Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TwoNineMarine]

That's certainly commendable. I also take the safety of my family very seriously. Do you have carbon monoxide detectors in every single bedroom? A central station burglary and fire alarm? Fire extinguishers on every floor placed no more than 50 ft apart? Are they inspected and certified annually? Have you put child safety locks on cabinets containing poisonous liquids?

These threats are much more likely to occur, and if you say no, to any of those questions, then your just using your families safety as an excuse to justify your firearm ownership.

- - - Updated - - -


Defense/intimidation go hand in hand with the objects capacity to kill. Otherwise no one would be intimidated.

Not that it is your need to know but I'll answer your questions.

No need for carbon monoxide detectors, nothing in my house produces excess CM although I do have one in a central location just in case. I do have an alarm and burglary system. I have fire extinguishers in every major room of the house and the closet that is central to all our bedrooms. Yes they are inspected annually (my father in law is a firefighter) And we keep no poisonous liquids in the house proper. Those stay out in the garage up out of reach.

But please don't try and tell me that my families safety is an excuse to justify me having weapons, even if I didn't have those things.

Even if I didn't have kids or a wife I wouldn't need to justify having weapons. The 2nd Amendment is all the justification I need.

[Eroginous]

The 2nd Amendment is all the justification I need.

'I want them' is all the justification you need.

[TwoNineMarine]

'I want them' is all the justification you need.

Works with me!

[Porcell]

Works with me!

I can't help but scratch my head when the "But guns are designed for killing" gets brought up like it's some kind of counter point.

Yes, that's why I own a firearm. Because if I'm ever in a situation where I need to defend myself (or assist in overthrowing a government), that is the correct tool for the job. That's the whole point.

[TZucchini]

Not that it is your need to know but I'll answer your questions.

I'm not looking for answers. Obviously anyone can say "yup I got it." Only you know for sure.

But please don't try and tell me that my families safety is an excuse to justify me having weapons

Sure. Why don't you just do it for me.

I own weapons for three reasons. The main purpose is for self defense. There is nothing I take more seriously then the safety of my family.

The 2nd Amendment is all the justification I need.

I know. It's pathetic, isn't it? One of the greatest documents ever written gave every Tom Dick and Jane the ability to own a piece of metal. Thankfully, that document also gave us the ability to create additional amendments.

- - - Updated - - -

or assist in overthrowing a government

That's adorable.

[rhandric]

I'm not looking for answers. Obviously anyone can say "yup I got it." Only you know for sure.

Sure. Why don't you just do it for me.

I know. It's pathetic, isn't it? One of the greatest documents ever written gave every Tom Dick and Jane the ability to own a piece of metal. Thankfully, that document also gave us the ability to create additional amendments.

There's a difference between a reason and an excuse.

And yes, there is the ability to create additional amendments (otherwise the bill of rights wouldn't exist in the first place). And as you can see, some 224 years later, the Bill of Rights is still intact.

[TZucchini]

There's a difference between a reason and an excuse.

And yes, there is the ability to create additional amendments (otherwise the bill of rights wouldn't exist in the first place). And as you can see, some 224 years later, the Bill of Rights is still intact.

The Bill of Rights may be in tact, but the wording is constantly being reinterpreted, and at times, outright ignored. If you think the second amendment is some iron clad justification for owning a personal firearm, you'd better think again. All you really need to do is to look at is the 21st Amendment.

[Vizardlorde]

Just because something hasn't changed doesn't mean it shouldn't change. Upholding troublesome laws for the sake of tradition is nothing but stupid.

[Jaxi]

Defense/intimidation go hand in hand with the objects capacity to kill. Otherwise no one would be intimidated.

Yeah. So? It's called a deterrent.

[rhandric]

The Bill of Rights may be in tact, but the wording is constantly being reinterpreted, and at times, outright ignored. If you think the second amendment is some iron clad justification for owning a personal firearm, you'd better think again. All you really need to do is to look at is the 21st Amendment.

Ah yes, the 21st amendment. The one that actually repealed an amendment that tried to remove rights. Yes, that's a good example, and exactly what would happen if an equivalent of the 18th were to be created for guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because something hasn't changed doesn't mean it shouldn't change. Upholding troublesome laws for the sake of tradition is nothing but stupid.

And what's troublesome about gun ownership? 99.99999999999% of guns and gun owners won't commit/be used to commit crime.

[TZucchini]

Ah yes, the 21st amendment. The one that actually repealed an amendment that tried to remove rights.

What right did the 18th Amendment remove?

[rhandric]

What right did the 18th Amendment remove?

Well, right might be the wrong word, but the 18th Amendment caused the Prohibition. And considering it didn't even work, what would make you think that any law appealing the 2nd, which guarantees a right (note, it does not grant a right, it just guarantees it...it's not a right if it's grantable) would actually work?

Edit: Of course, the "right" in question is the right to create, transport, and sell intoxicating liquors...whether it is a right or not depends on how you look at it, but I tend to think of anything that is not explicitly denied as being a right.

[TZucchini]

Well, right might be the wrong word, but the 18th Amendment caused the Prohibition. And considering it didn't even work, what would make you think that any law appealing the 2nd, which guarantees a right (note, it does not grant a right, it just guarantees it...it's not a right if it's grantable) would actually work?

Whether or not prohibition "worked" is debatable. Most studies cite a reduction in consumption.

What makes me think a law repealing the 2nd Amendment would work? I don't know. Maybe it won't work. Maybe it will be a monumental failure. It's certainly not a movement that has much support right now. But I can see a day where it does. Gun ownership is declining, and has been declining for many decades.

