Gun control questions - by an outsider...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I apologize I did not mean to direct that at you.

I wish they had a cheers smily.

DF...

It's all good.

If I remember correctly... you are a soldier (or were). You would be one person that might have a strong attachment to the 'type' of weapon that comes up for debate. I get it, but I think if you objectively look at the upside/downside to the ownership of such a weapon... you have to agree that the downside outweighs the upside by a landslide. Am I wrong here?

Let's put the issue of 'Rights' aside because the Constitution was written when the founding fathers could not anticipate the evolution of such weaponry. The Constituion is antiquated and needs revisions. It will need revisionary work again when laser guns are developed.

Let's put the 'home defence' argument aside as well because... seriously... home defence can be handled very effectively with a shotgun.

That would leave us with: the upside (fun) versus the downside (mass shootings). To me... it's not close.

Dirtie_Frank

Funny thing is that I don't even own a gun. I have been thinking about it, to target shoot and for protection. I'm not one of those dooms day preppers but living near dc I always figure if shit is going to go down. That would be the place and a gun could get me an my family to safety.

callen

Godfather. wrote:

I guess unless you are an American you might not understand,.

Hell I live here and don't understand.

Godfather. wrote:

American's love God and their guns and that's something that has not changed for the last few hundred years.

This got me to thinking....fear of God and fear of the boogy man driving Americans to want guns?

Life in Houston, lots of violent crime...my county executes more people than any other yet I have absolutely no want to have a gun to "protect" myself. I don't beleive in God. Related?

Dirtie_Frank

BTW I am for stricter laws and I am for some sort of check on mental health prior to buying I'm not sure how but with reasonable debate I'm sure it could be figures out. Thanks for remembering me too. I don't post often and it sometime feels ver cliques-ish here.

chadwick

we used guns for target practice, hunting & they would have been used for protection, good thing that last part never happened. dad shot guns regularly at his job & was expected to shoot year round to keep his shooting skills sharp.

what us boys never had were toy guns. i haven't owned a gun in probably 12 years or some shit & i haven't been hunting in like 20+ years. i did own a single shot shotgun though when i was 10 years old. that was something alright.

from his job dad got death threats almost daily from the 70's up into the 90's; some were very serious players & others not so much. as far as i can remember at least one guy tried killing all of us, burning our house down, blah blah, blah. tasers, rubber bullets, & tear gas isn't an option for these animals. once caught, he never was shot, he was beat down though.

Godfather.

callen wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I guess unless you are an American you might not understand,.

Hell I live here and don't understand.

Godfather. wrote:

American's love God and their guns and that's something that has not changed for the last few hundred years.

This got me to thinking....fear of God and fear of the boogy man driving Americans to want guns?

Life in Houston, lots of violent crime...my county executes more people than any other yet I have absolutely no want to have a gun to "protect" myself. I don't beleive in God. Related?

what a shame.....


Godfather.

Godfather.

I read the OP's post and thought here come the anti gun posts....this place is so predictable I'm glad the rest of the world knows better.


Godfather.

MotoDC

Restless Soul wrote:

I just have a few things I'd like to ask about the US gun control debate. It may seem misinformed etc to some of you but then again I don't live in the states so don't know everything about the issue. This is just my perspective as an outsider. You can shout and scream at me and call me ignorant all you like after! :P

1) Law enforcement is missing a trick: The US is well known for its stringent emphasis on law enforcement. The country spends billions of tax dollars on police forces, law enforcement and the justice system as a whole to tackle and reduce crime. This includes tackling and reducing crimes involving drugs, knives, gangs, fraud etc etc. But it seems to me that the whole thing is missing a point if they don't include gun control into the mix. The US has the highest rate of gun murders in the developed world. (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... d-country/ so to me it makes no sense. Does it to you?

