Gun Control is ridiculous

[Quad4_72]

Bolding is mine:Quad, I know I owe you a source regarding concealed carry criminal history in Kentucky, but I'm going to pretend I have forgotten that for now.

And I hate playing devil's advocate when the one I'm countering is one whose views are close to mine, but our arguments don't get stronger if we ignore their flaws. So here goes:

Having a gun may not, as you say, make a good person go bad. But having the alternative of pulling a firearm may make it less likely that a lesser alternative is tried.

I won't claim any studies on this, but anecdotally through years of experience in both the military and in the civilian security profession, I can tell you that the individual dealing with an angry person is far more likely to keep trying to talk that person down when they don't think they have another choice. The moment you tell a security officer that he's got four buddies outside the room ready to help restrain the shouting psychiatric patient is the moment you more than double the likelihood that restraints will be used.

While this is true, I would love to see a statistic that shows how people who are law-abiding citizens who have gotten into arguments have resulted to homocide to solve their differences. I have a feeling that this statistic would be low, but I need a source.

 

[CFLarsen]

It does highlight the ease of obtaining guns illegally.

It doesn't matter if guns are obtained legally or illegally. It highlights the fact that if you want a gun, you will get it. There are so many guns in the US, and so many people willing to provide guns for whoever wants them.

As always, we end up with the gun itself being the problem.

 

[Ranb]

I don't think handguns are particularly effective for that purpose, are they? Handguns have no useful purpose other than killing and wounding at short range. Shotguns have very limited but (marginally) justifiable uses, but even their acquisition is massively controlled (returning to the title of the thread, again).

As someone who owns/shoots hunting handguns effective out to 200 meters, I think this is a very ignorant statement.

Shotguns are suitable for more types of game than any other long gun made. With a smooth bore barrel and shotshells, they are good for flying birds. With a rifled bore and slugs, they are effective on large game out to about 100 meters. Buckshot is good for small game.

Education is a wonderful thing. You have lots to learn about firearms in general before saying "no useful purpose other than killing and wounding at short range."

Ranb

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

According to Wikipedia, they were obtained through a "straw purchase", meaning they were bought by a licensed gun owner from a licensed gun shop. The guns were legal, Shane. Those boys weren't the legal owners, but the guns were bought and registered within the confines of the law. Until they picked up the guns to use them, until Robyn Anderson gave them the weapons, the weapons were legal.

No, that they had purchased them through illegal means and had them in their possession means they were already breaking the law. The person that sold them the firearms also broke the law.

So to prevent future massacres in the future, do we control guns, thus making legal and black-market ones rarer and harder to get, or just make it easier for people to get legal ones?

This is begging the question. Unlike the UK, the US has massive borders which it has to attempt to regulate to prevent smuggling in to the country.

What would have prevented Columbine - More gun control, or less?

False choice fallacy; it is possible that neither would have been able to prevent it.

 

[shanek]

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.

Actually, it's a lot closer to that than you might think. It's something that police call "spray and pray." It's the tendency to panic and send a whole bunch of bullets flying at your target.

If you take a hands-on gun safety course at a shooting range, one thing they'll probably tell you to do is to take a whole clip and shoot the target as quickly as you can. Very few people will hit the target even once. Then they'll give you just a single bullet, and tell you just to aim and fire. Almost everybody hits the target then. So if the bad guy is in a state of panic and the good guy has his wits about him, it can easily happen exactly like that.

I once heard a story (probably apocryphal, but it could happen) about a burglar exiting a bank or something and encountering a police officer who was just happening buy. They both went for their guns and started shooting each other, then they both stopped, both reloaded... That's "spray and pray" in action.

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.

No one is saying guns are effective in 100% of all possible scenarios.

That is not the life I want.

Fine, just don't force everyone else to live that same life when they don't want to.

 

[Quad4_72]

Take that to your congressman.

Ok I will see what I can do.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you gun will avert all threats.

You serious? No, a gun is not going to help me avoid getting hit by a drunk driver crossing the street. What's your point?

Answer the question: Why should I trust you?

You're the one with the gun. Why should I trust you?

I gave you my background. You claimed that you still did not trust me. What else would you like from me? Are you now claiming that no one can be trusted with guns and they should all be taken away? Thats quite the claim there. You know, I could give you some stats where innocent people have been shot by accident by law enforcement. Should we take their guns away too?

 

[Garrette]

While this is true, I would love to see a statistic that shows how people who are law-abiding citizens who have gotten into arguments have resulted to homocide to solve their differences. I have a feeling that this statistic would be low, but I need a source.

