Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

So your actions out of fear are OK and theirs aren't. K.

Again, there's a difference between someone exercising their rights, and someone trying to take those rights away. The average gun owner has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, only exercises his rights based on what he feels he needs to do within his own life. The anti gun people want to take those rights away from him based on unreasonable fear.

If you want me to spell it out for you again, here we go:

1. It's not unreasonable to protect yourself from the harsh realities of the world (criminals, governments, ect).

2. It IS unreasonable to expect to take away people's ability to protect themselves just because you are afraid of guns.

[Deleted]

NRA's motto is "clean it up". It's so messy cleaning up after a school shooting.

[Grizzly Willy]

Again, would you characterize wearing a seatbelt as an action motivated by fear?

Yes, I would. I wear a seatbelt as a safety measure against heinous injury in the case of an accident. That doesn't make the motivation bad.

My point is that fear of something isn't a bad reason for making a decision. Some people buy guns because they're afraid of the government, or afraid of criminals. Some people don't buy guns because they're afraid of the gun being turned against them. I don't see a problem with either line of thinking as long as one side doesn't slam the other for having their fear determine their actions.

Again, there's a difference between someone exercising their rights, and someone trying to take those rights away.

I never mentioned people banning guns out of fear. The discussion was regarding people who don't want to purchase a gun because they fear them. When your action is initiated by a fear of something, I have no problem with that. When you push others to a specific action because of a fear that you possess that is unfounded, then I take issue. Hence my problem with the assault weapons ban, and hence my issue with certain NRA members pushing for armed teachers in school. They're based on not only fear, but a severe level of misunderstanding regarding the problems surrounding the issue as well.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Again, would you characterize wearing a seatbelt as an action motivated by fear?

The instances of seat belts being used against their owners, or being used to injure someone in general, are probably quite low. I don't have a source for this but if someone doesn't believe me I'll have to question their deductive reasoning.

It's also been thoroughly demonstrated in this very thread that people are afraid of tyrannical governmental takeovers, and believe that a pistol or rifle is the only thing standing between their freedom and a tyrannical dystopian future ruled by king Obama.

[Vuljatar]

Yes, I would. I wear a seatbelt as a safety measure against heinous injury in the case of an accident. That doesn't make the motivation bad.

My point is that fear of something isn't a bad reason for making a decision. Some people buy guns because they're afraid of the government, or afraid of criminals. Some people don't buy guns because they're afraid of the gun being turned against them. I don't see a problem with either line of thinking as long as one side doesn't slam the other for having their fear determine their actions.

You're correct of course, from a purely literal standpoint the use of any safety device is motivated by fear and indeed the same could be said of anything you do on the bases of making yourself safer.

And I agree with you that it's not a bad thing. That's why it's the characterization being used by the anti-gun crowd that I take issue with. Saying "Look at those idiots getting scared into buying guns by the NRA" is as foolish as saying "Look at those idiots getting scared into wearing seatbelts and driving safe cars by the IIHS".

The instances of seat belts being used against their owners, or being used to injure someone in general, are probably quite low. I don't have a source for this but if someone doesn't believe me I'll have to question their deductive reasoning.

...and?

I didn't ask if we should be afraid of seat belts. I asked you if you would characterize the use of seatbelts as being motivated by fear. (See above, my question relates to the characterization, not the literal meaning.)

It's also been thoroughly demonstrated in this very thread that people are afraid of tyrannical governmental takeovers, and believe that a pistol or rifle is the only thing standing between their freedom and a tyrannical dystopian future ruled by king Obama.

...and?

Your statement provides no argument against gun ownership. And gun ownership is a useful tool against government tyranny, among many other things.

[Grizzly Willy]

You're correct of course, from a purely literal standpoint the use of any safety device is motivated by fear and indeed the same could be said of anything you do on the bases of making yourself safer.

And I agree with you that it's not a bad thing. That's why it's the characterization being used by the anti-gun crowd that I take issue with. Saying "Look at those idiots getting scared into buying guns by the NRA" is as foolish as saying "Look at those idiots getting scared into wearing seatbelts and driving safe cars by the IIHS".