2) Does it have to be a gun? The US is one of the most technologically innovative countries on earth and the NRA are one of the most richest organisations. Surely they could put their money into developing alternative methods of self defence, eg guns that can stun or disarm and opponent but doesn't kill. In the UK the police use tasers which stun but can be dangerous to people with heart conditions, so I'm not advocating that, but surely some of the best brains in the US could come up with a bunch of alternatives that could help make people feel safer and defend themselves in their homes, but will still be safe to have around the house with children in it. (Face it people only need guns because other people have them, so they end up fearing each other and it becomes a vicious circle of fear and anger). Is the pro-gun lobby not willing to consider investing in finding alternatives, or does it have to be a gun only? (I mean, is there an app for this? )

3) Constitution vs Bible: It seems to me that most of the pro-gun lobby group are staunch christians as well but they would defend their right to self defence via the constitution. How do they reconcile this with the bible's "do not kill" policy? Does the constitution come above the bible to them? The constitution is man-made, (not saying whether the bible is or isn't) so why can't it be changed or updated?

Anyway, just wondering!

1) We have gun control, though it is largely determined state-by-state. The argument is whether we need MORE (or fewer) gun control laws. Some folks want to ban assault rifles, some folks want to ban anything not specifically for hunting, some folks want to ban all guns. Most folks want to have robust pre-purchase measures to weed out the obvious crazies before they can buy a gun.

2) Bottom line, yeah, it "has to be guns". The 2nd amendment was written by people whose primary focus was preventing the rule of tyranny over a citizenry. I.e., the "arms" mentioned in the Constitution are to allow the people to protect themselves from their own gov't. Anti-gun people love to say that an AR-15 isn't going to be much good against an Apache attack chopper, but a Tazer is going to be a fair bit worse. Side note here regarding self-defense as opposed to reducing the likelihood of tyranny -- (one of) the problem(s) with non-lethal self-defense measures is that you run the risk of them being used too casually.

3) Bible says not to murder. Using a gun to protect your life or your family's life is not murder. On the other hand, Jesus said to love thine enemies and to "turn the other cheek", so that's a bit harder to reconcile with the self-defense rationale. Regardless, as I'm sure there are plenty of non-Christian gun owners, it's not a valid argument for banning guns even if it is accurate that Christians shouldn't want to use deadly force as a means of self-defense.

chadwick

motodc, nice post

Godfather.

MotoDC wrote:

Restless Soul wrote:

I just have a few things I'd like to ask about the US gun control debate. It may seem misinformed etc to some of you but then again I don't live in the states so don't know everything about the issue. This is just my perspective as an outsider. You can shout and scream at me and call me ignorant all you like after! :P

1) Law enforcement is missing a trick: The US is well known for its stringent emphasis on law enforcement. The country spends billions of tax dollars on police forces, law enforcement and the justice system as a whole to tackle and reduce crime. This includes tackling and reducing crimes involving drugs, knives, gangs, fraud etc etc. But it seems to me that the whole thing is missing a point if they don't include gun control into the mix. The US has the highest rate of gun murders in the developed world. (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... d-country/ so to me it makes no sense. Does it to you?

2) Does it have to be a gun? The US is one of the most technologically innovative countries on earth and the NRA are one of the most richest organisations. Surely they could put their money into developing alternative methods of self defence, eg guns that can stun or disarm and opponent but doesn't kill. In the UK the police use tasers which stun but can be dangerous to people with heart conditions, so I'm not advocating that, but surely some of the best brains in the US could come up with a bunch of alternatives that could help make people feel safer and defend themselves in their homes, but will still be safe to have around the house with children in it. (Face it people only need guns because other people have them, so they end up fearing each other and it becomes a vicious circle of fear and anger). Is the pro-gun lobby not willing to consider investing in finding alternatives, or does it have to be a gun only? (I mean, is there an app for this? )

3) Constitution vs Bible: It seems to me that most of the pro-gun lobby group are staunch christians as well but they would defend their right to self defence via the constitution. How do they reconcile this with the bible's "do not kill" policy? Does the constitution come above the bible to them? The constitution is man-made, (not saying whether the bible is or isn't) so why can't it be changed or updated?

Anyway, just wondering!

1) We have gun control, though it is largely determined state-by-state. The argument is whether we need MORE (or fewer) gun control laws. Some folks want to ban assault rifles, some folks want to ban anything not specifically for hunting, some folks want to ban all guns. Most folks want to have robust pre-purchase measures to weed out the obvious crazies before they can buy a gun.

