- Forum
- Lounge
- Gun Control!
- Page 2
Gun Control!
| And as others said, even if you say its for 'safety', the chance of you being able to do something about it with your gun is almost none - probably the only effect it would have is as a deterrent, assuming its openly visible. |
When I was a kid, my sister noticed someone peering in her window. Dad grabbed his pistol and headed outside to have a look around. While he was outside, our neighbor lady screamed. Dad shot a round into the ground, then ran over to her house. The person-of-questionable-character had run off, but not before slicing through a screen on an open window with a knife and scaring the hell out of the old lady next door. Who knows what may have transpired if that shot wasn't fired?
[edit: fixed quote tag]
Last edited on
Again, that rarely happens. Comparing the occasions where guns are misused to these occasions doesn't even compete. In most occasions, people probably would have taken shots at a person instead of the ground as well.
cire's example of responsible gun use would have worked just as well with a convincing cap gun or some fireworks.
(I'm being a wiseass here, of course)
(I'm being a wiseass here, of course)
Last edited on
| But the reality is that war has changed. And I don't realistically see the US public staving off the modern US armed forces. |
True, but how could they have envisioned the modern army at the time. The idea was that the public should be able to arm themselves comparably.
| How do background checks fair in this war against a republic? |
Background checks have been around for some time now yet their implementation has not quieted or slowed the call for stricter and more regulations. At what point before completely banning guns does it become enough?
| giblit wrote: |
|---|
| A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. |
| giblit wrote: |
|---|
| Maybe 1 / 10000000 people do this? Though they probably do this with anything such as pipes, knives, baseball bats, ect... |
Also I don't ever hear stories of kids being killed by stray knives.
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| I'm against it. It won't affect those who break the law. |
I personally am not against all guns, in fact I like guns. I'v owned handguns, and currently we have a .22 rifle in the house.
Gun CONTROL is not a bad thing, and the only people who should worry about it are those that shouldn't own a gun in the first place.
EDIT:
| admkrk wrote: |
|---|
| Background checks have been around for some time now yet their implementation has not quieted or slowed the call for stricter and more regulations. At what point before completely banning guns does it become enough? |
Last edited on
| I believe if there where federal mandates for background checks and controlling sales at gun shows would go a long way to slowing the flow of illegal guns. |
And then the next step would be to regulate private sales such as classified adds. And then add more restrictions and so on and so on until all guns would be illegal.
I don't understand these weird arguments where, "If A happens, B must happen!" where it seems to be poor speculation. How do you go from "federal mandated background checks" and "controlling sales at gun shows" to "all guns would be illegal"? There's just too large of a gap to ignore the logic that would go in between.
Do you really think there would be a stopping point somewhere in between? The government went as far as outlawing alcohol at one point if you need an example of just how far they will go. When I went to school the only time the police where there was to arrest someone, now they are in virtually every school. When I was a kid no one wore helmets to ride a bicycle, now in some places even adults can get ticketed for not wearing them. America is over regulated as it is and our freedoms have been slowly vanishing in the process.
| Again, that rarely happens. Comparing the occasions where guns are misused to these occasions doesn't even compete. In most occasions, people probably would have taken shots at a person instead of the ground as well. |
You are arguing that people are coming to conclusions without any actual "data" to back it up, yet you yourself are doing the same exact thing. You seem to have this view of legal gun owners that they are just thugs toting guns and wish to harm people whenever the opportunity presents itself, which from my experience is just not true. I am sure there are many criminals out there that are exactly that but it isn't fair to lump legal gun owners into the same category.
Legal gun owners (Note the legal part that is important) are generally very safe with their weapons and have gone through many safety and training classes in order to carry and own their weapons. I can say this because of experience I myself own a pistol and have gone through the classes and have many friends that have done the same (Warning shots is something they drill into you in gun safety and self defense classes, not shoot first and ask questions later).
So no I don't believe that in most occasions legal gun owners would have taken shots at the person, because we are not the bloodthirsty people you would like to believe we are.
If you really want to learn about this subject I would suggest you go try a gun safety class or go through the classes to get your permit to carry. Pay attention to what they teach you and I feel you will be surprised. Or if you don't want to spend the money to do that just try going to a local gun club near you and pay attention to the legal gun owners around you. They aren't what most people make them out to be, though of course as with any group of people there are extremists.
