Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[moojerk]

You are equating basic human rights and the very loaded term of "freedom" with a law that lets you carry personal firearms. I'm sorry, that's just rethoric and nothing more. In the end, you are justifying the need for any common man on the street to wield a deadly weapon for no other reason than basic paranoia and sadly, decades and decades of successful media spinning and lobbying by the companies that make billions off gun sales.

You are further equating me finding a defense of gun laws with holding the need for defense of "your loved ones" in contempt (more rethoric), and then reverting to the most common of conservative American arguments "F'ck off and let us live the way we want to". Nobody is trying to change your way of living. There are however, different opinions in the world than yours, and since you entered a discussion on the subject here, i may tender the notion that it is indeed open for an exchange of opinions and not defensive bashing of any other opinions.

The pro-gun lobby always falls back to the same arguments most conservatives fall back to when they simply run out of any solid ground "you hate America" "it's a free country and only I as a convervative know what the Founding Fathers REALLY wanted" or "you hate freedom". You're living in a mass media-spun world. Take a step back and think critically, if I may suggest so.

In my own personal opinion, bereft of any American lobbies here in Austria, I sincerely believe no man should be wielding a personal firearm privately. I do not see the reason for it in the slightest, any waving of crime statistics etc is a dog chasing it's own tail since it usually leads to the origin of the problem - an abundance of cheap, freely available firearms.

The 2nd amendment of the united states constitution. No one needs to justify anything beyond that. It was a founding principle of our country. We don't need to explain anything, or offer any other reason as to why we are allowed to own and carry firearms. We can because it's our constitutionally protected right. Maybe I missed a previous part of the conversation, but any discussion beyond the aforementioned in terms of "reason" or "justification" is superfluous.

[bergmann620]

You are equating basic human rights and the very loaded term of "freedom" with a law that lets you carry personal firearms. I'm sorry, that's just rethoric and nothing more. In the end, you are justifying the need for any common man on the street to wield a deadly weapon for no other reason than basic paranoia and sadly, decades and decades of successful media spinning and lobbying by the companies that make billions off gun sales.

Where in my quote did I do that? I said that the freedom to carry a gun is just that- a freedom. The state need to make its' case to limit or take away that right- which in degrees, they already have. Nothing else in your opening paragraph has anything of substance to respond to.

You are further equating me finding a defense of gun laws with holding the need for defense of "your loved ones" in contempt (more rethoric), and then reverting to the most common of conservative American arguments "F'ck off and let us live the way we want to". Nobody is trying to change your way of living. There are however, different opinions in the world than yours, and since you entered a discussion on the subject here, i may tender the notion that it is indeed open for an exchange of opinions and not defensive bashing of any other opinions.

What are you even talking about here? You started out this discussion calling 'my' views absurd, and you're now putting words in my mouth when I very respectfully disagreed with you?

The pro-gun lobby always falls back to the same arguments most conservatives fall back to when they simply run out of any solid ground "you hate America" "it's a free country and only I as a convervative know what the Founding Fathers REALLY wanted" or "you hate freedom". You're living in a mass media-spun world. Take a step back and think critically, if I may suggest so.

I am thinking very critically. That critical thought says that, not even considering any constitutional issues, it's the state's burden to prove why they should be allowed to limit or take away our freedoms. We are living under a President currently that doesn't even think he needs to provide a legal justification for the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.

In my own personal opinion, bereft of any American lobbies here in Austria, I sincerely believe no man should be wielding a personal firearm privately. I do not see the reason for it in the slightest, any waving of crime statistics etc is a dog chasing it's own tail since it usually leads to the origin of the problem - an abundance of cheap, freely available firearms.

If you had any stats or other justification for that, I'm sure you would have provided it.

[miffy23]

Just because something is being kept in the constitution (for over 200 years i may add, put the relevance of that amendment into perspective please), does by no means make it a valid justification today. There are influential parties that benefit financially to a huge extent by this amendment, which is why it is still in place and so many of you believe it is so important to your personal belief system.

So if your government tries to establish a police state you'll stop it with your personally owned AR? Mhm. Ever heard of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, the newly formed INTERIOR drone surveillance program? Wake up and smell the humus.