2) Bottom line, yeah, it "has to be guns". The 2nd amendment was written by people whose primary focus was preventing the rule of tyranny over a citizenry. I.e., the "arms" mentioned in the Constitution are to allow the people to protect themselves from their own gov't. Anti-gun people love to say that an AR-15 isn't going to be much good against an Apache attack chopper, but a Tazer is going to be a fair bit worse. Side note here regarding self-defense as opposed to reducing the likelihood of tyranny -- (one of) the problem(s) with non-lethal self-defense measures is that you run the risk of them being used too casually.

3) Bible says not to murder. Using a gun to protect your life or your family's life is not murder. On the other hand, Jesus said to love thine enemies and to "turn the other cheek", so that's a bit harder to reconcile with the self-defense rationale. Regardless, as I'm sure there are plenty of non-Christian gun owners, it's not a valid argument for banning guns even if it is accurate that Christians shouldn't want to use deadly force as a means of self-defense.

well said !


Godfather.

goingtoverona

here in texas I have not needed a license to buy a gun. being 21 and and passing my background check was all that was necessary. I do however need a license to carry my pistol concealed out in public, which consisted of 8 hours or so of class time and 50 rounds on the range 3 different distances. any gun can be used for self defense or target shooting, although I probably wouldn't use a barrett .50 cal to shoot at dr. pepper cans.

to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible. but i know how you feel, because i feel the same way about automobiles. i'm surrounded by guns where i live, but the only thing that scares me is being on the road with drunks and texters. as far as when the next tragedy strikes, you said it. inevitable. i'm not saying we should do nothing, but i don't want to do something that doesn't work, and when it doesn't work, say, oh but we had to try. also for me, i trivialize gun deaths like people do for everything else. just like tens of thousands of people and animals can die so i can drive, no problem. drunk drivers, wife beaters and kids overdosing on alcohol? an acceptable loss so i can drink a cold beer. and of course tens of thousands die so i can have a cool gun. that's life i'm afraid.

I love shooting guns, target shooting not hunting, it's a blast(pun intended). I have never bought a gun thinking oh man I hope this can kill a bad guy or I hope my gun is better than a bad guys gun. so just a heads up, we aren't all living in fear. and we aren't all angry.

I guess if you are buying it for sport then it's not related to gun crime per se. Do you need to hold a licence for your gun? Does it specify what you are allowed to do with it? eg self-defence; target practice/sport etc? Just curious as not sure how gun ownership actually works over there.[/quote]

Smellyman

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Where does the line get drawn in definition of a assault gun?

An item for debate, but it should be debated.

Definitely nothing automatic or semi-automatic. I'm thinking- off the top of my head- magazines with a maximum capacity of 6 bullets. This should be enough to get the job done hunting for a moose- if not... get to the range .

What the founding fathers intended. Musket loading guns only

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible.

At first... it wouldn't. There is no 'quick fix' to the problem. But in time, especially by restricting ammunition sales for 'illegal weapons'... the guns would dry up and not be so abundant and readily available.

I'm pretty sure we have some 'illegal weapons' in Canada, but they aren't just lying around or on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods. We have a criminal element and mentally ill people as well that- with some exceptions I'm sure- have no access to these weapons. As a result, Canada is safer. We have accepted the type of reforms necessary to safeguard our citizens. It's out of concern that a Canadian such as myself would encourage you guys to do the same: this isn't about make the gun owners suffer as much as it is about keep your children safe.

Pingfah

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Pingfah wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So we get rid of guns in the states, then what? Do we outlaw crossbows and bow and arrows? swords, knives? When does it end? Do we get rid of alcohol after all that, and possibly cars because since everything else is gone they can be used to kill people too?

Nah, we should legalise private ownership of plutonium, ground to air missiles and chemical weapons.

See, idiotic hyperbolic arguments work both ways!

Do you ever contribute anything or do you just like talking down to others?