Then you'll agree that people who don't own guns on the grounds that they are afraid of their gun being used wrongfully are just as valid as those who buy a gun on the grounds that they are afraid of tyranny, and that TinyKong is wrong in saying that these are bad reasons for action?

[lockedout]

Oh look, another mass shooting.

Oh well, clean up and wait for it to happen again, right?

Another motor vehicle accident, oh well. clean it up and wait for it to happen again, right?

[Grizzly Willy]

Another motor vehicle accident, oh well. clean it up and wait for it to happen again, right?

Are we going back to fallaciously comparing cars to firearms again?

[lockedout]

Are we going back to fallaciously comparing cars to firearms again?

Just for context.
Both are situations that could have been avoided but guns need to be out right banned is what was being insinuated.

[Eroginous]

I never mentioned people banning guns out of fear. The discussion was regarding people who don't want to purchase a gun because they fear them. When your action is initiated by a fear of something, I have no problem with that. When you push others to a specific action because of a fear that you possess that is unfounded, then I take issue. Hence my problem with the assault weapons ban, and hence my issue with certain NRA members pushing for armed teachers in school. They're based on not only fear, but a severe level of misunderstanding regarding the problems surrounding the issue as well.

The discussion turned into this idea that people don't buy guns because they are afraid of them, because someone misunderstood something I said. I was never deliberately arguing that people are afraid to buy guns, nor was I arguing that people want to ban guns out of fear.

I AM pointing out that the common tactic from the left is the use of fear mongering to push their anti gun agenda (regardless of whether or not anyone in that party is actually afraid of guns). The sentiment from the left boils down to this: 'it makes sense for us to restrict gun ownership, taking away the right to own 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines, because someone might use one of those things to kill your children in a mass shooting.'

Is it reasonable to fear your children being gunned down in a public place? Sure, it can happen. But the reasonable approach to that problem is to hold our government and businesses accountable for keeping people safe, not to ban a certain style of weapon or size of magazine. If you go to Walmart, and some guy goes nuts with a weapon, isn't it Walmart's responsibility to provide a safe environment for it's customers? Shouldn't they hire security personnel that are trained and equipped to respond to that sort of a threat?

How is it any different when we are talking about other places of business or schools? Furthermore, how does taking away my right to own a certain model of gun stop some other asshole from getting a gun and doing something bad with it?

[Grizzly Willy]

I don't support gun bans, so you'll have to ask somebody else.

At this point it seems that my point is getting confused with partisan bullshit, so I'll excuse myself from the conversation.

[xylophone]

I don't support gun bans, so you'll have to ask somebody else.

At this point it seems that my point is getting confused with partisan bullshit, so I'll excuse myself from the conversation.

You can't fool me you gun-grabbing commie!

[Eroginous]

I don't support gun bans, so you'll have to ask somebody else.

At this point it seems that my point is getting confused with partisan bullshit, so I'll excuse myself from the conversation.

I'm only responding to the conversation that unintentionally spawned from something I said. I understood your point loud and clear, I'm just trying to make a different one now.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Your statement provides no argument against gun ownership. And gun ownership is a useful tool against government tyranny, among many other things.

Humor me. Explain what a 10 round hand gun or a 30 round AR15 is going to do against a government takeover.

[Vuljatar]

Then you'll agree that people who don't own guns on the grounds that they are afraid of their gun being used wrongfully are just as valid as those who buy a gun on the grounds that they are afraid of tyranny, and that TinyKong is wrong in saying that these are bad reasons for action?

Of course. I don't have a problem with peoples' personal choices, I have a problem with people wanting to take away mine.

---------- Post added 2013-06-08 at 02:18 AM ----------

Humor me. Explain what a 10 round hand gun or a 30 round AR15 is going to do against a government takeover.

An armed populace is far more difficult to suppress than an unarmed one.

And before we move too far along with that particular subject, I'd like your opinion on the other part of my earlier post that was in response to you. Would you characterize seatbelt usage in the same way the majority of the anti-gun crowd characterizes gun ownership?