Sources I don't have. Anecdotes I do. My wife's family used to own land around Hodgenville. Quite a few hillbilly types not averse to stopping an argument with a bullet. It's one of the places I nearly always carried, and on one occasion in particular I'm damned glad I did.

 

[Garrette]

As someone who owns/shoots hunting handguns effective out to 200 meters, I think this is a very ignorant statement.

Thanks, Ranb. Now volatile will know I wasn't speaking out of my @ss when I mentioned knowing folks who hunt with handguns.

 

[volatile]

Not just farmers. Subsistence hunting is widespread in the US, though I'm using "subsistence" in a very broad sense in that most such hunters are not on the verge of starvation without the hunt.

I was talking about the UK. But if you need a rifle or shotgun to eat, then you'd better have a damn good case. As far as I'm aware, though, the gun lobby in the States seems more about protection and the maintenance of a citizen militia than a few people hunting for food. Do I have a problem with people hunting animals? Yes, but its not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Marginalisation may make a position harder to argue but does not make it less valid. Of course, it doesn't make it more valid, either.

Of course. I just don't want to derail the thread, as my eating habits aren't relevant to the matter in hand. I accept that most people (even here) are probably OK with farmers killing pheasants. Shotguns, by that definition, have a "legitimate" usage, but that doesn't mean I want them on sale in Tescos.

It depends. I have one relative and a few friends who hunt deer with high-powered handguns. Successfully. But in the sense of full disclosure, it is because they had the handguns first for other reasons and didn't want to spend the money on rifles.

Does anyone buy a handgun for anything other than "protection" or sport target shooting?

Setting aside target practice, okay. Are you suggesting that there is no instance in which such a purpose is justified?

Summary execution of another human being by a private individual? Never justified. Of course, there are hundreds of hypothetical situations in which this belief might be tested in philosophically interesting ways, but I don't think that's what you were getting at.

As a broad statement of principal, it is never acceptable for one human being to shoot another one dead, or to attempt to do so.

If you're supporting regulation and control, that's an entirely different issue from a general ban.

The thread title says "Gun control is ridiculous". I support an outright ban, but that is the end point of an argument which proposes tighter controls over laxer ones.

 

[Quad4_72]

Why does it seem almost every GC freak I have talked to has never shot a gun or has barely ANY knowledge about them?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
That's not what I asked. I asked if you gun will avert all threats.
<snip>

Then what you are asking is a red herring. Quad made no such claim, and for you to keep harping on your question does nothing to address the claim that Quad did make.

It doesn't matter if guns are obtained legally or illegally. It highlights the fact that if you want a gun, you will get it. There are so many guns in the US, and so many people willing to provide guns for whoever wants them.

As always, we end up with the gun itself being the problem.

It very much matters how it was obtained. Your entire argument here appears to be making the assumption that the supply of illegal firearms is supplied, in the majority, internal to the US and that the supply will dry up if they are not available within the US.
Take a look at crystal meth. In the US it is a major problem. A number of years ago law enforcement agencies made a major push to shut down meth labs in the US, the majority of which were "mom and pop" type operations. They succeeded in doing so. However, in doing so, the Mexican drug cartels saw a supply vacuum and began producing it. Now, in the US, we have higher grade crystal meth on the streets, as or more prevelant than before, and it's being distributed along preexisting drug running supply lines.

 

[Garrette]

Actually, it's a lot closer to that than you might think. It's something that police call "spray and pray." It's the tendency to panic and send a whole bunch of bullets flying at your target.

Another source I'll have to dig up that buttresses this. A long ago study about the average distance of police gun battles, average length of the battle, average rounds expended and average casualties. From very faulty memory: 10 feet. 5 seconds. 12 rounds. 0 casualties.

 

[CFLarsen]

While this is true, I would love to see a statistic that shows how people who are law-abiding citizens who have gotten into arguments have resulted to homocide to solve their differences. I have a feeling that this statistic would be low, but I need a source.

How about reading the source I already gave in post #214?

Of the victims of firearm homicide included in the Supplementary Homicide Reports from 1993 through 1997 -

• 28% were killed because of an argument
• 19% were killed during the commission of another crime, including 11% during a robbery and 7% during a drug law violation
• 7% died as a result of a juvenile gang killing.

Source

Read the sources that are provided for you, instead of going off - pun intended - half-cocked.

 

[Thanz]

Are you aware of what types of weapons in reference to guns cause the most deaths? Which do you think it is...assualt rifles or handguns? Handguns are WAY more restricted for a reason. The can be concealed very easily. Rarely do you see places being robbed with AKs...The reason I have an AK-47 is because it is a blast to shoot.