[The Riddler]

"I find the notion of even debating whether or not you "need" automatic assault rifles for anything but efficient man-hunting absurd (short snip) ... the only arguments pro guns I ever see on these boards are "it's my personal choice, my freedom" and "they're for protection". I'm not going into how absurd these claims are..."

I seldom, if ever, see anyone saying they "need" an assault rifle. The objection (which most anti-gun advocates ignore) is that it is an ennumerated right in the Constitution to own one if you want and that right - like ALL rights in the Bill of Rights - should not be impinged. The weapons you question are already regulated. There are already laws. There are already more restrictions and limitations than you can shake a stick at. The argument is that no FURTHER laws are needed, and that any FURTHER laws would be against the fundamental rights in the Constitution of the United States.

For a non-resident to sniff their noses over the basic rights spelled out in our Constitution for centuries and call the desire to protect them "absurd"? Yeah - please try not to drown in your tears as we either rightfully ignore such nonsense, or laugh derisively at your cheek.

I sincerely believe no man should be wielding a personal firearm privately. I do not see the reason for it in the slightest

This comment epitomizes the "Anti Gun" school of thought, and provides every reason for anyone who cares about their personal rights to ignore that entire side of the debate in total. It spells out the real objective quite clearly. It is the same thing as saying, "My opinion is that there is no reason for anyone to have a gun. Therefore I'm going to vote for laws that oppress those who disagrees with me because I'm right and they are wrong."

We've proven conclusively that assault rifle laws and other such bans are emotionally drive, statistically impotent fluff. They do not decrease deaths because over 72% of all firearm homicides are caused by regular ol' pistols. More people die from hammers and baseball bats than rifles. The only "Law" that will satisfy anti-gun zealots is the wholesale banning of all firearms from pea-shooters to sniper rifles. That's the objective.

I can only take comfort in articles such as this one...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...as-153146.html

The whole "gun control" thing is just one in a series of tired, ratings-driven news puke - and all the comments from selectively outraged anti-gun advocates is only so many parrots continuing to squawk after their masters have already tired of the game. They shut down the idiots in Chicago. Feinstein's gun ban will go nowhere. This is all so much tempest in a teapot that is already dying and going away just like it did with the Giffords shooting. And good riddance when it is all but over completely. Sadly though, such discussions are like zombies and bad pennies. They keep coming back, and therefore keep requiring vigilance to defeat.

[bergmann620]

Just because something is being kept in the constitution (for over 200 years i may add, put the relevance of that amendment into perspective please), does by no means make it a valid justification today. There are influential parties that benefit financially to a huge extent by this amendment, which is why it is still in place and so many of you believe it is so important to your personal belief system.

So if your government tries to establish a police state you'll stop it with your personally owned AR? Mhm. Ever heard of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, the newly formed INTERIOR drone surveillance program? Wake up and smell the humus.

With the bolded, you're proving the relevance of the 2nd Amendment.

Further, we have a process to amend our Constitution. I suggest that anyone that wants to rid us of the Second Amendment start that process. Then we'll see how far it gets.

Who knows, if we get rid of the Second, maybe we can officially get to work on the 1st, 4th, and 5th next =)

[tawney]

Why people argue with leftist's about gun control i will never know. Nothing will change their mind, as they believe in huge government and few personal rights period. Their arguments are usually based on gut reaction to things they know nothing about. Why else champion a awb when handguns kill many more people?

[moojerk]

Just because something is being kept in the constitution (for over 200 years i may add, put the relevance of that amendment into perspective please), does by no means make it a valid justification today.

It is very much in perspective. It appears you have a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is. Start there and once you understand the reasoning for it, you will realize it is very much relevant, maybe even more so given the current state of our economy and government.

There are influential parties that benefit financially to a huge extent by this amendment, which is why it is still in place and so many of you believe it is so important to your personal belief system.

Ah yes that's why it's there, it's a conspiracy to make some money. You figured it out! Mystery solved!

So if your government tries to establish a police state you'll stop it with your personally owned AR? Mhm. Ever heard of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, the newly formed INTERIOR drone surveillance program? Wake up and smell the humus.

You're still missing the point. In order to establish a police state, they would necessarily have to first take away our guns and the 2nd amendment. You tried to put the cart before the horse.

[Deadvolcanoes]

In my own personal opinion, bereft of any American lobbies here in Austria, I sincerely believe no man should be wielding a personal firearm privately. I do not see the reason for it in the slightest.