[Cthulhu 2020]

An armed populace is far more difficult to suppress than an unarmed one.

And before we move too far along with that particular subject, I'd like your opinion on the other part of my earlier post that was in response to you. Would you characterize seatbelt usage in the same way the majority of the anti-gun crowd characterizes gun ownership?

Oh really? You still haven't explained how guns will stop a government take over.

As far as seat belts, the basic premise of their use is the same (for protection from something), but beyond that they're apples and oranges. Belief that guns will stop a government take over is not only a fear driven fantasy, but quite delusional as well. Seat belts do save lives. Guns are an extremely double edged sword, in that they take and save many lives.

[Vuljatar]

Oh really? You still haven't explained how guns will stop a government take over.

As far as seat belts, the basic premise of their use is the same (for protection from something), but beyond that they're apples and oranges. Belief that guns will stop a government take over is not only a fear driven fantasy, but quite delusional as well. Seat belts do save lives. Guns are an extremely double edged sword, in that they take and save many lives.

Obviously it depends on the circumstances and definition of "take over" (since, lets be honest, the government has an awful lot of control over our lives already). But to put it simply (and to repeat what I just said...) it's far easier to forcibly take control of an unarmed populace than an armed one. I can't even fathom how you could call such common sense "delusional" or "fantasy".

There are circumstances in which the use of a seatbelt can cause the death of someone who would have survived if the seatbelt had not been used. This is not a good reason to abandon the use of seatbelts.

But even this is missing the core of the issue. The right to properly defend yourself is one of the most important, most basic human rights. In most situations, a gun is a more effective self-defense tool than any of the alternatives. Furthermore, in an environment where the vast majority of violent criminals have guns, a natural and necessary extension of the right to self-defense is the right to own a gun. And please, please don't be naive enough to think that stricter gun laws would impact criminal gun ownership nearly as much as legal gun ownership.

[Deleted]

But even this is missing the core of the issue. The right to properly defend yourself is one of the most important, most basic human rights. In most situations, a gun is a more effective self-defense tool than any of the alternatives. Furthermore, in an environment where the vast majority of violent criminals have guns, a natural and necessary extension of the right to self-defense is the right to own a gun. And please, please don't be naive enough to think that stricter gun laws would impact criminal gun ownership nearly as much as legal gun ownership.

Add to that a very long police response time, the fact that the pocile doesn't have to protect anyone and that there is a gang problem in many big cities.

Edit: forgot to add that most law enforcement agencies are underfunded (including the ATF, those that would enforce the stupid bans).
Restricting gun ownership would maybe have a tiny impact on crime, but that doesn't change the fact that the causes for crime are still there and would still need to be fixed. Restricting guns costs money, better spend that money on the long term things that have to be adressed anyway (healthcare, unemployment, underfunded police, etc) and that would have a bigger impact on crime.

[Deleted]

Add to that a very long police response time, the fact that the pocile doesn't have to protect anyone and that there is a gang problem in many big cities.

Most of which can be avoided with a home security system that's clearly visible from the exterior. Criminals don't want to get caught, so something that costs less than a Glock should be the first thing anyone buys.
But of course, not many people like that option; For some bizarre reason they are content with "I have a gun if they get in!"... Which, if that's your mindset, you're really missing a lot when it comes to self-defence. If you can prevent something or at least drastically reduce the likelihood, it's a good reason to do it.

[THE Bigzoman]

Most of which can be avoided with a home security system that's clearly visible from the exterior. Criminals don't want to get caught, so something that costs less than a Glock should be the first thing anyone buys.
But of course, not many people like that option; For some bizarre reason they are content with "I have a gun if they get in!"... Which, if that's your mindset, you're really missing a lot when it comes to self-defence. If you can prevent something or at least drastically reduce the likelihood, it's a good reason to do it.

Most of the better home security systems come with installation prices and a monthly fee (among other things)

A single purchase of a gun and ammo would prove to be far cheaper over time.

So yeah, it makes perfect sense for someone to go with the gun vs the security system.

Especially if we are talking about low income areas where there a very long police response times.