Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

God, this is such a ridiculous statement. Should we also blame the woman who gets raped for being too attractive? After all, her makeup and clothing were the "source" of the criminal urge. Unless, you know, you want to say that the "source" is actually the criminal who has the though and acts on it, just like the "source" of stolen guns isn't the presence of legal guns but the act of the criminal who steals it.

Don't blame the victim.

If you can prove that someone negligently left a firearm exposed to theft or misuse, then fine. But to say that nobody should be able to own one because a few get stolen is just... stupid. You're trying to imply that gun ownership is, by its very nature, negligent.

Comparing negligent gun owners to rape victims is by far the most disgusting argument I have heard in this debate.

[PhaelixWW]

Comparing negligent gun owners to rape victims is by far the most disgusting argument I have heard in this debate.

It was intended to be a disgusting comparison. But I wasn't comparing negligent gun owners to rape victims. My point was that you don't predetermine blame on the victim for the acts of the criminal.

He's essentially arguing that people shouldn't own guns because they tend to get stolen. I said that if you want to specifically go against people who have proven to be negligent, that's fine, because they're guilty of being negligent. To throw a blanket over all present and future gun owners and say that they're the source of the problem is just plain insulting. It implies that there's no such thing as a non-negligent gun owner, by attempting to spread the culpability to everyone.

He's repeatedly attempted to blame the victim, so I thought I'd couch a response in terms that would guarantee to get his understanding of the issue.

[Porcell]

Comparing negligent gun owners to rape victims is by far the most disgusting argument I have heard in this debate.

You can shelve the mock horror.

[Spectral]

My point was that you don't predetermine blame on the victim for the acts of the criminal.

Victims of crimes are frequently at least somewhat culpable, no matter how many times people repeat otherwise. In practice, everyone actually believes that, or they'd take absolutely no steps at all to avoid being a victim.

[Grizzly Willy]

You can shelve the mock horror.

Yeah, I sure am joking.

[PhaelixWW]

Victims of crimes are frequently at least somewhat culpable, no matter how many times people repeat otherwise. In practice, everyone actually believes that, or they'd take absolutely no steps at all to avoid being a victim.

And you'll note that I'm not trying to counter the argument with "all victims are innocent". I'm merely trying to say that you can't punish someone for some future negligence potentially committed by them or even somebody else. If the victim is partially culpable, they're partially culpable, and if it can be suitably proven, after the fact, then the punishment should fit.

Hence the use of the word "predetermine" in the sentence you quoted.

[Porcell]

Yeah, I sure am joking.

You compared something to rape!?!?! That is the MOST DISGUSTING ARGUMENT I have heard...

Yeah, that's mock horror. Relax, no one rape victims were injured in the formation of this metaphor.

[Rocko9]

only issue i have with this is the lack of proper gun storage. dont you feel that is part of responsible gun ownership, what with the numbers of guns stolen every year?

Yes, I believe a safe is a very responsible thing to have. Not only does it protect from burglars, but humidity (if it has a dehumidifier) and fires. But, what I posted was safety rules, not proper storage guidelines

[Skroe]

Called it back on page 50 or so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...un-arms-treaty
This is how gun rights advocates lose.

They are having to fight on so many fronts, they can't win with the 100% success rate their cause requires, and when this thing passes - and it will - they're going to suffer a historic defeat. In just a few months the sheer number of simultaneous fights is stretching them dangerously thin.

Local and State gun control is the bottom up approach.
International Regulation of Small Arms is the top down approach.

There is a word for that... surrounded. And that is how gun "rights" are to be extinguished.

[Eroginous]

Called it back on page 50 or so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...un-arms-treaty
This is how gun rights advocates lose.

They are having to fight on so many fronts, they can't win with the 100% success rate their cause requires, and when this thing passes - and it will - they're going to suffer a historic defeat. In just a few months the sheer number of simultaneous fights is stretching them dangerously thin.

Local and State gun control is the bottom up approach.
International Regulation of Small Arms is the top down approach.

There is a word for that... surrounded. And that is how gun "rights" are to be extinguished.

This assumes that the NRA is even a necessary entity in the fight for gun rights. When you consider all the flubs and mistakes they've made, their presence almost does more harm than good for gun rights. Regardless of what international laws are passed, we still have the 2nd amendment and that's not going anywhere without 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states backing a repeal to it.

[Porcell]

This assumes that the NRA is even a necessary entity in the fight for gun rights. When you consider all the flubs and mistakes they've made, their presence almost does more harm than good for gun rights. Regardless of what international laws are passed, we still have the 2nd amendment and that's not going anywhere without 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states backing a repeal to it.

As a gun owner, I never was afraid of the UN's decisions. Doesn't mean shit to US law directly. That's part of the reason I don't like or support the NRA, they are too extreme and do NOT speak for me (and many other gun owners). [I'm not afraid of the UN ATT. It's talking about illegal firearms transfers. If Beretta wants to ship guns to FFLs in the US, that's not going to change, so it doesn't affect me.]

They aren't the end-all be-all on the pro-gun front.

