as "a cost-benefit analysis seems to show that any necessity is outweighed". But that's just me.
 
Quad4_72 said:
You are right. Perhaps we should just make illegal and ban substances such as meth and cocaine. Do you think that will significantly cut down on overdoses and deaths from those substances?
Click to expand...
Sorry, this, just like the absurd comparison to auto deaths isn't even close to justification for dealing with guns.

If you want to make a valid comparison, identify the number of illegal drugs and cars used to murder others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom