Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 8:50 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, edge, Faith (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,666 Year: 6,703/19,786 Month: 1,244/1,581 Week: 66/393 Day: 49/17 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1323 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 16 of 218 (550423)
03-15-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wounded King
03-15-2010 1:10 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
The usual counterargument is to point to Switzerland where almost every man has an assault rifle at home and who are #56 on that list. I'm not saying that the trend you note doesn't exist, just that you need to look at more than a handful of data points to discern it and there are outliers which are frequently used to raise doubt about the trend.

If you look at murders with firearms however you find that Switzerland has a count about 4 times higher than the UK although their population is only about 12% that of the uk.

Not to mention the fact that handguns are significantly different from rifles. In the US, the vast majority of deaths from firearms come from handguns, with rifles and shotguns making up a rather small percentage. It's just easier to use a handgun for the commission of a crime than a rifle or shotgun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2010 1:10 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1323 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 17 of 218 (550430)
03-15-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
03-15-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
quote:
The real question is whether firearms actually make one safer.

And all of the evidence points to "no, they do not." Rather, gun ownership escalates any situation involving firearms. If an armed intruder is in your home, you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun as well - because the intruder knows that if he doesn't fire first, you might. Most intruders are not looking to add a murder charge to whatever their original purpose was.


Or that the intruder is going to get shot. People shouldn't be expected to acquiesce from tyranny in their home.

Who said they should? But the objective fact is that if you own a handgun, you are more likely to be shot. Emotional idealistic nonsense does not override fact and consequence, Hyro.

People should have the "right" to not wear a seatbelt, too, shouldn;t they? After all, it's their life they're endangering. But when we legally mandate seatbelts, fewer deaths occur. The same is true of firearms. In nations where access to firearms (and handguns in particular) is legally banned, there are fewer homicides. End of story. Your emotional "tyranny in their own home" tripe is nothing but an appeal to emotion - you like to feel safer by having the means to dole out violence in response to a threat, and so you disregard the objective fact you by doing so you're more likely to die as a result. Ownign a handgun does not make you safer,even though it makes you feelmore in control.

quote:
In fact, gun ownership increases several other unpleasant statistics as well. Children can't consider Daddy's gun a toy, for instance, when Daddy doesn't have a gun. Obviously Daddy shouldn't be leaving his gun where a child can get it - but the fact is, it happens,a nd it wouldn't happen if guns were banned.

Then that is the parents fault and responsible gun owners should be penalized because someone else's daddy is a moron.

I'm not arguing that, and it's irrelevant. If Daddy didn't have a gun, little Timmy would still have his brain contained within the confines of his cranium, instead of being repurposed as a mural on the living room wall. He should have been trained, and should have been more responsible...but people shouldn't drive drunk or run stop signs or talk on their phones while driving or speed, yet we legally mandate seatbelts because the objective result is fewer deaths. So too with guns - you cannot prevent accidents by placing blame, even when it's well deserved. Putting Daddy in jail for being irresponsible doesn;t put Timmy's brain back in his skull. But preventing Daddy from owning the gun in teh first place ensures that Timmy won't be playing with it.

quote:
In 2001, 401 children died due to gun accidents. Those kids would be alive today if their parents didn't own guns.

44,122 people were killed in car crashes in a single year in the US. If there were no cars, nobody would be in car crashes. 3,046 people were killed from accidental falls. If there were no stairs, nobody would have fallen down them and died.

That's tantamount to what you are saying. I trust you understand why it is asinine and vacuous.

Guns have no purpose except to kill. Target practice is even just practice for killing. Stairs and cars have other purposes...like allowing society to function. Privately owned guns serve no good purpose (with the possible exception of hunting rifles, which are rarely used in homicides anyway), since they do not make one safer, and in fact serve only to escalate violence.

quote:
The homicide rate per capita in the US is 0.042802 per 1,000 people. We're number 24 among nations. In teh UK, where personal gun ownership is banned, the homicide rate is 0.0140633 per 1,000 people - they're number 46. The Netherlands are 0.0111538 per 1,000 people, and they're number 51. Japan is number 60, with 0.00499933 per 1,000 people.

According to Reuters, behind Yemen and the US, Switzerland and Finland have more gun owners per capita than any nation on earth. Switzerland is also ranked the 7th in the world as the safest country in relation to murder. Comparing murder to handguns is silly, since one has nothing to do with the other. Source

Check above in Message 14, where Wounded King had this to say about Switzerland:

quote:
If you look at murders with firearms however you find that Switzerland has a count about 4 times higher than the UK although their population is only about 12% that of the uk.

Handguns != rifles. There is a reasonable purpsoe for rifles outside of killing human beings. That is not the case with handguns. It is almost impossible to conceal a rifle for the purpsoe of committing a crime. That's not the case with handguns.

quote:
Japan has some of the most stringent gun control policies in the world.

Saudi Arabia has some of the most lax gun laws in the world, and they are ranked 2nd as the safest country from homicide, higher than even Japan.

Saudi Arabia also has some of the harshest criminal penalties on Earth.

Murder and gun ownership don't parallel one another. There are social factors that determine violence and murder.

quote:
It is undeniably true that fewer people die as a result of homicide in nations where private ownership of guns is banned.

Clearly not true, as I've evidenced.

No, you haven't.

In fact, the District of Columbia got less violent once the SCOTUS struck down an unconstitutional anti-gun ban.

DC is irrelevant. It's a city. A local municipality. You could drive a few miles, buy a gun legally, and then drive right back. You don't even need a black market to get guns illegally into DC. Are you really trying to compare nations with cities? Clearly, we should see all the effects of full Prohibition if a single county decides to ban alcohol sales within its borders; certainly people won't just drive to the next fucking town and buy their booze.

quote:
In the case of a home invasion without guns, it is entirely possible that an invader will be armed with a knife instead of a firearm, and you could be left defenseless. However, the mortality rate from a stab wound is significantly less than that of a gunshot wound - it is better, statistically, to have no guns and risk being stabbed, than to have guns and risk being shot.

I apologize for being so blunt, but this is easily one of the dumbest justifications for stricter gun control I've ever heard. Maybe even the dumbest. If a citizen was allowed to own a gun in their own home, they could defend themselves against another gun or a knife!

You just love to ignore what people say and talk at them, don't you Hyro.

Let me say this very slowly.

Owning a gun DOES. NOT. MAKE. YOU. SAFER.

Owning a gun makes it more likely that you will be shot.

MORE likely, Hyro. Not less. In "defending yourself," you're MORE LIKELY to cause that which you are trying to prevent, that being your own death.

And why are you comparing knife wounds to gunshot wounds anyhow, as if we choose either one? You know that knives and guns don't kill, right, but rather the crazy bastards who wield them menacingly?

Of course. And if we restrict the crazy bastards to less lethal means of expressing their craziness, then fewer people die as a result.

Let's reiterate these few fact. Stop me where you disagree:

1) You cannot compeltely get rid of guns. A black market will inevitably exist, meaning that the criminals you want to disarm will still have access.

2) the primary supplier of black market arms is, in fact, legitimate weapons sales, whether the arms are stolen (rarely, around 10-15% of them) or purchased legally through a proxy or corrupt legal firearms dealer (the vast majority of the time)

3) If firearms are banned, the legal sellers of firearms will not longer be able to exist.

4) without legal firearms sales, the supply of guns and ammunition will drop to what currently exists (which will be worn down by attrition as guns break or are confiscated, and as ammunition is used or confiscated), and what can be illegally imported from other nations (likely Mexico).

5) With a more limited supply of new guns and ammunition, the black market will be unable to supply as many arms to the criminal element as it currently does.

6) Ergo, a firearm ban will limit the amount of new guns and ammunition available to criminals...meaning even though a firearm ban does not directly deprive the criminal of his weapon, it does so indirectly.

7) The objective of a firearm ban, the reduction in firearms being used in violent crime, is therefore achieved.

8) Fewer firearms being used in violent crime results in fewer deaths.

9) Fewer deaths ethically supercedes any possible argument regarding the "violation of the sanctity of one's home" or "standing up to tyranny in one's own home" or "it makes me feel safer" or "semi-automatics give me a hardon."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 03-15-2010 2:42 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 4:40 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2010 4:51 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5386
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 18 of 218 (550433)
03-15-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rahvin
03-15-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
I'm fond of the "it makes me feel safer" story from all the guys I work with who have their Concealed Firearm permits. I'll bet that I would feel safer if I always pulled around a little trailer with a well-grounded lightning rod on it every time I saw a cloud in the sky. And the actual statistics would probably show that my "feeling" was as well grounded as theirs - none of us go to the barrio in Ciudad Juarez on Saturday night, anyway.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 2:22 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7755
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 19 of 218 (550440)
03-15-2010 3:36 PM


I've noticed that in recent years (in the US) there is a movement away from gun control to gun convictions. As an example, if you are caught selling a kilo of coke you will get 2 years. If you are caught selling a kilo of coke AND carrying a concealed weapon you will get 5 years. Gun control has been and is ineffective so lawmakers seem to have shifted from control to use.

Also, if most people were honest about it they would say that they own firearms because they like firearms. I'll be the first to admit that shooting guns is fun. A gun enthusiast is enthusiastic about GUNS, not home protection. You don't need an arsenal of 15 handguns and assorted rifles to protect your home, and yet I know many people that would consider such an arsenal "a good start". Of all the ammo sold across the US how many rounds are actually fired at the target the ammo was designed for? Maybe 0.1%? Do you fire off more shots killing deer or "sighting in the rifle" (code for "I like to shoot guns")?

What the US has is a society enamored with their firearms.


  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5637
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 20 of 218 (550448)
03-15-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rahvin
03-15-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
the objective fact is that if you own a handgun, you are more likely to be shot.

What statistic proves that you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun? There are way too many factors for why someone would be in your house: what time of day it is (is there an expectation of an encounter with the owners), what their motive is to even be there (murder, rape, theft), what kind of psychological state the intruder is in, etc, etc.

I know from anecdote that in countless armed robberies, people brazenly kill the clerk on sight, whether the clerk was armed or not. It just depends upon the person and NOT the gun.

That is what is constantly overlooked by many gun control or anti-gun lobbyists -- the individual's actions and mindset over the inanimate gun.

In nations where access to firearms (and handguns in particular) is legally banned, there are fewer homicides.

I already have proven that false. Guns aren't the problem, people are, which is often culturally dictated.

Your emotional "tyranny in their own home" tripe is nothing but an appeal to emotion

It's absurd to suggest that people should just roll the dice on their life. Fuck that! Stay the fuck out of people's home's and you won't get shot. Bottom line. I mean, you are complicit in the increase of crime by sending the signal, "We won't fight back." Well, then what incentive does a criminal have to stop?

If Daddy didn't have a gun, little Timmy would still have his brain contained within the confines of his cranium, instead of being repurposed as a mural on the living room wall.

And if little Timmy wasn't taught not stick metal objects in the light socket, he'd still be alive too. Should we get rid of electricity to accommodate shitty parents or should we just hold shitty parents accountable?

He should have been trained, and should have been more responsible

Agreed, and that's all it comes down to. Not taking away everyone's right.

Guns have no purpose except to kill.

Yes, that is the primary purpose, but by that we rationale we should also do away with anything that exists expressly to kill. That's not going to happen. Weaponry has always existed with man, and the unfortunate fact is it will always exist as long as people cannot behave civilly in a civilized society.

Handguns != rifles. There is a reasonable purpsoe for rifles outside of killing human beings. That is not the case with handguns. It is almost impossible to conceal a rifle for the purpsoe of committing a crime. That's not the case with handguns.

I find this ironic. In America they ban automatic rifles as being "unnecessarily dangerous," and opt for handguns as a reasonable compromise. Now when it comes to Switzerland you defend rifles because you see no ostensible reason why not to have them.

Secondly, that guns were used more prolifically as murder weapons doesn't vindicate what you stated. You stated that guns essentially equal more murder and more deaths. That's obviously not true, being that the UK is ranked 46 and Switzerland ranked 56. It's only the method of murder that changes. But if higher murder rates is caused by guns, then why is their no real disparity between the strictest countries on guns versus the the countries who are lax? They are all jumbled, pointing to cultural reasons and not the amount of guns.

Saudi Arabia also has some of the harshest criminal penalties on Earth.

Immaterial.

DC is irrelevant. It's a city. A local municipality. You could drive a few miles, buy a gun legally, and then drive right back.

Then why did both their murder and crime rate go down if it is irrelevant? Is that abysmal 30-year trend all of a sudden stopping when the gun-ban lifted just a coincidence? Or is it a deterrent?

Owning a gun DOES. NOT. MAKE. YOU. SAFER.

Yelling it won't make it more or less true.

In "defending yourself," you're MORE LIKELY to cause that which you are trying to prevent, that being your own death.

Yes, Rahvin, just like riding in a car more often would naturally increase your chances of getting in to a fatal wreck. That being the case doesn't invalidate the indispensable good that comes from it, namely the protection of your person, family, and property.

And if we restrict the crazy bastards to less lethal means of expressing their craziness, then fewer people die as a result.

Criminals by definition are people who flout the law. Gun laws don't apply to criminals nearly as much as they apply to law-abiding citizens.

the primary supplier of black market arms is, in fact, legitimate weapons sales, whether the arms are stolen (rarely, around 10-15% of them) or purchased legally through a proxy or corrupt legal firearms dealer (the vast majority of the time)

Are we speaking about the United States or the world?

without legal firearms sales, the supply of guns and ammunition will drop to what currently exists (which will be worn down by attrition as guns break or are confiscated, and as ammunition is used or confiscated), and what can be illegally imported from other nations (likely Mexico).

No, as evidenced by Mexico itself. Mexico highly regulates firearms, and yet their murder rate is the 6th highest in the world. It is even more strict in Russia, and their murder rate is a notch higher than Mexico.

It's like prohibition or the drug trade. When you make something illegal, you thereby become complicit in the wholesale underground trade of the commodity. It is simple supply and demand. With the greater the demand, somebody will always find the supplier.

With a more limited supply of new guns and ammunition, the black market will be unable to supply as many arms to the criminal element as it currently does.

Did it work with liquor? Does it work in nations who have strict gun laws? If there is value in the trade, people find ways.

Fewer deaths ethically supercedes any possible argument regarding the "violation of the sanctity of one's home" or "standing up to tyranny in one's own home" or "it makes me feel safer" or "semi-automatics give me a hardon."

Nope, otherwise any number of nations with a higher crime rate than the US with far more restrictions would vindicate you. That it has the opposite effect only proves my point.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 2:22 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 218 (550451)
03-15-2010 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rahvin
03-15-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Guns have no purpose except to kill.

Recreation, sport, collecting as a hobby, target practise, skeet shooting.

Guns have purposes that are not to kill.

Target practice is even just practice for killing.

No. Its practice for putting more holes in more paper How many target shooting competitions have you been to or participated in?

They even make 22 caliber target pistols that are only good for target shooting:

9) Fewer deaths ethically supercedes any possible argument regarding the "violation of the sanctity of one's home" or "standing up to tyranny in one's own home" or "it makes me feel safer" or "semi-automatics give me a hardon."

Not in my opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 2:22 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 22 of 218 (550469)
03-15-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
03-13-2010 6:51 PM


It's about rights, not control
Is it fundamentally a better idea or a worse idea to allow citizens the right to bear arms?

I think I'm approaching this question from a different angle, cause for the most part I agree with Rahvin's statistical points (which he has presented evidence to support it on other threads about gun control - which you took part in, Hyro.)

But this thread, or your question IMO, has nothing to do with gun control.

To me the question deals with a rights issue. Should citizens have the right to bear arms? Well, yes. If arms are available, then tax paying citizens, who have no criminal record and are law-abiding, should be allowed to own them. Just like a knife, taser, ninja star (for the nerds), or any other "arms" sold.

They are responsible citizens, what gives anyone the right to tell them they can't buy it? I buy cigs, why? Because they legally make them and legally sell them. Don't want me to buy them? Stop making them.

Same with guns. You don't want citizens to own them? Stop making them. BUT, if they are made and sold legally, then what right does anyone have to restrict citizens who want to purchase them? The restriction should be placed (as with cigarettes) on the manufacturer...not the people buying a legally sold product.

With that said, I'm all for stricter gun control laws - as I have argued in the past.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 6:51 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 8:21 PM onifre has responded

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 559 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 23 of 218 (550470)
03-15-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rahvin
03-15-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Rahvin writes:

A weapons ban is not actually intended to work the impossible and magically whisk away all firearms within a nation's borders.

A ban is intended to make it more difficult to acquire those firearms. A black market will always exist for nearly any commodity that's been banned; but a gun ban can significantly reduce the numbers of firearms and ammunition in the streets vs. even controlled firearm access.

I understand your point here. I don't agree with it, but I understand your argument. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there is this thing called the 2nd amendment that prevents this from happening.

Rahvin writes:

The real question is whether firearms actually make one safer.

And all of the evidence points to "no, they do not." Rather, gun ownership escalates any situation involving firearms. If an armed intruder is in your home, you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun as well - because the intruder knows that if he doesn't fire first, you might. Most intruders are not looking to add a murder charge to whatever their original purpose was.

I don't see much "evidence" here really, just an opinion. It's hard to bring up other countries and compare them to the US. Why? Because at the same time, we generally have less government regulation on our lives then most of these other countries. Call it the "cost of freedom". The statement rings true that the more oppressive the gov't, the less freedoms one has.

I could also give you numerous incidents just from my city here since I've been on the job where yes, an innocent citizen successfully shot and killed an intruder or robber without getting injured themselves. In fact, I don't think I can come up with ONE incident of a citizen with a gun trying to defend themselves and it going bad on them. (I'm not saying that it hasn't happened anywhere, just saying in my experience, it's the exact opposite of what you are saying). We had a single female blow the head clean off an burglar late at night. Countless gas station clerks shoot and kill robbers. Another point, just because someone enters your house doesn't mean that they are armed. I can promise you, if I wake up and someone is standing in my hallway that isn't supposed to be there....he's bought and paid for. There are very good reasons to own a gun for protection and protection against other guns doesn't always have to be one of them.

Rahvin writes:

In fact, gun ownership increases several other unpleasant statistics as well. Children can't consider Daddy's gun a toy, for instance, when Daddy doesn't have a gun. Obviously Daddy shouldn't be leaving his gun where a child can get it - but the fact is, it happens,a nd it wouldn't happen if guns were banned.

It's already been touched on, but idiot parents are the cause of this. Kids run out in the street and get hit by cars and die. Kids die in accidents at an enormous rate, they wander out of the house and fall in the coy pond out back and drown, ect, ect, ect, ect.....I can assure anybody that my handgun is in a place that I can get to it if an intruder entered my house. I could load it and fire off a round, or 9, before the intruder would know what happened.....it would likewise take my kids hours to try and figure out how to load my weapon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 12:35 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5637
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 24 of 218 (550490)
03-15-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by onifre
03-15-2010 6:09 PM


Re: It's about rights, not control
You don't want citizens to own them? Stop making them. BUT, if they are made and sold legally, then what right does anyone have to restrict citizens who want to purchase them? The restriction should be placed (as with cigarettes) on the manufacturer...not the people buying a legally sold product.

An interesting angle you take here. In the spirit of this, what are some suggestions you might have for manufacturers?

With that said, I'm all for stricter gun control laws - as I have argued in the past.

What I would add to gun control is a national and possibly international database for people who have been clinically determined to have serious psychological problems.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 6:09 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 8:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 25 of 218 (550492)
03-15-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
03-13-2010 8:07 PM


Hi Hyro,

Reading other posts I noticed you elaborate more on your point.

Along the same lines is the necessity to shirk off the tyranny of an own oppressive government.

An argument for the necessity of owning a gun seems rather weak if you're making an argument that you need a gun to rise up against the government. Because, it would just be you doing it or, you and a small handful of people you get to join you (those who don't break under pressure or sell you out for leniency).

If you say here:

Hyro writes:

A police force is little consolation for most people. I agree that there needs to be a police force, but I feel sorry for anyone reliant on them. It's a false sense of security.

Then.....

If the police force - who is already organized, trained and paid to do the job of protecting it's citizens - in your opinion, is a "false sense of security," then how on earth are you and a couple of local yahoos with guns a true sense of security?

You have the inalienable right to defend yourself from harm. If a firearm best facilitates that need, then so be it. It should be the individual's right to decide that themselves. If others feel that it is more dangerous to possess a firearm in their home, they should be afforded the right to abstain.

Agreed. If guns are made and sold legally in the US then as a citizen of the US you should be allowed to buy it. It's that simple. This has nothing to do with criminals, the government, or personal protection. That would lead to a grey area with little, if any, good, agreed-upon statistical evidence.

You could then try, if someone like Rahvin wanted to, to legislate the manufacturers. But this is a worthless fight, with no outcome. It's too strong of an industry (politically) that trying to shut it down is next to impossible.

So the only thing you can allow citizens to vote on, and politicians to legislate, are the gun control laws. Some vote one way, some vote the other way. Who ever has more money can run a better campaign.

That's it. That's all that can be done with a legally sold product.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 8:07 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2010 8:56 PM onifre has responded
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 10:09 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 26 of 218 (550496)
03-15-2010 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
03-15-2010 8:21 PM


Re: It's about rights, not control
In the spirit of this, what are some suggestions you might have for manufacturers?

Well one, and I don't know if this is already done, but ensure that they meet ALL safety regulations current within one year of any gun sold. Whatever is being suggested (by PRIVATE firms) as the best safety features should be mandatory to follow.

And I stress, a private firm should handle the safety regulating.

With that out of the way, what more could you ask them to do? Make sure they don't sell it to the black market? It's almost laughable. As long as people work for these manufacturers, and people have motives to make more money, guns will be sold to the black market. Perhaps an automated, un-maned assembly and distribution at the manufacturer would work. Dunno...

But the thing to remember is, whatever regulation you decide to place on the manufacturer, the "how" is a major factor. How do you regulate an industry with so much political power? More so, an industry with half of the citizens of the US supporting it!

It's not like the cigarette people who are hated even by the smokers. Gun people LOVE manufacturers. Just ask any old timer what his favorite gun maker is. So there's a positive opinion of gun makers.

That's why I say in the post above that it would be next to impossible. It would be hard just to place strict restrictions on them, and it would certainly be completely impossible to ban them all together.

You'd have a better chance (but not a great chance) with cigarettes, and people hate those fucking things.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 8:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 27 of 218 (550499)
03-15-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by onifre
03-15-2010 8:25 PM


If the police force - who is already organized, trained and paid to do the job of protecting it's citizens - in your opinion, is a "false sense of security," then how on earth are you and a couple of local yahoos with guns a true sense of security?

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

I'd prefer to be able to defend myself. Too, I'd rather not have to depend on the police.

As far as the government, though:

An argument for the necessity of owning a gun seems rather weak if you're making an argument that you need a gun to rise up against the government. Because, it would just be you doing it or, you and a small handful of people you get to join you (those who don't break under pressure or sell you out for leniency).

I agree that its weak, but its an argument nonetheless

I'd prefer to be able to try to defend myself. Its better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Bleh... two cliches in one post

ABE:

You'd have a better chance (but not a great chance) with cigarettes, and people hate those fucking things.

Great point.

People who argue from the 'death prevention' position should focus on banning cigarettes instead of guns if that's really thier goal.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 8:25 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Flyer75, posted 03-15-2010 9:29 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 9:36 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 559 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 28 of 218 (550501)
03-15-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2010 8:56 PM


Catholic, you are correct. Citizens should not rely on the police for personal safety. At certain times they should, such as big public events, sporting events, ect, there is probably a higher requirement for public safety but for the most part, a police officers job is reactionary, not proactive enforcement of laws.

Most of the time, police pull a call that's an hour old (at least), or even in the case of higher priority calls (take a bank robbery for example), by the time the police get the phone call, type it up, send it out to a crew (who might be 5-10 min away), the robbers are loooong gone at that point, the shot was fired into the ceiling and the money snatched. Time to sit back and take a paper report now.