[Incredibale]

As a gun owner, I never was afraid of the UN's decisions. Doesn't mean shit to US law directly. That's part of the reason I don't like or support the NRA, they are too extreme and do NOT speak for me (and many other gun owners).

They aren't the end-all be-all on the pro-gun front.

How are they too extreme?

[Porcell]

How are they too extreme?

I don't support their arguments. Before the Presidential election they were going absolutely BONKERS over the things they said Obama was backburnering until his second term, which was just crazy fearmongering, all for political reasons. It's too political, and I don't like that. There are a ton of pro-firearm arguments that can be made without making it political, or attacking democrats. Democrats own guns too. There's a reasonable middle ground that the NRA absolutely throws away and will never consider, and that's stupid.

[ugotownd]

Called it back on page 50 or so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...un-arms-treaty
This is how gun rights advocates lose.

They are having to fight on so many fronts, they can't win with the 100% success rate their cause requires, and when this thing passes - and it will - they're going to suffer a historic defeat. In just a few months the sheer number of simultaneous fights is stretching them dangerously thin.

Local and State gun control is the bottom up approach.
International Regulation of Small Arms is the top down approach.

There is a word for that... surrounded. And that is how gun "rights" are to be extinguished.

Blah blah blah that's all i hear from a gun hater. Ever think the NRA could care less since no matter what they say Obama will go with it anyway. It also will take a unanimous vote of all UN member nations.

I was wondering when you would pop in. 15/15 already how about you get out and get some air this week and you insult gun owners for having no lives.

Infracted: Please refrain from personal attacks and harassment

[Grizzly Willy]

You compared something to rape!?!?! That is the MOST DISGUSTING ARGUMENT I have heard...

Yeah, that's mock horror. Relax, no one rape victims were injured in the formation of this metaphor.

Good thing I didn't say it such an exagerated fashion then.

[PhaelixWW]

Good thing I didn't say it such an exagerated fashion then.

Just realize that I wasn't comparing anything to rape. I was comparing the reasoning behind the apportionment of blame in the two situations. One was an extreme situation with an obvious object of blame. And its blatant obviousness was used to show the flaw in the logic. Does the distinction make sense?

[Tinykong]

No, because those deaths were preventable by rational law-makers and a concerned, educated citizenry interested in human rights. Human lives are never meaningless.

If the only qualifications for banning/restricting/outlawing something is that it could potentially save lives, then people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, go outside in the rain, play sports, sky dive, take medication, or any other list of things.

In fact, making it illegal for the elderly to live in a house that has stairs would save more lives than a complete and total ban on rifles.

[Wells]

Ask someone like William Petit if he would have rather had an aluminum bat or a gun. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather go out shooting than to be over powered, tied up, and forced to watch your wife and daughters get raped and then burned alive.

Sure, that's an extremely rare possibility, but it's been said before: better to have one and never need it.

I'm curious why gun advocates think we can't legislate against assault rifles because they're so rarely used in crimes and it wouldn't be reasonable.

But gotta be armed against all those people coming to kill you.

[Incredibale]

I don't support their arguments. Before the Presidential election they were going absolutely BONKERS over the things they said Obama was backburnering until his second term, which was just crazy fearmongering, all for political reasons. It's too political, and I don't like that. There are a ton of pro-firearm arguments that can be made without making it political, or attacking democrats. Democrats own guns too. There's a reasonable middle ground that the NRA absolutely throws away and will never consider, and that's stupid.

How were they fearmongering? Dems have a history of wanting to restrict or ban guns. Feinstein said in the 90's: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.” Obama said in 2011 to Sarah Brady regarding gun control: "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

He supported increased state restrictions on purchasing and possession of firearms before he was president. He voted against giving civil liability protection to gun dealers and sellers whose guns were misused. Per the Chicago Defender (2/20/01), Obama called for handgun registration. Registration opens the door to confiscation, as what happened with certain firearms in New York. There is a proven connection.

He wanted to keep the original assault weapon ban, which proved to be worthless, permanent. He also called for restrictions on handgun ammo sales.

This traitorous bastard is a nightmare to gun owners for good reason. Coupled with other dems trying to get firearms out of veterans' hands, insulting rape attack survivors by telling them statistics aren't on their side, telling them to piss and shit and barf on their attackers instead of arming themselves, going ape-shit on gun control measures in various states, how can we not be worried? You dare to say that the NRA is extreme? You have to be kidding.

[Wells]

Seems like rare events are only valid when they line up with those on the right here.

---------- Post added 2013-03-13 at 02:21 AM ----------

This traitorous bastard is a nightmare to gun owners for good reason.

You think the president is a traitor?

You dare to say that the NRA is extreme?

LaPierre opposes background checks. That's extreme. The NRA makes it easier for people who committed crimes to get guns.

---------- Post added 2013-03-13 at 02:26 AM ----------

He voted against giving civil liability protection to gun dealers and sellers whose guns were misused.

So let me get this straight. Opposing giving gun dealers and makers protections no other industry has means he's against guns?