|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 21 2012 15:53 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence. However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get...
To clarify, I'm not a "ban guns" guy. I'm a "are we seriously still debating whether access to guns makes a country more or less dangerous?" guy.
What outcome are we hoping for by proving that guns deter crime? It just seems like a line of discussion that inevitably goes nowhere.
|
On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat.
More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the rules and left my Sig at home?
Where is the logic? I guess that we both roll over and die in your scenario; meanwhile the politicians "toughen up" on GUN CONTROL?
Every single school shooting could have been prevented if adults within the schools were allowed to conceal carry. If you look hard enough, you will find that a few shootings WERE stopped before they became front page news and the nutjobs behind them became household names. The most recent mall shooting was actually stopped by a shopper who pulled his gun (legally or not, I do not know); the shooter's next round was on himself once he realized that he was no longer a wolf among sheep. Too bad you won't hear about it on the news...
|
On December 21 2012 15:53 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
It's one thing for criminals to break the law, it's another for laws to be so wholly ineffective that it essentially enables anyone to have access to dangerous weapons, regardless of background, education or training. Car thieves, with or without a drivers license, will find a way to steal cars. But licensing insures a mininum standard for people that own and drive cars, legally. It is a process that automatically deters and weeds out those that are mentally or physically incapable from driving cars. And the punishment for people that are caught driving a car illegally is clear -- even before they do anything that may lead to a fatality or tragedy. As it stands, legal gun owners have absolutely no credibility. As long as the standard to own and operate is so low (it's easier for a civilian to purchase and operate a gun than a police officer in-training), their claims that most gun owners are responsible are laughable and unprovable. James Holmes, Adam Lanz and Seung-Hui Cho all acquired their arsenals legally, and met the same non-existent standards of average, law-abiding civilians. So what would stronger Gun Control legislation achieve? It would make it much harder for the mentally ill to acquire or access dangerous firearms, without assuming the risk of breaking the law outright. It would also IMPROVE and PROTECT the rights of responsible, experienced Gun Owners, by raising the standards of gun ownership overall.
There's a general sense among gun owners that gun control starts a slippery slope that culminates in the banning of all firearms. Measures such as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, complete gun bans in some local jurisdictions, and the tendency of gun control advocates to operate based on emotion and have no idea what they're talking about, all don't help to alleviate the fears of gun owners. In reality, most NRA-types would have nothing against firearms regulation as long as it meant that responsible citizens could still have access to all types of firearms.
Personally, as a libertarian-leaning firearms enthusiast, I'd support stringent government licensing for firearms owners, the same way that operators of vehicles (which are just as capable of murder and mayhem) need to be licensed. This wouldn't impact NRA-types at all, since the vast majority of them would be capable of passing background checks and demonstrating competence in firearms usage/safety. The problem is, Democrats have consistently fought to ban weapons outright rather than merely regulating their usage/ownership.
|
On December 21 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:53 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence. However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get... To clarify, I'm not a "ban guns" guy. I'm a "are we seriously still debating whether access to guns makes a country more or less dangerous?" guy. What outcome are we hoping for by proving that guns deter crime? It just seems like line of discussion that inevitably goes nowhere.
It's a bullshit back-and-forth peddled by both sides. Although conservatives argue that guns reduce crime, and liberals argue that guns increase crime, the empirical research by criminologists have concluded that gun control doesn't really affect crime rates one way or the other.