I am not sure of the point of your post. I suppose we could quibble about what list certain weapons should be on. I would agree with you that handguns should be regulated more than, for instance, a .22 rifle. But I think that you would agree with me that a concealable machine gun or machine pistol capable of fully automatic fire should be restricted more than either.

I will say, however, that one of the reasons that I would not find persuasive in moving a weapon from a more restrictive list to a less restrictive list is "it is a blast to shoot". Well, take it to the range and leave it there under lock and key. Have a blast whenever you like.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Does anyone buy a handgun for anything other than "protection" or sport target shooting?
<snip>

Actually, yes. Handgun hunting of deer, bear, and wild boar (javalina); as well as backup protection for people hunting things like moose, and elk that are in bear and cougar country.

 

[Quad4_72]

As a broad statement of principal, it is never acceptable for one human being to shoot another one dead, or to attempt to do so.

So if I come in contact with a criminal who has broken into my home and is trying to kill me with a knife/any other weapon, am I supposed to keep in mind that I am not ever justified in killing someone? Try telling that to the guy attacking you, see if it works.

The thread title says "Gun control is ridiculous". I support an outright ban, but that is the end point of an argument which proposes tighter controls over laxer ones.

An outright ban huh? You realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep criminals from getting their hands on guns in the US correct? Taking away legal possession of a firearm just says, "Alright criminals, feel free to have complete control over every single citizen out there. Nobody is going to be able to stop you."

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How about reading the source I already gave in post #214?



Read the sources that are provided for you, instead of going off - pun intended - half-cocked.

Your source answers the question, "How many firearm deaths were the result of arguements?" It does not answer the question, "how people who are law-abiding citizens who have gotten into arguments have resulted to homocide to solve their differences?".

 

[CFLarsen]

Then what you are asking is a red herring. Quad made no such claim, and for you to keep harping on your question does nothing to address the claim that Quad did make.

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.
...
A threat against my life or others a gun will indeed come in handy.

Any sort of threat.

It very much matters how it was obtained. Your entire argument here appears to be making the assumption that the supply of illegal firearms is supplied, in the majority, internal to the US and that the supply will dry up if they are not available within the US.
Take a look at crystal meth. In the US it is a major problem. A number of years ago law enforcement agencies made a major push to shut down meth labs in the US, the majority of which were "mom and pop" type operations. They succeeded in doing so. However, in doing so, the Mexican drug cartels saw a supply vacuum and began producing it. Now, in the US, we have higher grade crystal meth on the streets, as or more prevelant than before, and it's being distributed along preexisting drug running supply lines.

Producing a lot of crystal meth is far easier than producing a lot of guns.

Because of the verified training and background check.

Why should I find that convincing?

Other people have driven drunk and killed people. Why should I trust the next one who wants a license?

Been there, done that to death. Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.

 

[Garrette]

I was talking about the UK. But if you need a rifle or shotgun to eat, then you'd better have a damn good case.

Since hunting rifles are very lightly regulated, I don't have a practical argument with you, but if they were I suspect we would disagree as to what constitutes a "damn good case."

As far as I'm aware, though, the gun lobby in the States seems more about protection and the maintenance of a citizen militia than a few people hunting for food. Do I have a problem with people hunting animals? Yes, but its not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Agreed on all points.

I accept that most people (even here) are probably OK with farmers killing pheasants. Shotguns, by that definition, have a "legitimate" usage, but that doesn't mean I want them on sale in Tescos.

So it's regulation and control as opposed to outright banning.

Does anyone buy a handgun for anything other than "protection" or sport target shooting?

See Ranb's post. Some buy them for hunting. My friends bought them for both protection and target shooting and used them incidentally for hunting.

Summary execution of another human being by a private individual? Never justified. Of course, there are hundreds of hypothetical situations in which this belief might be tested in philosophically interesting ways, but I don't think that's what you were getting at.

As a broad statement of principal, it is never acceptable for one human being to shoot another one dead, or to attempt to do so.

We have a fundamentally different take. I do not see it as so far-fetched, or simply as a philosophical exercise, to conceive of a circumstance in which taking a human life would be justified. I mentioned earlier in this thread I have been in three cirumstances (outside a combat zone) where I wanted a firearm. I now remember a fourth. In two of those I actually had the firearm. In one of those I was only "one wrong move, buddy" away from taking a life.

The thread title says "Gun control is ridiculous". I support an outright ban, but that is the end point of an argument which proposes tighter controls over laxer ones.

Then I misunderstood earlier about the shotguns.

 

[Ranb]

Does anyone buy a handgun for anything other than "protection" or sport target shooting?

Yes, they are bought and used for hunting, even though you appear to think that "Handguns have no useful purpose other than killing and wounding at short range."

Ranb