If anything it will give you more knowledge on gun ownership and the present legislation that is already in place to debate for gun control. I am all for debating and do agree with a bit more regulations on sales and purchases but to debate gun control without actually knowing anything about firearms will get us no where.
Though with that I will bow out of this debate, just wanted to give my 2 cents even though I have been trying to avoid the lounge ;p.
Last edited on
The *data* I go on is generally statistics from gunpolicy.org, personal experience, and news.
I don't view *all* gun owners as "thugs". I do admit that some of them definitely come off as that to me. I've personally both been threatened with gun violence and been shot at, neither of which was fun to deal with. My cousin still has the bullet hole in his truck from when were shot at (for reasons we still don't know) and my head was literally inches away from that hole.
There may be good gun owners. I don't really doubt it. But again, there seems to be far too much gun violence just to justify people holding onto guns for safety.
Just recently, there was a local story similar to that where instead the neighbor *did* shoot at a person. Not even the right person, he was shooting at the victim, not the suspect, out of confusion.
Maybe the news only tells the dark side of the story but there sure is a lot of dark side to tell.
Going to a gun safety class would only show me what responsible person would do, not that guy who holds a 9mm in his glove compartment for protection.
I don't view *all* gun owners as "thugs". I do admit that some of them definitely come off as that to me. I've personally both been threatened with gun violence and been shot at, neither of which was fun to deal with. My cousin still has the bullet hole in his truck from when were shot at (for reasons we still don't know) and my head was literally inches away from that hole.
There may be good gun owners. I don't really doubt it. But again, there seems to be far too much gun violence just to justify people holding onto guns for safety.
Just recently, there was a local story similar to that where instead the neighbor *did* shoot at a person. Not even the right person, he was shooting at the victim, not the suspect, out of confusion.
Maybe the news only tells the dark side of the story but there sure is a lot of dark side to tell.
Going to a gun safety class would only show me what responsible person would do, not that guy who holds a 9mm in his glove compartment for protection.
Last edited on
| Going to a gun safety class would only show me what responsible person would do, not that guy who holds a 9mm in his glove compartment for protection. |
Who in their right mind pays any attention to the media? It's all useless information about celebrities that don't affect me, tragedies, or biased opinions.
Well, normally I don't read the news but occasionally, I hear about the story here and there about mass murders.
| So someone who has a concealed weapon is not a "responsible person?" |
"concealed weapon" and "responsible person" has no relation. One does not require the other.
| NoXzema wrote: |
|---|
| Again, that rarely happens. Comparing the occasions where guns are misused to these occasions doesn't even compete. In most occasions, people probably would have taken shots at a person instead of the ground as well. |
I wonder what you mean by "compete," and I wonder if your "probability" is backed by any sort of statistics or studies other than some nebulous hodgepodge of impressions from websites and news.
| Well, normally I don't read the news but occasionally, I hear about the story here and there about mass murders. |
Even better stats to base a decision on. It is just that sort of (mis)information that gets the ball rolling behind gun control. I had to give up my (grandfather's) gun several years ago for personal reasons, but I live in an area where I hear gun fire several times a day. One neighbor stopped shooting his rifle after I told him about the lead buzzing through my property. The rest is mainly shotguns that are too far away to matter even if they were aimed in my direction. Sensationalism is absolutely the worst case to base any kind of decision on regardless of the topic.
In the UK guns were legal once upon a time and our gun crime rate was pretty damn high, until the Dunblane incident...
A 43-year-old man by the name of Thomas Hamilton went into Dunblane primary school with 4 hand guns, killed 16 children, one adult, and then shot himself too...
After that the UK had a ban set on handguns, or more specifically only magazine loaded handguns, excluding the .22 caliber (which was the gun in the actual incident), in 1997 this was amended and even the .22 was banned... Leaving only muzzle loaded, historic and certain sporting hand guns legal.
I've been told (but I haven't confirmed) that when this ban was introduced the police forces ordered everyone to turn in all there guns that now were no longer legal and there were no questions asked... No "where did you get this", "who is the owner of this gun", "has this gun been used in a crime", nothing like that, just turn up and hand your guns over for disposal.
And since then on our gun crime rate has dropped significantly.