|
On December 21 2012 15:59 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:53 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
It's one thing for criminals to break the law, it's another for laws to be so wholly ineffective that it essentially enables anyone to have access to dangerous weapons, regardless of background, education or training. Car thieves, with or without a drivers license, will find a way to steal cars. But licensing insures a mininum standard for people that own and drive cars, legally. It is a process that automatically deters and weeds out those that are mentally or physically incapable from driving cars. And the punishment for people that are caught driving a car illegally is clear -- even before they do anything that may lead to a fatality or tragedy. As it stands, legal gun owners have absolutely no credibility. As long as the standard to own and operate is so low (it's easier for a civilian to purchase and operate a gun than a police officer in-training), there claims that most gun owners are responsible are laughable. James Holmes, Adam Lanz and Seung-Hui Cho all acquired their arsenals legally. So what would stronger Gun Control legislation achieve? It would make it much harder for the mentally ill to acquire or access dangerous firearms, without assuming the risk of breaking the law outright. It would also IMPROVE and PROTECT the rights of responsible, experienced Gun Owners, by raising the standards of gun ownership overall. The analogy with licensing for vehicles is a poor one. The presumption you make is that firearm fatalities are largely accidents. If the average vehicular fatality was chronicled by an individual willfully using a car as a deadly weapon, then perhaps it could hold water... I disagree that GUN CONTROL will make it more difficult for people who are mentally unqualified to possess firearms to do so. How do you propose to test mental qualification? If a wacko is determined to legally obtain a firearm, they will simply lie. If for some reason they are not able to legally obtain the firearm, they will simply go outside of the law. Problem not solved! If anyone wants to hear my solution to the public / school shooting epidemic, I will gladly share it, although I doubt that you left-wing types will like it much... ;-)
An experienced gun owner denied James Holmes membership to his gun club after listening to his voicemail.
It took less than 3 minutes for him to determine Jame Holmes was too weird and unstable to be operating a gun.
Crazy people are called crazy for a reason. They can't maintain a facade of sanity for longer than an hour at a time. If James Holmes, Adam Lanz or Seung-Hui Cho had to take a 8-week course with a law enforcement officer or experienced gun owner to get a license for a handgun, there is no way they would pass. They would simply notice that these guys might get the right answers on a quiz but they can't maintain eye contact when you ask them a question and are too fucking weird to handle a gun.
I'd love to hear your ideas.
|
On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic?
I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws.
To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws.
And to be totally honest I don't want some random dude popping off shots at a gun man around my family in a crowded place. That's just gonna lead to bad things >.>
|
On December 21 2012 16:10 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:53 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence. However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get... To clarify, I'm not a "ban guns" guy. I'm a "are we seriously still debating whether access to guns makes a country more or less dangerous?" guy. What outcome are we hoping for by proving that guns deter crime? It just seems like line of discussion that inevitably goes nowhere. It's a bullshit back-and-forth peddled by both sides. Although conservatives argue that guns reduce crime, and liberals argue that guns increase crime, the empirical research by criminologists have concluded that gun control doesn't really affect crime rates one way or the other.
It's like the instant lashing out at video games with shootings like these. We saw it with DOOM at Columbine and we see it here with SC2 and a senator calling for study into video games.
Both sides blow smoke for a while and nothing happens and the public moves onto the next fad and eventually the cycle repeats again.
Kony 2012> Amanda Todd>The latest shooting>The end of the world and on and on
|
On December 21 2012 16:15 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:10 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:53 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence. However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get... To clarify, I'm not a "ban guns" guy. I'm a "are we seriously still debating whether access to guns makes a country more or less dangerous?" guy. What outcome are we hoping for by proving that guns deter crime? It just seems like line of discussion that inevitably goes nowhere. It's a bullshit back-and-forth peddled by both sides. Although conservatives argue that guns reduce crime, and liberals argue that guns increase crime, the empirical research by criminologists have concluded that gun control doesn't really affect crime rates one way or the other. It's like the instant lashing out at video games with shootings like these. We saw it with DOOM at Columbine and we see it here with SC2 and a senator calling for study into video games. Both sides blow smoke for a while and nothing happens and the public moves onto the next fad and eventually the cycle repeats again.
Which is unfortunate, because a national tragedy such as the most recent one could really be used a catalyst to pass proper gun regulation (key word, regulation, not banning) in this country and lay the gun control debate to rest entirely.
|
On December 21 2012 16:14 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic? I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws. To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws. And to be totally honest I don't want some random dude popping off shots at a gun man around my family in a crowded place. That's just gonna lead to bad things >.>
Pistols serve a purpose - to kill other humans with pistols who are trying to kill you, your loved ones, or those around you. It's just like nukes; as long as one entity has them, all others need to have their own in order to maintain balance.
Shootings are like plane crashes and shark attacks. They are a statistical anomaly, but generate a lot of fear and "to-do." In the US, we have a lot of people and guns are not impossible to get ahold of (as opposed to, say, Japan), hence a greater statistical probability of shootings.