[rhandric]

Whether or not prohibition "worked" is debatable. Most studies cite a reduction in consumption.

And a rise in crime.

[PhaelixWW]

Of course guns aren't only for killing. However, what was the intention and purpose of the firearm when it was invented? Killing. Whether animal or human. That's really all that matters. The blatantly obvious historical purpose of the firearm is for killing.

No, that's not "all that matters". That's a common, stupid cop-out among the gun control crowd.

The original designed purpose of a thing is irrelevant. The current common purpose is the most important thing. Otherwise, you should ban archery, ban blades (long and short), ban clubs (baseball bats, golf clubs, etc.). All of these things were originally invented to kill or harm other things. Most have evolved into some form of hobby sport, which, you guessed it, is the direction most people are going with firearms these days. Less and less hunting, more and more hobby marksmanship shooting.

- - - Updated - - -

Whether or not prohibition "worked" is debatable. Most studies cite a reduction in consumption.

Basically, prohibition took the large subset of people in this country who commonly imbibed alcohol, and split them into two groups. One group was made up of those people who were thoroughly law-abiding and decided to comply with the law and stop drinking. The other was made up of those people who might otherwise have been law-abiding people, but who didn't or couldn't stop drinking, causing them to break prohibition and thus push them further towards a criminal path.

Which is why there was a huge spike in crime in response to the 18th Amendment. Which is why we have the 21st Amendment.

The reality is that taking away commonly enjoyed freedoms that might otherwise be responsibly and law-abidingly followed, really just has the effect of turning many people into criminals simply for continuing to do what they were allowed to before. And once you label someone a criminal, it's an easier justification for them to continue down that path.

[Kellhound]

Whether or not prohibition "worked" is debatable. Most studies cite a reduction in consumption.

What makes me think a law repealing the 2nd Amendment would work? I don't know. Maybe it won't work. Maybe it will be a monumental failure. It's certainly not a movement that has much support right now. But I can see a day where it does. Gun ownership is declining, and has been declining for many decades.

Even my great grandma brewed home made beer in NYC during it, and it did wonders for the Mob.

You are correct that someday the 2nd may be repealed, but it isn't going to be in my lifetime.

[TZucchini]

The original designed purpose of a thing is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? Because you said so?

Which purpose of the firearm has the greatest negative effect on society? Hmm. Not so irrelevant I suppose.

Otherwise, you should ban archery, ban blades (long and short), ban clubs (baseball bats, golf clubs, etc.).

These comparisons are just that. Comparisons. And they're laughable.

The reality is that taking away commonly enjoyed freedoms that might otherwise be responsibly and law-abidingly followed, really just has the effect of turning many people into criminals simply for continuing to do what they were allowed to before. And once you label someone a criminal, it's an easier justification for them to continue down that path.

Laws don't turn people into criminals. They make certain actions illegal.

[rhandric]

Why is it irrelevant? Because you said so?

Lets see...

Which purpose of the firearm has the greatest negative effect on society? Hmm. Not so irrelevant I suppose.

These comparisons are just that. Comparisons. And they're laughable.

Nah, I think you said so.

Laws don't turn people into criminals. They make certain actions illegal.

Depending on how the laws are written, they can turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. Of course, if you're in the media, you'll get off free...

[TZucchini]

Nah, I think you said so.

I gave an actual reason as to why it's relevant.

Depending on how the laws are written, they can turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. Of course, if you're in the media, you'll get off free...

Again. Laws don't turn people into criminals. They don't turn people into frogs, or clowns, or even princesses. They make certain actions illegal. That's literally all they do. If someone wants to continue engaging in an illegal activity, then they have made themselves a criminal.

[PhaelixWW]

Why is it irrelevant? Because you said so?

Why is it relevant? Because you said so?

And I love how you hand-waved the subsequent paragraphs away, where I used several examples of items which were originally designed for harming animals and humans and showed how they're in common use today in a non-harmful way. Do people get aghast at the idea of kids at summer camp learning archery, since it was once used in war? How about boycotting the summer olympics since they still practice javelin throwing, fencing, and... oh yeah... competition shooting?

Why are these comparisons laughable? Because you said so?

Which purpose of the firearm has the greatest negative effect on society?

False logic. Firearms are the greatest negative effect on society? Why, because you said so?

You can't assume your conclusion. Feel free to try and prove this first. The use of firearms in crime is a byproduct of the crime and the criminal. The presence of a firearm does not make someone decide to go rob a bank, etc.

Laws don't turn people into criminals. They make certain actions illegal.

This is a very naive belief. If you make a set of laws that people think are so stupid and wrong, then many will be driven to ignore them. And once people get in the habit of ignoring laws, then some of them will go further. Or some will be arrested for something that shouldn't have been a crime in the first place, and will go out and break some other law because they are angry at authority.

This concept isn't even remotely new. The first rule of command is, "never give an order you know will not be obeyed." This doesn't apply 100% to criminal law, since you're never going to have laws that are universally followed. But the principle remains, that you shouldn't create laws that are bound to be disobeyed en masse, because all you do is lose the trust in law by those you criminalize.

These are borderline people who would otherwise have trusted and followed the law, who now feel persecuted by the law for doing the same thing that they were legally allowed to do before. They feel like they're being made into criminals simply because other people are doing criminal acts. And thus they lose their faith in authority, and that's pretty much the definition of a slippery slope.