One of my good friends has a very violent and mentally disturbed ex-boyfriend. He beat the shit out of her so bad one night, she was in a coma for 2 weeks.

They are now separated, but he continues to stalk her. She fears for her life. I think she has every reason in the world to carry a concealed weapon.

[miffy23]

To all of the above bashing:

I'm telling you you already ARE living in a police state mostly, American citizens are stripped of any rights under many of the mentioned acts, which all happened while u were proudly thumping your right to bear arms. That's why I find the notion that you need the 2nd amendment and weapons to protect your rights laughable.

My cheek? I am in fact an American citizen and have grown up with American media. However, even if I were a complete "foreigner" i don't believe u need to be a citizen or need to living there to talk about such questions. The fact of the matter is that you are using mere rethoric to defend something wholly indefensible - the use of deadly force. And only in America is there such a hysterical hyperbole when it comes to these matters. If you look at media treatment of these subjects, u find your clues.

Oh and I find it funny that having a black Democrat as president is now (quietly, on the side) mentioned as a reason for having to own guns.

It's plain and simple - you are crying murder over someone debating to take away your gun..firearm...pistol...assault rifle. Whatever. You don't feel safe in your own country apparently which is why u claim to need these. The fact you can't actually see how absurd this train of thought is makes me sad.

And @ Deadvolcanoes. I fail to see how owning a gun would have made that sad tragedy any better. Maybe she would have shot him? So then she'd have committed a murder. Of a mentally unstable person. This is better...how? Violence begets violence...

[Deadvolcanoes]

That's why I find the notion that you need the 2nd amendment and weapons to protect your rights laughable.

As someone who strongly supports gun owner rights, I also find the argument that "We need our guns to protect us from the Government," to be a terrible reason to support gun rights. Probably the worst. All it does it make you seem crazy, and further alienate those on the fence.

[moojerk]

And @ Deadvolcanoes. I fail to see how owning a gun would have made that sad tragedy any better. Maybe she would have shot him? So then she'd have committed a murder. Of a mentally unstable person. This is better...how? Violence begets violence...

Just so I have this straight... You're saying the killing of 20 innocent elementary-age children is somehow morally equal to the killing of one deranged individual as he's stopped at the door by a CCW holder? Yea, I simply can't debate a topic with someone who is using that kind of logic.

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 03:29 PM ----------

As someone who strongly supports gun owner rights, I also find the argument that "We need our guns to protect us from the Government," to be a terrible reason to support gun rights. Probably the worst. All it does it make you seem crazy, and further alienate those on the fence.

Then you do not understand the reasoning for the second amendment. You may need to do some research on history across the world, particularly involving governments taking away guns from citizens.

[bergmann620]

And @ Deadvolcanoes. I fail to see how owning a gun would have made that sad tragedy any better. Maybe she would have shot him? So then she'd have committed a murder. Of a mentally unstable person. This is better...how? Violence begets violence...

You're a real hero.

Self defense isn't murder. Someone being mentally unstable doesn't give them the right beat someone else to death (or near death).

[Jekerdud]

I'll say this once. You DON'T need guns to kill people. If guns get banned, the next psycho on a killing spree will do so with knives or a baseball bat with nails through it. Hell, if he's a big psycho that's gotten into a lot of fights over the years, maybe he'll just run around beating the shit out of people.

Sure, I agree with registration, we SHOULD know where they all are. It will never be perfect though, because people steal things, guns get passed down through families (heirloom laws in some states), and paperwork doesn't get done. Maybe add the firearm thing to the census, and make it required so it does get done?

But since my father sells guns, I can tell you that the sale system is SERIOUSLY flawed. Right now, there is a background check. But what that background check does not include is a psychological exam, unless that person has previously done something to have his psych records on file for the background check. I think that in order to purchase a firearm, there should be a psych exam. If you've already had one, just have your doctor put his/her recommendation in there, if not, once you express interest, you fill out a form that gets you an exam.

Now, one thing anyone reading this with a medical background would think is, "What about HIPPA, the privacy act, and all that other 'patient confidentiality' mumbo jumbo?" Well, they would have to be amended, just a slight bit. When the salesman does the background check, and they come to the psych section, all the salesman needs from the doctor is a ONE WORD ANSWER; yes, or no. That's it. No details, no, "he has XX mental disorder," just a yes or no. If the customer buying the gun goes "why is there a no?" All the salesman has to do is say, "go ask your doctor, I don't get the details."