The US has a lot more of these tragic incidents happening all the time and I'm just wondering nobody ever really seems to stop and think "Hey, without all these guns just laying around it'd be a lot harder to kill someone if you get pissed off easily". I've noticed many people just jump strait in to quote the second amendment and that's all they have to say... Yeah, we had the right to bare arms too, but we saw that it was kinda dangerous so we got rid of it.
A 43-year-old man by the name of Thomas Hamilton went into Dunblane primary school with 4 hand guns, killed 16 children, one adult, and then shot himself too...
After that the UK had a ban set on handguns, or more specifically only magazine loaded handguns, excluding the .22 caliber (which was the gun in the actual incident), in 1997 this was amended and even the .22 was banned... Leaving only muzzle loaded, historic and certain sporting hand guns legal.
I've been told (but I haven't confirmed) that when this ban was introduced the police forces ordered everyone to turn in all there guns that now were no longer legal and there were no questions asked... No "where did you get this", "who is the owner of this gun", "has this gun been used in a crime", nothing like that, just turn up and hand your guns over for disposal.
And since then on our gun crime rate has dropped significantly.
The US has a lot more of these tragic incidents happening all the time and I'm just wondering nobody ever really seems to stop and think "Hey, without all these guns just laying around it'd be a lot harder to kill someone if you get pissed off easily". I've noticed many people just jump strait in to quote the second amendment and that's all they have to say... Yeah, we had the right to bare arms too, but we saw that it was kinda dangerous so we got rid of it.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
SatsumaBenji, you are not entirely accurate.
The Firearms Act dates back to 1968 but other gun control acts go back to the 1900s.
The handguns used at Dunblane where, I believe, 2 9mm Brownings and 2 Smith & Wesson .357 Magnums. Changes to the laws have been to do with who can have guns and what are appropriate guns they can have.
We still have the right to bear arm. I believe the 1689 Bill of Rights gives us such but the text is something like "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"
The Firearms Act dates back to 1968 but other gun control acts go back to the 1900s.
The handguns used at Dunblane where, I believe, 2 9mm Brownings and 2 Smith & Wesson .357 Magnums. Changes to the laws have been to do with who can have guns and what are appropriate guns they can have.
We still have the right to bear arm. I believe the 1689 Bill of Rights gives us such but the text is something like "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"
@SatsumaBenji
While gun control limits gun crime, it doesn't affect violent crime overall; a common argument is that the UK has more violent crime per capita than the US, and that those US states that allow open carry have lower violent crime than other states. But "violent crime rate" is misleading because it simply refers to the number of incidences per capita, and doesn't include how severe the incidences were: it's a lot harder to kill ten people with a screwdriver than a handgun. It also relies on accurate and consistent reporting of those incidences, and violent crime is more likely to be reported in the UK than in the US by a factor of 4.8 (which was calculated by looking at the differences between survey results and official records). Take a look at this article: http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
While gun control limits gun crime, it doesn't affect violent crime overall; a common argument is that the UK has more violent crime per capita than the US, and that those US states that allow open carry have lower violent crime than other states. But "violent crime rate" is misleading because it simply refers to the number of incidences per capita, and doesn't include how severe the incidences were: it's a lot harder to kill ten people with a screwdriver than a handgun. It also relies on accurate and consistent reporting of those incidences, and violent crime is more likely to be reported in the UK than in the US by a factor of 4.8 (which was calculated by looking at the differences between survey results and official records). Take a look at this article: http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
| I wonder what you mean by "compete," and I wonder if your "probability" is backed by any sort of statistics or studies other than some nebulous hodgepodge of impressions from websites and news. |
To be honest, you're comment bothers me because even though I gave myself a disadvantage in my sources and most of my arguments are based on logic and basic statistics, you try and discredit that simply by saying my sources are bad. I'm not sure what else you're supposed to look at. The only other reference I've made is to other countries which have implemented said gun control. Is that also bad? The only website I've provided, which is gunpolicy.org, actually cites their statistics themselves which you can look at, similar to how wikipedia works.
So if my "nebulous hodgepodge of impressions" aren't good enough, what is? Just because you claim I don't have firm impressions doesn't dismiss any of my arguments. Please refrain from saying such things, they can be taken as personal. If you want, target the website on how it's folly, why referencing other countries is a bad idea, or the reasoning of one of my arguments. You shouldn't target my grasp or understanding of something.
Last edited on