Edit - in response to your edit, bear in mind that said random dude has an official permit that predicates training. The guy who stopped the mall shooting had the opportunity to fire on the shooter, but chose not to do so because he was not comfortable with the area behind the shooter (where his bullet might land). In short, the average law-abiding citizen who is exercising conceal carry has a solid likelihood of knowing what they are doing. At worst, you get a snowball's chance of survival as opposed to being at the whim of a madman.
Going to bed, will check thread tomorrow. If someone has a logical response to my question on the last page, please PM me so I don't miss it.
|
On December 21 2012 16:18 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:15 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:10 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:53 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence. However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get... To clarify, I'm not a "ban guns" guy. I'm a "are we seriously still debating whether access to guns makes a country more or less dangerous?" guy. What outcome are we hoping for by proving that guns deter crime? It just seems like line of discussion that inevitably goes nowhere. It's a bullshit back-and-forth peddled by both sides. Although conservatives argue that guns reduce crime, and liberals argue that guns increase crime, the empirical research by criminologists have concluded that gun control doesn't really affect crime rates one way or the other. It's like the instant lashing out at video games with shootings like these. We saw it with DOOM at Columbine and we see it here with SC2 and a senator calling for study into video games. Both sides blow smoke for a while and nothing happens and the public moves onto the next fad and eventually the cycle repeats again. Which is unfortunate, because a national tragedy such as the most recent one could really be used a catalyst to pass proper gun regulation (key word, regulation, not banning) in this country and lay the gun control debate to rest entirely.
I guess that's what drives me nuts. The fact that Americans have to wait for a gruesome tragedy to occur to even have a discussion about improving gun regulation, and even then, treat it like they're talking about how to butcher a sacred cow ...
|
On December 21 2012 16:18 Maxyim wrote:
Edit - in response to your edit, bear in mind that said random dude has an official permit that predicates training. The guy who stopped the mall shooting had the opportunity to fire on the shooter, but chose not to do so because he was not comfortable with the area behind the shooter (where his bullet might land). In short, the average law-abiding citizen who is exercising conceal carry has a solid likelihood of knowing what they are doing. At worst, you get a snowball's chance of survival as opposed to being at the whim of a madman.
In your proposed scenario, would you not prefer a society where you can claim, with confidence, that most conceal-carry gun owners know what they're doing, instead of a society where you give every joe-schmoe easy, legal access to guns and hope they know what they're doing?
|
On December 21 2012 16:18 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:14 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic? I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws. To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws. Pistols serve a purpose - to kill other humans with pistols who are trying to kill you, your loved ones, or those around you. It's just like nukes; as long as one entity has them, all others need to have their own. Shootings are like plane crashes and shark attacks. They are a statistical anomaly, but generate a lot of fear and "to-do." In the US, we have a lot of people and guns are not impossible to get ahold of (as opposed to, say, Japan), hence a greater statistical probability of shootings.
There are shit loads of guns in Canada but most people don't have pistols. We also don't have any shootings here. So the MAD scenario you are spouting is ridiculous. I have a couple rifles that I would be able to use to defend myself in my family in a home invasion that is just astronomically more likely than being involved in the 4 random shooting events since 2000.
Our biggest string of gun violence was a 2 week gang war in Vancouver with like 5 deaths in an apartment building penthouse and one or two targeted hits in the middle of the night. We don't have a gun problem in Canada because we have less social problems than in the US. Our most disadvantaged group the Aborginals have horrific social problems but they are such a small portion of the population that they can easily be taken care of. In the US you have an obsession with small government and a much larger problem with the poverty stricken (I hate to say this but) black ghettos in the US. Gangs are a much larger problem in the US than Canada. I would argue most of the gun violence come from the poor areas in the US (LA/Miami/Detroit ghettos) and not the middle class areas.
|
On December 21 2012 16:18 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:14 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic? I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws. To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws. Pistols serve a purpose - to kill other humans with pistols who are trying to kill you, your loved ones, or those around you. It's just like nukes; as long as one entity has them, all others need to have their own. Shootings are like plane crashes and shark attacks. They are a statistical anomaly, but generate a lot of fear and "to-do." In the US, we have a lot of people and guns are not impossible to get ahold of (as opposed to, say, Japan), hence a greater statistical probability of shootings.
