Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[eodusaf]

ALL weapons are warfare weaponry, the military still uses bolt action rifles (M24 sniper rifle), semi auto non automatic rifles (M14/M1A), assault rifles (M16A4/M4A1/M27)
and shotguns (M1014). Hell, the military even still uses bayonets, which is really just a small sword, and tomahawks, today, in iraq and afganistan. My point is there is no such thing as a non miltary weapon, past or present

[Elegiac]

Absolutely the same argument......wait no.....means of transport, means of defence. Not even remotely the same

Guns are a tool, and so are cars. They can be deadly in the wrong hands, but put to constructive use in the right ones. Cars kill more people every year than guns in the US. Why aren't we cracking down on those?

[ovm33]

And by defend, you mean shoot people right?

If it comes to that. It's one of those "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" cases. Which makes a strong case for having the best weapon for the job. Which for a lot of people would be... a quote / unquote assault rifle.

[Seranthor]

That is utterly silly....
Comparing, and with that justifying gun related victims?
The highest amount of deaths per year comes from legally obtained prescription drugs. No, not indirectly legal. Directly.
The amount of deaths by legal drugs illegally obtained is a separate number.
Do we now discard gun crimes AND car deaths altogether, because the real danger lies in our doctors offices?
Come on.... Two wrongs don't make a right..
We are not discussing traffic safety.

You are damn right, 2 wrongs dont make a right... so... why are you trying to inflict the 2nd wrong? given that it wont solve the first one?... Thank you for making my point for me.

[Deleted]

What danger level is acceptable, then?

I guess here common sense steps in. But unfortunately my lack of knowledge prevents me from providing a specific answer. If anyone could take the point from here i'd appreciate.

You can keep them at home if you want. I will continue to take my Ruger with me when I venture into an unsafe area.

I wont go into the details of it. But i'd tell you, yes you will continue to take your Ruger with you...
till the law tells you to. Then you wont anymore.
This is probably not going to happen soon. But it's the principle i'm trying to get through. Sometimes it feels as if you're talking to someone that consider himself above the law.

To quote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen: Nothing can be prohibited which does not injure someone else. This should be the overrarching principle of law, a sentiment I am sure the Framers would agree with.

And before you say killing someone with a gun is hurting them, murder is already illegal.

Ok and here we're getting into the twisting nether.
---NOTHING--- like an oversized gun (excuse my lack of terminology) manages to depict so well the picture of "someone injuring someone else".
Saying an M-16 (yes i googled) is an innocent tool whose primary use is to pick up flowers in fields on a summer day is naiveness.
THOSE weapons are made to kill things, and when it gets to the point that the company that makes them runs a multi billion business and, as any good corporation, doesn't care about what they release on the market, as long as they make money, the state NEEDS to step in and regulate them.

The fact that the term "assault weapons" is so poorly defined is precisely a reason why they should -not- be blanket banned. The thing about legislation is that unless you make it specific, you increase the scope of unenumerated power that the government is able to leverage from that law.

For an American, you're surprisingly pro government.

Well then i guess someone will make a specific enough list that everyone must stick to.

It's not about being pro or against government. It's about having clear in your head what kind of society you live in and what role you play.

The discussion now goes far beyond guns and firearms.
When dealing about this particular subject i end up talking to people that could be defined as Patriotic-anarchists.
"The Constitution written by the Founding Father says its like this so imma fight my own country about it"
it just doesnt sound right.

[Deleted]

Guns are a tool, and so are cars. They can be deadly in the wrong hands, but put to constructive use in the right ones. Cars kill more people every year than guns in the US. Why aren't we cracking down on those?

You're right of course, cars do kill more than guns.

What's the % of intended death by driving though, versus same % of death by shooting?

And again, yes you're right, guns are a tool. Designed for military personal to defend a Nation(s) Not for random person #86 to kill kids in schools / people in cinemas / etc etc etc

[starlord]

Nor is there any indicating a causative relationship between gun laws and gun homicide. Correlation does not imply causation.

except all the data ive linked. there is no other causation for dramatic drops in gun homicide rates. "culture" is a cop out. "we have a gun culture.. other countries dont. So we shouldnt adjust the laws. why do we have the culture? *because of the laws*.

The Constitution does not say all men are equal. That is the Declaration of Independence.

Liberty is the norm, not the exception.

my bad, it says that men cant be held against their will or have rights removed without due process of the law. again, it was "common law" vs what was stated. "common law" is mutable.

[Deleted]

Specific you say, where as the proposed legislation is NOT? Wow, hmm... 97 deaths since last friday to guns, vs the 210 that were murdered by drunk drivers... hmm... Why should she be specific when you willfully are not.

The solutions are there to limiting the number of gun related deaths, but the only solution you know is to get rid of the guns, which may or may NOT solve the gun-related part... it does NOT solve the problem with the lack of personal responsibility, the lack of respect, nor does it address WHY folks want to kill. So, it doesn't do a fucking thing to solve the problem with violence. Which you continually and willfully chose to ignore as the root problem.

yeh tell me when you find the sense in the first half of your post cause i surely can't find it.

The only solution i know is getting rid of gun. Why thanks for telling me what i think.

mmmh no. But thank you for your input again.

[Seranthor]

Guns are a tool, and so are cars. They can be deadly in the wrong hands, but put to constructive use in the right ones. Cars kill more people every year than guns in the US. Why aren't we cracking down on those?

Because you cant use a car to create enough fear in the maliable populace in order to get them to turn on each other and cause them to be given up. But, a big scary gun works wonders to turn them on each other, scare them enough and they'll beg you to take their rights away from them, you wont even have to take them.