There we go, a way to weed out the idiots who would ruin it for the responsible people. Sure, it might be flawed or need polish, but it's a better start than trying to outright ban guns, because I can tell you, it'll never fully pass.

[moojerk]

You'Re not talking about the freedom of speech, the free trade or any other kind of freedom. You're talking about the right to purchase and own a deadly weapon for no other reason than that a large part of your environment suggests you should, since there are so very many dangers out there, especially from "them", who will try to take away your freedoms and all that. Once it was commies, now it's muslims, sometimes it's just liberals or atheists. Usually any kind of vastly differing opinion will do. Anything to scare you from your couch to your local gun store.

You may not like the reasoning you're given, and to be honest it appears you'd argue with any reasoning given simply on the basis you disagree with it. I'm not sure what more there is to say.

My argument is having the means to inflict violence yourself does not protect you from harm, in fact it usually causes more violence by itself.

Only if you view self-defense as "violence". You're trying to put a negative connotation on it. If you want to die a martyr for your principles that's your choice. You have no right to force that onto others.

[miffy23]

Meh, deleted my last reply by mistake.

@moojerk and bergmann: How is any killing morally equatable with another? I never claimed anything of the sort. I merely claim that that person having owned a personal firearm would it no way have guaranteed a better outcome, more likely than not it would have ended in a killing. Legally no, it's not murder, but how that situation is any better i fail to see. I never claimed that person had any right to hurt anyone, you're jumping way ahead of yourself here.

And yeah, someone is apparently trying to take away your "freedoms". Nevermind the actual legislation in place that robs you of your most basic rights! Once it was the commies, the Germans, now it's the muslims, sometimes just the liberals or atheists. Really, any vastly differing opinion is a good reason to get scared out of your couch and into the local gunstore.

moojerk: I have as yet seen no reasonable argument pro guns ever. Apart from a family living in an area with murders happening on the streets, there's hardly any justification for it. The fear of government is not valid in my opinion, as i have stated why that is moot already. And you can hardly claim that every person in the US is in constant danger of being violently assaulted. If in fact that were the case, it would largely only happen due to the fact that the guns were so easily obtainable in the first place.

I'm not trying to put a negative connotation to it at all. I just fail to see how that scenario is so much better.

[bergmann620]

As someone who strongly supports gun owner rights, I also find the argument that "We need our guns to protect us from the Government," to be a terrible reason to support gun rights. Probably the worst. All it does it make you seem crazy, and further alienate those on the fence.

Constitutionally, it's the primary reason.

Outside of that, it would seem nuts to maintain a firearm for that reason in any time other than when it was needed.

Basically, (and I don't own one, but if I did), these would be my arguments:

1) I want to be able (within reason) to defend my rights against all comers, be they intruders, a foreign power, or my own government.

2) From my childhood, I know that I enjoy shooting sports, whether it is hunting(for food), target shooting, plinking, etc.

I know everyone tries to marginalize people as anti-government crazies- and in many cases that is valid. In many other cases, though, people such as myself are strong enough in ourselves to know that there are differences between 'legal' and 'moral', and that the government being strong doesn't mean the government is right. I hope we never reach that point in my lifetime, or in my family's lifetime. That said, if we one day are in the situation Syria is in now, I will fight.

You can call me crazy, but we have had countless generations of people that think the same way. That thinking has seen this nation through its' darkest times. 300 years ago, there were people that thought the same way, and I'm glad for them, too. I'm glad they had the faith and the courage to stand up when being called crazy was the least of their worries. I hope to never be called in that manner. Violence, to me, should always be a last resort, and a mournful one at that.

[moojerk]

I think that in order to purchase a firearm, there should be a psych exam.

You should have to have a psych exam to vote. You should have to take a test to make sure you understand all of the issues clearly before you vote. You should have to breath into an auto-lock breathalyzer every time you try to start your car to make sure you're not drunk. You should have to pass an English exam before you are allowed to use free speech.

I agree with the law that if you have been adjudicated mentally ill in some way, you should not be allowed to own a firearm. But to force everyone who tried to buy one to have to first go through a psych exam is just ridiculous in my opinion.