1. Their are plenty of efforts to stop the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Spearheaded in some cases (eg Iran) by the US government. We don't want or let civilians have nukes, we even try and stop other countries getting them or developing their own. Or are you suggesting that since the US has nukes (and lots of them), Iran should be free to develop their own too? North Korea? The cold war was fun enough the first time round, I don't think the world needs a repeat with even more players.
2. Guns more easily available -> more shootings (your final sentence). But creating greater regulations and restrictions on those who can get a weapon (legally), thereby reducing the ease of access to them (in the long run), won't help?
|
On December 21 2012 16:22 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:18 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2012 16:15 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:10 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:53 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence. However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get... To clarify, I'm not a "ban guns" guy. I'm a "are we seriously still debating whether access to guns makes a country more or less dangerous?" guy. What outcome are we hoping for by proving that guns deter crime? It just seems like line of discussion that inevitably goes nowhere. It's a bullshit back-and-forth peddled by both sides. Although conservatives argue that guns reduce crime, and liberals argue that guns increase crime, the empirical research by criminologists have concluded that gun control doesn't really affect crime rates one way or the other. It's like the instant lashing out at video games with shootings like these. We saw it with DOOM at Columbine and we see it here with SC2 and a senator calling for study into video games. Both sides blow smoke for a while and nothing happens and the public moves onto the next fad and eventually the cycle repeats again. Which is unfortunate, because a national tragedy such as the most recent one could really be used a catalyst to pass proper gun regulation (key word, regulation, not banning) in this country and lay the gun control debate to rest entirely. I guess that's what drives me nuts. The fact that Americans have to wait for a gruesome tragedy to occur to even have a discussion about improving gun regulation, and even then, treat it like they're talking about how to butcher a sacred cow ...
We did the same thing with Amanda Todd in Canada lol it's not just the US. You got all fired up and called me a "pimple faced nerd" over it lol and IIRC the multiple guys involved didn't even get caught and nothing really changed. They didn't make any changes to educating young girls about the stuff in school etc etc. It's just gonna happen again a few years down the road to another poor girl when some sick fuck gets a chance. Hell before Amanda Todd it was that "cyber police" girl and her dad.
I think it's not so much a problem with any nation but with the nature of media. They are profit driven so as stories get stale they are inclined to jump on the next one to compete with other stations. Public interest just shifts so fast and their activism is incredibly shallow, people liking groups on facebook to help end civil wars in Africa do fuck all. It's sorta a bummer.
|
On December 21 2012 16:31 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:22 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 16:18 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2012 16:15 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:10 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:53 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence. However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get... To clarify, I'm not a "ban guns" guy. I'm a "are we seriously still debating whether access to guns makes a country more or less dangerous?" guy. What outcome are we hoping for by proving that guns deter crime? It just seems like line of discussion that inevitably goes nowhere. It's a bullshit back-and-forth peddled by both sides. Although conservatives argue that guns reduce crime, and liberals argue that guns increase crime, the empirical research by criminologists have concluded that gun control doesn't really affect crime rates one way or the other. It's like the instant lashing out at video games with shootings like these. We saw it with DOOM at Columbine and we see it here with SC2 and a senator calling for study into video games. Both sides blow smoke for a while and nothing happens and the public moves onto the next fad and eventually the cycle repeats again. Which is unfortunate, because a national tragedy such as the most recent one could really be used a catalyst to pass proper gun regulation (key word, regulation, not banning) in this country and lay the gun control debate to rest entirely. I guess that's what drives me nuts. The fact that Americans have to wait for a gruesome tragedy to occur to even have a discussion about improving gun regulation, and even then, treat it like they're talking about how to butcher a sacred cow ... We did the same thing with Amanda Todd in Canada lol it's not just the US. You got all fired up and called me a "pimple faced nerd" over it lol and IIRC the multiple guys involved didn't even get caught and nothing really changed. They didn't make any changes to educating young girls about the stuff in school etc etc. It's just gonna happen again a few years down the road to another poor girl when some sick fuck gets a chance. Hell before Amanda Todd it was that "cyber police" girl and her dad. I think it's not so much a problem with any nation but with the nature of media. They are profit driven so as stories get stale they are inclined to jump on the next one to compete with other stations. Public interest just shifts so fast and their activism is incredibly shallow, people liking groups on facebook to help end civil wars in Africa do fuck all. It's sorta a bummer.