Sorry, but your argument was just a standard NRA-Bot response "hey well why don't we ban cars too!" as though there is no room for compromise and either everything dangerous must be banned, or nothing dangerous must be banned. It's a glib, trite argument that contributes nothing, hence my responding in kind. We already accept legal boundaries on what we can or cannot own, you, me, we all do, and we all put our tolerance for that boundary in different places, but anybody sensible would agree that there should be a boundary.

Pointing that out is a perfectly valid contribution, perhaps I should have spelled it out for you, but I thought my point should be clear enough.

Dirtie_Frank

Pingfah wrote:

Sorry, but your argument was just a standard NRA-Bot response "hey well why don't we ban cars too!" as though there is no room for compromise and either everything dangerous must be banned, or nothing dangerous must be banned. It's a glib, trite argument that contributes nothing, hence my responding in kind. We already accept legal boundaries on what we can or cannot own, you, me, we all do, and we all put our tolerance for that boundary in different places, but anybody sensible would agree that there should be a boundary.

Pointing that out is a perfectly valid contribution, perhaps I should have spelled it out for you, but I thought my point should be clear enough.

So where do you stop the banning? Add something, where is the line drawn? Oh yeah I am not or never have been a member of the NRA.

Pingfah

Nevertheless you gave a standard NRA response, designed to obscure the argument instead of resolve or contribute. Ironic that you are accusing me of this for having the temerity to call you out on it.

I'm not opposed to private ownership of weapons in principle. Personally I would not ban any of the weapons that are being targeted right now, I don't think that'll make the slightest bit of difference, and will just waste a load of money in implementation. It's a knee jerk reaction to a few mass shootings, but in reality those mass shootings are statistically irrelevant in the broader context of America's problem with gun violence, the politicians pushing for the ban know this and use it as a distraction from the fact that beyond this lip service they are not really committed to resolving the problem.

The problem is not guns, the problem is poverty and vast widespread social inequality, that has always driven crime and always will, and has significant implications for the mental health of the nation too. America needs a long term solution to that, solve that and the gun problem will solve itself.

In the short term though, I would concentrate on eliminating loopholes that allow people to bypass background checks, and firm up those background checks considerably especially with respect to mental health. That should definitely be done, but it should not be mistaken for a solution to the overall problem.

JimmyV

Smellyman wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Where does the line get drawn in definition of a assault gun?

An item for debate, but it should be debated.

Definitely nothing automatic or semi-automatic. I'm thinking- off the top of my head- magazines with a maximum capacity of 6 bullets. This should be enough to get the job done hunting for a moose- if not... get to the range .

What the founding fathers intended. Musket loading guns only

I have made the following point before in these threads. The most powerful weapon the founding fathers could imagine was a cannon. Second amendment or no, NO regular citizen would have been allowed to amass a battery of cannon. Even in the earliest days there were limits. Anyone who believes the founding fathers would have been OK with the average citizen, the one they didn't even trust to directly elect Senators or the President, collecting automatic weapons is just plain wrong.

mlovullo2000

You mean the 2nd amendment. Collecting automatic weapons is illegal. Could you imagine what it would be like if people had cannons? That just reminded me of a silly TV show (Eastbound Down) were Will Ferrell's charater was shooting at somebody with a cannon.

JimmyV

mlovullo2000 wrote:

You mean the 2nd amendment.

Whoops! :oops:

unsung

JimmyV wrote:

I have made the following point before in these threads. The most powerful weapon the founding fathers could imagine was a cannon. Second amendment or no, NO regular citizen would have been allowed to amass a battery of cannon. Even in the earliest days there were limits. Anyone who believes the founding fathers would have been OK with the average citizen, the one they didn't even trust to directly elect Senators or the President, collecting automatic weapons is just plain wrong.

First off all federal gun control is unconstitutional.

Secondly, that is not the reason why the people could not elect Senators. The founding fathers trusted the people, that's why the wrote the Constitution, to limit the powers of the general (federal) government. So that is incorrect. The Senators were elected by the state legislature, because when written the States were treated as sovereign entities and the Senators were supposed to be ambassadors or each sovereign state. That's why the US was called THESE United States, not THE United States. We have drifted very far away from what they wanted.