And to be honest, it won't stop a crazy person from getting a gun anyways. If someone wants to harm people, they'll find a way to do it. No amount of laws or legislation is going to reduce or stop that.

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 03:48 PM ----------

I merely claim that that person having owned a personal firearm would it no way have guaranteed a better outcome,

No one has a crystal ball and could say it would have guaranteed anything. But, with the school being a gun free zone, instead of there at least being a chance, the killer was guaranteed a high body count. Self-defense CCW is about at least having a chance.

more likely than not it would have ended in a killing. Legally no, it's not murder, but how that situation is any better i fail to see.

20 dead children, or 1 dead bad guy. And you fail to see how the latter is any better? Again I can't argue with someone using that kind of logic.

[Deadvolcanoes]

And @ Deadvolcanoes. I fail to see how owning a gun would have made that sad tragedy any better. Maybe she would have shot him? So then she'd have committed a murder. Of a mentally unstable person. This is better...how? Violence begets violence...

Owning a firearm is not not supposed to have made "that sad tragedy any better." It's supposed to prevent it from happening again.

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 04:55 PM ----------

Then you do not understand the reasoning for the second amendment. You may need to do some research on history across the world, particularly involving governments taking away guns from citizens.

Yes, I do understand the reasoning for the second amendment. I just happen to disagree with it.

[miffy23]

Constitutionally, it's the primary reason.

Outside of that, it would seem nuts to maintain a firearm for that reason in any time other than when it was needed.

Basically, (and I don't own one, but if I did), these would be my arguments:

1) I want to be able (within reason) to defend my rights against all comers, be they intruders, a foreign power, or my own government.

2) From my childhood, I know that I enjoy shooting sports, whether it is hunting(for food), target shooting, plinking, etc.

I know everyone tries to marginalize people as anti-government crazies- and in many cases that is valid. In many other cases, though, people such as myself are strong enough in ourselves to know that there are differences between 'legal' and 'moral', and that the government being strong doesn't mean the government is right. I hope we never reach that point in my lifetime, or in my family's lifetime. That said, if we one day are in the situation Syria is in now, I will fight.

You can call me crazy, but we have had countless generations of people that think the same way. That thinking has seen this nation through its' darkest times. 300 years ago, there were people that thought the same way, and I'm glad for them, too. I'm glad they had the faith and the courage to stand up when being called crazy was the least of their worries. I hope to never be called in that manner. Violence, to me, should always be a last resort, and a mournful one at that.

1) You defend your rights by voting for the party that represents your opinion in a democracy, by striking, by protesting and raising your voice and discussing, NOT by shooting an offender in the face. This reasoning is based on people in the 1800's having a lot of other concerns than what pizza to order or which channel to watch (this applies to all of the Western world, myself included). Which is why it is outdated and irrelevant.

2) Your hobby is your own, and if your sports firearms are kept at the range, or you are actually a licensed hunter in a hunting ground, i see no issue with that. The issue with people claiming to ahve to own personal firearms in their homes and in their private property. The justification for that is wobbly at best.

And countless of generations thought that way, yet never did a flash mob pick up arms and force their way into the Senate to stop such jaw-dropping legislature like the Patriot Act. Ameria was "seen through it's darkest days" by freedom of speech, exchange of ideas and forming consensus for the benefit of all, which has sadly turned into bashing of a differing opinion and sitting at home scared.

[Deleted]

Why else champion a awb when handguns kill many more people?

Two words : Slippery slope. It's a step in what we believe is the right direction. However, the execution is quite poor here.

Self defense isn't murder. Someone being mentally unstable doesn't give them the right beat someone else to death (or near death).

Understand where he is coming from. Austria does not have the death penalty. There are a number of people out there who believe that you should not kill unless your own life or integrity is at risk. Giving guns to people does let them defend themselves when they need to, but also when they don't need to. There are other ways to defend oneself against this type of person, that don't involve lethal force.

1) I want to be able (within reason) to defend my rights against all comers, be they intruders, a foreign power, or my own government.

2) From my childhood, I know that I enjoy shooting sports, whether it is hunting(for food), target shooting, plinking, etc.

Well, here's the answer to that :
1. Lethal force is not "within reason" and comes with too many disadvantages.
2. Gun control usually recognizes this and allows gun access for this kind of activities.