Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

Personally, I just wish that every state allowed open carry. still require people to get trained, licensed, etc, but let them carry handguns openly....

Would fix a lot of things.

Sure, overpopulation for once. Oh but it would be catastrophic for your already full jails.

[TZucchini]

I 100% agree. My son is only 9 months old. But starting around 2-3, he will be shown what guns are, can do, etc, etc. That's a major issue - people who have guns in their house and not knowing how to properly handle them, much less, teaching others in the house how ot properly handle them...

You're going to show your 2-year-old what guns are, and what they can do, etc., etc.? Why? A two year old doesn't possess the mental capacity to fully understand the implications of a loaded firearm. They hardly understand language at 2 years old, and you want to flash your gun around?

What could possibly go wrong...

[Laize]

It should be though. It's about responsability. That gun might be used for crime if stolen. Every gun added in the black market is a major problem.

What if I left my car parked in the open overnight (as MANY if not most cars are). What if someone steals the car and uses it to commit a crime? Maybe kills someone in the process?

What is functionally different about them stealing my car and killing someone with it vs stealing my gun and killing someone with it?

Technically I have a greater expectation that my gun will be safer in my house than my car will be on the street.

[TZucchini]

What if I left my car parked in the open overnight (as MANY if not most cars are). What if someone steals the car and uses it to commit a crime? Maybe kills someone in the process?

What is functionally different about them stealing my car and killing someone with it vs stealing my gun and killing someone with it?

Technically I have a greater expectation that my gun will be safer in my house than my car will be on the street.

I guess we'll have to keep entertaining this horrible comparison between cars and firearms....

Cars already have a locking mechanism in them. Guns don't. Cars require skill to steal. Guns don't. By law, cars must be registered and insured. Guns don't. The intended use of cars is transportation. The intended use of firearms is to fire a projectile. Firearms are used in 10,000+ intentional homicides a year. Cars are used in (probably less than 10?) intentional homicides a year.

We could go on and on and on, explaining why leaving a firearm unsecured is different than leaving a car unsecured. Or we could just realize that firearms and cars are not similar, like at all.

[Deleted]

What if I left my car parked in the open overnight (as MANY if not most cars are). What if someone steals the car and uses it to commit a crime? Maybe kills someone in the process?

What is functionally different about them stealing my car and killing someone with it vs stealing my gun and killing someone with it?

Technically I have a greater expectation that my gun will be safer in my house than my car will be on the street.

You mean if someone forces the lock of your car and steals it?

And yeh even if you leave it open, a car is a car, and a gun is a gun.
You can hold people at gunpoint, rob places. You can't do that with a car.
"Give me your wallet or ill run you over"?
The comparison between cars and guns is already silly and absolutely ridicolous on its own, but when it comes down to the potential uses in crime and hence how dangerous it is for society as a whole to not be responsible about it, the comparison just wont stand.
I mean lets call things for what they are.
It's a hobby and if permitted by law you're absolutely entitled to it but guns are dangerous. Stop.
Every gun added in the black market is a potential murder waiting to happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess we'll have to keep entertaining this horrible comparison between cars and firearms....

Cars already have a locking mechanism in them. Guns don't. Cars require skill to steal. Guns don't. By law, cars must be registered and insured. Guns don't. The intended use of cars is transportation. The intended use of firearms is to fire a projectile. Firearms are used in 10,000+ intentional homicides a year. Cars are used in (probably less than 10?) intentional homicides a year.

We could go on and on and on, explaining why leaving a firearm unsecured is different than leaving a car unsecured. Or we could just realize that firearms and cars are not similar, like at all.

Thanks for expressing this in ways my limited English couldn't.

[Laize]

I guess we'll have to keep entertaining this horrible comparison between cars and firearms....

Cars already have a locking mechanism in them. Guns don't.

Houses do and guns aren't stored on your front steps.

Cars require skill to steal. Guns don't.

Houses require skill to break into. If you think hotwiring a car is much more difficult, you've never driven a true beater. I used to have to hotwire my old Celica just to get it to start.

By law, cars must be registered and insured. Guns don't.

Cars are a privilege, guns are a right. You can impose whatever restrictions on car owners you like due precisely to this fact.

The intended use of cars is transportation. The intended use of firearms is to fire a projectile.

Absolutely immaterial.

Firearms are used in 10,000+ intentional homicides a year. Cars are used in (probably less than 10?) intentional homicides a year.

I'd wager cars are used in more crimes in general.

[TZucchini]

Houses do and guns aren't stored on your front steps.

That's true, fair point.

Houses require skill to break into. If you think hotwiring a car is much more difficult, you've never driven a true beater. I used to have to hotwire my old Celica just to get it to start.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say more people know how to break a window or kick down a door than know how to hotwire a car. Especially newer vehicles.

Cars are a privilege, guns are a right. You can impose whatever restrictions on car owners you like due precisely to this fact.

I bring up insurance because, in a sense, it holds the owner responsible for the theft. Your rates will go up if your car gets stolen and causes damage. Shit, your rates will go up if your car just gets stolen. Gun owners aren't held responsible for their stolen firearms, and they should be.

Absolutely immaterial.

If we're comparing two dissimilar items, bringing up their intended use is fair game.

I'd wager cars are used in more crimes in general.

You know what else is used in a lot of crimes. Pants. That's right. Pants. Burglars are always wearing pants.

But I'm talking about things that contribute to crimes. Car's don't contribute to crimes, they facilitate the escape.

Firearms are used directly in crimes as a form of coercion. As Djalil said, criminals aren't out yelling "Give me your wallet or ill run you over."