Few times, very few, in my career have I pulled on a crime in progress and that's usually by blind luck (or the grace of God).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2010 8:56 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 29 of 218 (550503)
03-15-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2010 8:56 PM


When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

I'd prefer to be able to defend myself. Too, I'd rather not have to depend on the police.

I agree. But I don't give me, an untrained, possibly half-asleep, scared, disoriented person, any sense of security. I hope that if shit went down, and I happen to have a gun, shit ends up ok.

But (1) I'd rather the cops handle it and would make the most effort to get them there before confronting an armed person. (2) I'm as insecure waiting for the cops and hoping they arrive on time as I would be facing the armed person.

I wouldn't depend on them, and if I had to handle things I would, but with no sense of security at all dude.

I'd prefer to be able to try to defend myself. Its better to have and not need than to need and not have.

To me it's like religion, if it makes you feel better to know that you can defend yourself if the situation turned ugly, then cool. I agree that a weapon makes me feel a lot more secure in a rough area. But I also recognize that it's the same false sense of security that depending on the police gives, or having a security guard, or having a lock, an alarm or any of the other things we do. Bad people will get to do bad things regardless of most, if not all, preventive measures you take.

Bleh... two cliches in one post

Yeah, wud up with that queer? You talkin' like them fancy boys.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2010 8:56 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5637
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 30 of 218 (550506)
03-15-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by onifre
03-15-2010 8:25 PM


Bloody revolution
An argument for the necessity of owning a gun seems rather weak if you're making an argument that you need a gun to rise up against the government.

Why, if that's the reason why the amendment was created at all? That is the main purpose of the amendment, which for them was borne out of necessity. The other reason is protection in general.

Or as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

And why? Again, Thomas Jefferson:

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Because, it would just be you doing it or, you and a small handful of people you get to join you (those who don't break under pressure or sell you out for leniency).

Quite simply I am saying that there is a checks and balances system between the People and Government. If most every citizen were armed, and if the time ever came for a revolution, they would think very carefully. Because a few people can turn in to a few million overnight depending on the circumstances.

And this really isn't conspiracy babble, it's just a simple safeguard in the event it is ever necessary. There are Germans out there right now scratching their temples, wondering how the Nazi's not only took power so quickly, but brainwashed so many of their brethren to resort to unspeakable crimes.

And that should home for you to some degree. One day you're with Batista, the next Castro comes charging in forever altering the lives of the Cuban people.

Unfortunately, this shit happens for real, regardless of how infrequent. History testifies to it.

If the police force - who is already organized, trained and paid to do the job of protecting it's citizens - in your opinion, is a "false sense of security," then how on earth are you and a couple of local yahoos with guns a true sense of security?

I'm saying that you need to be reliant on yourself more than any other person. Oh, the cops will show up.... often to take your crime scene photo.

I am not diminishing the need for an organized police force, I am just saying that you cannot assume that you will always be able to rely on them. If you go out on the water, sure the Coast Guard is there and they will do everything in their power to find you. But there is no substitute for a savvy sailor who plans ahead and relies on himself first, and the Coast Guard as a backup. That is the false sense of security I am referring to.

You could then try, if someone like Rahvin wanted to, to legislate the manufacturers. But this is a worthless fight, with no outcome. It's too strong of an industry (politically) that trying to shut it down is next to impossible.

They have a very big lobby to be sure. America since the time of its inception has been armed. Right or wrong, it is so ingrained within the culture that not only is it the 2nd amendment (the amendment which ensures the protection of the 1st, in my estimation), but it has become a way of life. To take that away now would be met with armed resistance. We're not talking a couple hillbillies in Montanta, we're talking millions. It will not be a matter of the silent majority acquiescing to the demands of a government, it would be as bloody a revolution as any in its history. Even people in the government (like me) are servants of the citizen and are citizens themselves above all. It is doubtful they would ever relinquish their rights so quietly. Shame on them if they do.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 8:25 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 10:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 32 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2010 11:00 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 2:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019