Oh god let's not relive that debacle of a thread.
|
On December 21 2012 16:31 binkman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:18 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:14 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic? I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws. To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws. Pistols serve a purpose - to kill other humans with pistols who are trying to kill you, your loved ones, or those around you. It's just like nukes; as long as one entity has them, all others need to have their own. Shootings are like plane crashes and shark attacks. They are a statistical anomaly, but generate a lot of fear and "to-do." In the US, we have a lot of people and guns are not impossible to get ahold of (as opposed to, say, Japan), hence a greater statistical probability of shootings. 1. Their are plenty of efforts to stop the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Spearheaded in some cases (eg Iran) by the US government. We don't want or let civilians have nukes, we even try and stop other countries getting them or developing their own. Or are you suggesting that since the US has nukes (and lots of them), Iran should be free to develop their own too? North Korea? The cold war was fun enough the first time round, I don't think the world needs a repeat with even more players. 2. Guns more easily available -> more shootings (your final sentence). But creating greater regulations and restrictions on those who can get a weapon (legally), thereby reducing the ease of access to them (in the long run), won't help?
People will totally take you serious when you use the nuclear weapon argument in a gun control debate.
|
On December 21 2012 16:43 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:31 binkman wrote:On December 21 2012 16:18 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:14 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic? I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws. To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws. Pistols serve a purpose - to kill other humans with pistols who are trying to kill you, your loved ones, or those around you. It's just like nukes; as long as one entity has them, all others need to have their own. Shootings are like plane crashes and shark attacks. They are a statistical anomaly, but generate a lot of fear and "to-do." In the US, we have a lot of people and guns are not impossible to get ahold of (as opposed to, say, Japan), hence a greater statistical probability of shootings. 1. Their are plenty of efforts to stop the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Spearheaded in some cases (eg Iran) by the US government. We don't want or let civilians have nukes, we even try and stop other countries getting them or developing their own. Or are you suggesting that since the US has nukes (and lots of them), Iran should be free to develop their own too? North Korea? The cold war was fun enough the first time round, I don't think the world needs a repeat with even more players. 2. Guns more easily available -> more shootings (your final sentence). But creating greater regulations and restrictions on those who can get a weapon (legally), thereby reducing the ease of access to them (in the long run), won't help? People will totally take you serious when you use the nuclear weapon argument in a gun control debate.
His argument, not mine. I agree with you, its such a stupid idea that you wonder who would even suggest it to begin with.
|
On December 21 2012 16:35 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:31 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:22 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 16:18 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2012 16:15 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:10 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:53 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence. However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get... To clarify, I'm not a "ban guns" guy. I'm a "are we seriously still debating whether access to guns makes a country more or less dangerous?" guy. What outcome are we hoping for by proving that guns deter crime? It just seems like line of discussion that inevitably goes nowhere. It's a bullshit back-and-forth peddled by both sides. Although conservatives argue that guns reduce crime, and liberals argue that guns increase crime, the empirical research by criminologists have concluded that gun control doesn't really affect crime rates one way or the other. It's like the instant lashing out at video games with shootings like these. We saw it with DOOM at Columbine and we see it here with SC2 and a senator calling for study into video games. Both sides blow smoke for a while and nothing happens and the public moves onto the next fad and eventually the cycle repeats again. Which is unfortunate, because a national tragedy such as the most recent one could really be used a catalyst to pass proper gun regulation (key word, regulation, not banning) in this country and lay the gun control debate to rest entirely. I guess that's what drives me nuts. The fact that Americans have to wait for a gruesome tragedy to occur to even have a discussion about improving gun regulation, and even then, treat it like they're talking about how to butcher a sacred cow ... We did the same thing with Amanda Todd in Canada lol it's not just the US. You got all fired up and called me a "pimple faced nerd" over it lol and IIRC the multiple guys involved didn't even get caught and nothing really changed. They didn't make any changes to educating young girls about the stuff in school etc etc. It's just gonna happen again a few years down the road to another poor girl when some sick fuck gets a chance. Hell before Amanda Todd it was that "cyber police" girl and her dad. I think it's not so much a problem with any nation but with the nature of media. They are profit driven so as stories get stale they are inclined to jump on the next one to compete with other stations. Public interest just shifts so fast and their activism is incredibly shallow, people liking groups on facebook to help end civil wars in Africa do fuck all. It's sorta a bummer. Oh god let's not relive that debacle of a thread.