[Laize]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say more people know how to break a window or kick down a door than know how to hotwire a car. Especially newer vehicles.

Are you forgetting about one of the most ubiquitous tools in any criminal's repertoire?

I bring up insurance because, in a sense, it holds the owner responsible for the theft. Your rates will go up if your car gets stolen and causes damage. Shit, your rates will go up if your car just gets stolen. Gun owners aren't held responsible for their stolen firearms, and they should be.

You're talking about criminal liability for a constitutional right as compared to civil liability for a privilege.

If we're comparing two dissimilar items, bringing up their intended use is fair game.

That's silly and you know it. The items may be dissimilar but they both have valid and criminal uses applicable to almost any crime imaginable. It's not like we're comparing guns and telescopes.

You know what else is used in a lot of crimes. Pants. That's right. Pants. Burglars are always wearing pants.

But I'm talking about things that contribute to crimes. Car's don't contribute to crimes, they facilitate the escape.

Firearms are used directly in crimes as a form of coercion. As Djalil said, criminals aren't out yelling "Give me your wallet or ill run you over."

Pants don't facilitate crime the way cars or firearms can. You're just being absurd at this point.

[Rukentuts]

Pants don't facilitate crime the way cars or firearms can. You're just being absurd at this point.

And cars don't facilitate crimes the way guns can. You're being hypocritical (again) at this point.

[TZucchini]

Are you forgetting about one of the most ubiquitous tools in any criminal's repertoire?

So 9 steps, that require FIRST breaking into the car (note: this first step also gets you into the house). Removing steering columns, cutting wires, connecting the correct wires, and breaking the steering column??

Here's how you break into a house:

Step 1: Pick up a rock.

Step 2: Throw it at a window

Step 3: Enter the house.

Honestly. Trying to compare stealing a car to breaking into a house is a monumental failure on your part.

You're talking about criminal liability for a constitutional right as compared to civil liability for a privilege.

We already have criminal liability for said constitutional right. I'm just trying to expand it.

That's silly and you know it. The items may be dissimilar but they both have valid and criminal uses applicable to almost any crime imaginable. It's not like we're comparing guns and telescopes.

Why can't I compare the intent of said items? Why isn't that valid? One is useful to society, in such a way, that without citizen access to cars, society would collapse overnight. Without citizen access to firearms? Yeah, society still exists.

Pants don't facilitate crime the way cars or firearms can. You're just being absurd at this point.

I'm being absurd on purpose. My original point concerned intentional homicides. You couldn't refute that, so you changed the subject to talk about use in crimes.

[Ghostpanther]

It should be though. It's about responsability. That gun might be used for crime if stolen. Every gun added in the black market is a major problem.

Cars are stolen all the time and some of those are used in crimes. So you saying a car owner should be charged with a crime if his car is stolen?

[Laize]

So 9 steps, that require FIRST breaking into the car (note: this first step also gets you into the house). Removing steering columns, cutting wires, connecting the correct wires, and breaking the steering column??

Here's how you break into a house:

Step 1: Pick up a rock.

Step 2: Throw it at a window

Step 3: Enter the house.

You forgot the zeroth and fourth steps.

Step 0: Know there's a gun in the first place.

Step 4: Find the gun (Note: Not gun safe.)

We already have criminal liability for said constitutional right. I'm just trying to expand it.

We most certainly do not have criminal liability for said constitutional right. Once you've used your rights to infringe on others (My right to swing my arms ends where your nose begins, for example) you are not exercising a right.

Why can't I compare the intent of said items? Why isn't that valid? One is useful to society, in such a way, that without citizen access to cars, society would collapse overnight. Without citizen access to firearms? Yeah, society still exists.

Surprisingly, civilization existed before cars and would exist without them. SUBURBS, on the other hand, would be in trouble. They are not civilization as a whole, though.

I'm being absurd on purpose. My original point concerned intentional homicides. You couldn't refute that, so you changed the subject to talk about use in crimes.

Alright we need to decide right here and now. If cars are incomparable to guns, why do you bring them up when talking about registration and insurance? If they ARE comparable to guns, why are you saying crimes committed with the use of cars are not comparable?

[Ghostpanther]

And cars don't facilitate crimes the way guns can. You're being hypocritical (again) at this point.

Na. I bet cars are used in association with crimes a lot more often than guns are.

[Rukentuts]

Na. I bet cars are used in association with crimes a lot more often than guns are.

So you walk into a store and go "Give me all your cash or I run you over?"

Because air is technically associated to crimes too. Every criminal breathes.

[Deleted]

So you walk into a store and go "Give me all your cash or I run you over?"

I was more thinking of walking in holding the car and pointing it at them, similar to the Banana in the pocket trick, just with a car.

[Tinykong]

So you walk into a store and go "Give me all your cash or I run you over?"

Traffic accidents killed more people than firearms in 2010.

[Mayhem]

Na. I bet cars are used in association with crimes a lot more often than guns are.

by that logic shoes are the worst!

- - - Updated - - -

Traffic accidents killed more people than firearms in 2010.

sharks killed less people than firearms... random facts, awesome

[Deleted]

by that logic shoes are the worst!

The air we breathe, the greatest propagator of crime.

[Tinykong]

sharks killed less people than firearms... random facts, awesome

Is it random because you don't like it, or because it proves the point the previous poster made that crimes committed in automobiles kill more people than crimes with guns?

[Rukentuts]

Is it random because you don't like it, or because it proves the point the previous poster made that crimes committed in automobiles kill more people than crimes with guns?

False comparisons aside for a moment: you just said they were accidents, i.e. ruled accidental with no charges. Which is it?