Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,354
Yes. I never said they couldn't. But why should other people be punished for some idiots actions? And how do you know that the guy was law abiding? Do you know the specific story?
Gun Control is ridiculous
- Thread starter Quad4_72
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun control
Yes. I never said they couldn't. But why should other people be punished for some idiots actions? And how do you know that the guy was law abiding? Do you know the specific story?
Ay, there's the rub.
A law-abiding citizen is only "safe" with a gun as long as he obeys the law.
It isn't about this story in particular.
How will you prevent law-abiding citizens from going bad?
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,354
I see. So taking guns away prevents a law abiding citizen from going bad?
It will prevent them from going bad with guns.
How will you prevent law-abiding citizens from going bad?
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
Why wouldn't he? Not all burglars are convicted felons? Not everyone every burglar knows is a convicted felon.
And legal access to guns to the general populous means more guns in circulation for everyone. Hell, what's to stop a burglar burgling your weapons cabinet while you're out?
The title of this thread is "Gun Control is Ridiculous". What I and others have been trying to demonstrate is that the converse is true. More guns do not make you safer, and indeed might even make you less safe (as an individual, and as a nation).
We're not saying gun control is perfect. We're not saying that making guns illegal will make them disappear. Far from it. But this is a question of, and a thread about, legislation, and whether should the government push towards "no guns" or "everyone has guns". Seeing as the US experience and the logical position that guns are in and of themselves dangerous seems to suggest that the "lots of guns" direction does not reduce crime or lead to safer persons. Thus, it seems churlish to suggest that we push things more towards liberalisation, as countries with fewer guns tend to have lower rates of murder (and other crimes generally).
Of course bad people will have guns. But good people will be less able to go bad with guns. Would the Columbine Massacre have happened if the TCM didn't have very easy access to firearms? If they'd taken on the school with knives, would they have killed so many people.
Those kids were law-abiding up to the moment they opened fire. Legal gun ownership, paperwork and bureaucracy does nothing to prevent legal gun owners or legal gun owners' guns from killing people.
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Replace 'gun' with X in your statement:
A law-abiding citizen is only "safe" with a
X as long as (s)he obeys the law.Can you give me an example of X for which that statement would not be true?
Are you suggesting that laws, and governance of people, should be built around the idea that every person is a criminal that just hasn't committed a crime yet?
Are you suggesting, for certain values of X, that the probability of a law-abiding citizen becoming a criminal increases? If so, how do we calculate the probability, and what is the cut-off point for which access to X should be restricted because the probability is too high?
Replace 'gun' with X in your statement:
A law-abiding citizen is only "safe" with a
Can you give me an example of X for which that statement would not be true?
Are you suggesting that laws, and governance of people, should be built around the idea that every person is a criminal that just hasn't committed a crime yet?
Are you suggesting, for certain values of X, that the probability of a law-abiding citizen becoming a criminal increases? If so, how do we calculate the probability, and what is the cut-off point for which access to X should be restricted because the probability is too high?
I am pointing out that a law-abiding citizen with a gun is potentially far more dangerous than a law-abiding citizen without a gun.
The issue is how dangerous X is, and what it is built for. Guns are very good at killing and harming people - nobody denies this, especially those who want them for "self-protection". But that's exactly what makes them so dangerous.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
Replace 'gun' with X in your statement:
A law-abiding citizen is only "safe" with a
Can you give me an example of X for which that statement would not be true?
Are you suggesting that laws, and governance of people, should be built around the idea that every person is a criminal that just hasn't committed a crime yet?
Are you suggesting, for certain values of X, that the probability of a law-abiding citizen becoming a criminal increases? If so, how do we calculate the probability, and what is the cut-off point for which access to X should be restricted because the probability is too high?
That's a silly argument, principally because of the property of guns that they are expressly designed to kill or maim. In the UK, long knives carried in public, flick knives, butterfly knives, hand grenades, explosives, nunchucks, samurai swords and other things expressly only designed to kill or maim are also banned. Things with legitimate uses, like shotguns, are regulated and controlled.
In your opinion, should any private citizen be allowed to own a hand grenade so long as they sign a piece of paper promising never to throw it anyone?
No, it's the subjective opinion of a bunch of people.
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,354
My main problem is my right to carry a weapon being taken away from me. We cannot stop all citizens from going bad. If someone goes bad, there are PLENTY of bad things they can do without guns. But taking away my right to defend myself against any sort of threat is wrong. I am more then sufficiently trained, level headed, know how to respond in combat situations, and never broken a law before. To take away my right because some people are not educated enough or not responsible enough with guns is ridiculous.
How does a shotgun have a legitimate use? You can blast someone in half with the right ammo.
Well, in the video in the OP, they say that armed citizens stop 2-3x the amount of crimes that actually occur. Let's go with the low end, 2x. That means that, with gun ownership, if that same stat were to apply in England, then they could potentially prevent 356 of those 713 murders (assuming that the current number of crimes prevented by armed citizens is currently 0). 356 is quite a bit more than 50.
Bolding is mine.
That said, what are the legitimate uses of shotguns that differentiates them from the legitimate uses of handguns or hunting rifles?
I don't have the time recently to post much, but I wanted to respond to this. I will preface by saying that I disagree with you position, volatile, but I appreciate the thought in your posts, particularly this one (#306) and the one previous to this.
That said, what are the legitimate uses of shotguns that differentiates them from the legitimate uses of handguns or hunting rifles?
I guess we won't know till we make a time machine and hand all 713 murder victims a gun.
The question is not his motivations for breaking in originally. The question is, what's he going to do when he's spotted? Yes, most likely he'll run off, but what if he doesn't? What are you going to do then?
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
That's a hugely paranoid position, Quad.
And it ignores the fact that even most crazy-people don't start of crazy. It ignores the fact that the more guns that are available, the more likely you are to be shot. It ignores the fact that the bad things people might do will be generally less bad if they haven't got a gun. It ignores the fact that carrying a gun around with you turns any relatively minor crime you might suffer (mugging, for example) into a major incident. It ignores the fact that the more that the lawful citizens carry guns, the more the criminals do.
Oh, and what bad things justify an armed response? Would you shoot dead a vandal? A mugger? A burglar? What price death?
Lothian
should be banned
Good start for who ?
Yes education would lower the gun death rates but the costs would be excessive. Even then the best education would be do not carry a gun.
These sceanarios do not help. I can give you one where you would not want to be in possession of a gun. We are talking about life here and a way of living. It is not just a case of a gun springing into existance when you need it. If the threat is as you say it is we need to carry a gun at all times. Not only that we need it cocked ready in our hand at all times to ensure we get the first shot. If a gas canister was thrown at you by a criminal who would then kill your wife and rape your children while you were incapacitated would you want to have a gas mask. So why do you not carry one ?
I note that in all these scceanarios the person with the gun comes out on top. In the film the baddies miss with 6 shots and the good guy hits with one. I don't think life is like that.
So you get up to go to the toilet at night and when you open the door there is a burgler with a gun pointed at you. Do you think that seeing a gun in your hand he will wait for the warning shot ?
That is not the life I want.
That's a political issue.
Any sort of threat? Do you really think your gun will avert all threats?
Other people with your background have broken the law, using their gun to create havoc. Why should I trust you?
Actually, hot burglaries are much more common in the UK than the US. The US has more cold burglaries. This would mean that people in the UK would be in greater physical harm from burglaries than in the US; they can't harm you if you ain't there.