I think it's a good example of faux-activism lol.
In the old days it took a fuck ton of work to organize a rally so when it happened it meant something. The massive anti war rally in front of the Capitol building was pretty powerful. You had to call hundreds of people, put out fliers, and actually had to leave your house. Nowadays we just send out a thing for people to click on and make them feel good about themselves while still doing nothing.
I think part of the problem is the glorification of the shooters. I mean we all know the names Klebold/Harris while the victims really remain a faceless number. I think there is a really fucked up sense of immortality that would appeal to someone in that mind set. That they would go down in history and be remembered even if they were remembered for something extremely negative and were universally hated.
I'll stop derailing now
|
On December 21 2012 16:43 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 16:31 binkman wrote:On December 21 2012 16:18 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:14 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 16:06 Maxyim wrote:On December 21 2012 16:01 tokicheese wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear. + Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat. More fail. You want to restrict firearms via legislation and penalties? You acknowledge that criminals do not follow laws? So basically, you want to make it impossible for me to save your ass if someone starts firing a weapon at you and your loved ones in an area where you have now restricted conceal carry, and I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, am following the law? Where is the logic? I'm allowed to keep my rifles in my truck or even on a gun rack in the bed of my truck. I just don't think pistols really serve a purpose other than to kill other humans. You can't hunt with them, you can't "really" target shoot with them. I don't mind that they are designed to kill people but I think they have a very small niche to fill. Keep them at home for their intended purpose of self defence and at the range to keep proficient with them. Obviously you have to transport them to and from but I covered that in an earlier post about Canadian gun laws. To be totally honest the scenario of "man starts shooting people in public" in Canada (atleast in BC) doesn't happen pretty much ever. The last real random shooting was the shooting in Quebec in 1984? with Mark Lepine killing 14 people. It just doesn't come up in Canada so it's not a problem with our gun laws. Pistols serve a purpose - to kill other humans with pistols who are trying to kill you, your loved ones, or those around you. It's just like nukes; as long as one entity has them, all others need to have their own. Shootings are like plane crashes and shark attacks. They are a statistical anomaly, but generate a lot of fear and "to-do." In the US, we have a lot of people and guns are not impossible to get ahold of (as opposed to, say, Japan), hence a greater statistical probability of shootings. 1. Their are plenty of efforts to stop the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Spearheaded in some cases (eg Iran) by the US government. We don't want or let civilians have nukes, we even try and stop other countries getting them or developing their own. Or are you suggesting that since the US has nukes (and lots of them), Iran should be free to develop their own too? North Korea? The cold war was fun enough the first time round, I don't think the world needs a repeat with even more players. 2. Guns more easily available -> more shootings (your final sentence). But creating greater regulations and restrictions on those who can get a weapon (legally), thereby reducing the ease of access to them (in the long run), won't help? People will totally take you serious when you use the nuclear weapon argument in a gun control debate.
The point is that the main legitimate utility of handguns is to kill criminals with handguns. But if criminals didn't have handguns, law-abiding citizens would have no need to, since other guns do other purposes much more effectively than handguns. They're not very useful for killing soldiers, for example, in the sense the 2nd amendment is meant to provide for.
|
On December 21 2012 15:41 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:38 farvacola wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! This thread has 291 pages as of this post. Do you really think your coming to the table with something new? Multiple posters have carried out fairly involved discussions using pretty much the exact same language you are. Hey colaboy, you made the same exact post to me in the 2012 election thread. I am so glad that TL has thread constables! Someone who is not colaboy, please address my question. Reminder to colaboy that these threads tend to discuss various angles of the subject from "page" to "page," and that "it has been discussed" is generally not an acceptable retort. Judging from colaboy's "lol noob" response and his professed intimate knowledge of each of the 291 pages of this thread, my question has in fact not been resolved. Edit: @colaboy, lol nice sig!
Problem is the exact same argument was used a lot of times in this thread and debated multiple times. Debating it with you again brings nothing new and is useless. But please continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