[Destruktion]

Guns are a tool, and so are cars. They can be deadly in the wrong hands, but put to constructive use in the right ones. Cars kill more people every year than guns in the US. Why aren't we cracking down on those?

Cars have a utility purpose: they get people from place to place.
Assault weapons have a much darker purpose: they allow people to kill others with speed and efficiency.
There is no reason to own an assault weapon unless you're a wolverine fighting the invading USSR. Or a weapons collector, but we don't let element collectors own plutonium do we?

[Deleted]

Guns are a tool, and so are cars. They can be deadly in the wrong hands, but put to constructive use in the right ones. Cars kill more people every year than guns in the US. Why aren't we cracking down on those?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE you look like an intelligent well educated human being for the love of god please don't start this idiotic comparison of guns/cars cause it really is moronic and does not fit you at all.

[Deleted]

but we don't let element collectors own plutonium do we?

But that's just a tool, I mean come on!!

[Deleted]

Because you cant use a car to create enough fear in the maliable populace in order to get them to turn on each other and cause them to be given up. But, a big scary gun works wonders to turn them on each other, scare them enough and they'll beg you to take their rights away from them, you wont even have to take them.

yeah that makes sense.

[Elegiac]

except all the data ive linked. there is no other causation for dramatic drops in gun homicide rates. "culture" is a cop out. "we have a
gun culture.. other countries dont. So we shouldnt adjust the laws. why do we have the culture? *because of the laws*.

The data you've linked demonstrates a possible correlation, not a causative relationship.

Again, try to read my posts. I didn't say adjustments were not needed, I am arguing against blanket bans.

my bad, it says that men cant be held against their will or have rights removed without due process of the law. again, it was "common law" vs what was stated. "common law" is mutable.

What is enumerated does not support you, your interpretation of the enumeration is what "supports" you - an interpretation rejected by the United States.

[LolretKJ]

Car's are made to get from point A, to point B.
Guns are made to remove life from this planet, whether it be an animal or a human.

[Seranthor]

yeh tell me when you find the sense in the first half of your post cause i surely can't find it.

The only solution i know is getting rid of gun. Why thanks for telling me what i think.

mmmh no. But thank you for your input again.

And there you go again, getting rid of the gun as you say, will NOT solve the problem.. because the gun is the tool used to commit the act. Lets attempt one last time to teach you, You are hungry, so you go to your kitchen to find some food... you find some ice cream, you want to eat said ice cream, so you look for a spoon, but there are none, what do you do? you find a fork, butter knife or whatever to get to your ice cream, right? Yes, its really that simple, if a killer is intent on killin' folks, the absence of a gun isn't going to deter them. That is why you change the culture of violence. Ignoring that means you are ignoring the problem.

[Kasierith]

Car's are made to get from point A, to point B.
Guns are made to remove life from this planet, whether it be an animal or a human.

Stamps are made to certify payment for the transfer of letters, and yet they're the stereotypical calling for collectors.

[Elegiac]

I guess here common sense steps in. But unfortunately my lack of knowledge prevents me from providing a specific answer. If anyone could take the point from here i'd appreciate.

If you can't come up with definitions for your parameters, don't propose them/

I wont go into the details of it. But i'd tell you, yes you will continue to take your Ruger with you...
till the law tells you to. Then you wont anymore.
This is probably not going to happen soon. But it's the principle i'm trying to get through. Sometimes it feels as if you're talking to someone that consider himself above the law.

I wouldn't, because I'm a law abiding citizen. Criminals by definition are not law abiders, so the ban would do nothing to stop them. All it does is infringe upon the liberties of decent, reasonable citizens.

Ok and here we're getting into the twisting nether.
---NOTHING--- like an oversized gun (excuse my lack of terminology) manages to depict so well the picture of "someone injuring someone else".
Saying an M-16 (yes i googled) is an innocent tool whose primary use is to pick up flowers in fields on a summer day is naiveness.
THOSE weapons are made to kill things, and when it gets to the point that the company that makes them runs a multi billion business and, as any good corporation, doesn't care about what they release on the market, as long as they make money, the state NEEDS to step in and regulate them.

And the state -does- regulate them. I am not arguing -against- regulations, I am arguing against blanket bans.

Well then i guess someone will make a specific enough list that everyone must stick to.

It's not about being pro or against government. It's about having clear in your head what kind of society you live in and what role you play.

The discussion now goes far beyond guns and firearms.
When dealing about this particular subject i end up talking to people that could be defined as Patriotic-anarchists.
"The Constitution written by the Founding Father says its like this so imma fight my own country about it"
it just doesnt sound right.

And the society I desire is one that values choice and treats liberty as the norm. Clearly not the one you desire.

---------- Post added 2012-12-21 at 04:05 PM ----------

Cars have a utility purpose: they get people from place to place.
Assault weapons have a much darker purpose: they allow people to kill others with speed and efficiency.
There is no reason to own an assault weapon unless you're a wolverine fighting the invading USSR. Or a weapons collector, but we don't let element collectors own plutonium do we?

Need doesn't come into it. Choice and liberty, on the other hand, do.

[stabetha]

Absolutely the same argument......wait no.....means of transport, means of defence. Not even remotely the same

your right the bill of rights doesn't give you the right to drive, in fact there have been many court decisions saying driving is a privilege not a right.

[Deleted]

The data you've linked demonstrates a possible correlation, not a causative relationship.

Again, try to read my posts. I didn't say adjustments were not needed, I am arguing against blanket bans.

I'm glad to hear that.
My reasons might differ from yours, but I too am against blanket bans.

Adjustments are needed, we can agree on that one.