Gun control thread #4387

[WillisPDunlevey]

I am actually a Liberal
It really pisses off my brother who is an evangelical member of the army.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The exception here is the NRA and this also explains why the NRA has so many foreign members. The european countries simply have no similarly powerful organization.

Yeah I am pretty happy too of being an european to say that.

 

[Four Suited Jack]

First off, the Troubles

Wasn't talking about the troubles.

Then what were you speaking of?

I am opposed to allowing civilians to carry firearms.
They have no need for them. not only does it make it easier to acquire them for illegal uses, it just increases the odds of people getting shot in general.

If you'd bother to actually study the case material at hand, you'd find that gun crime increases where laws are very lax (everyone can get guns without issues) OR where laws are extremely strict (where no one can get guns).

Feel free to provide said case material.

You know why it's illegal to carry knives in The Republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom (I'm unaware of such laws elsewhere)? If you're carrying a weapon or have access to one you are likely to use it when you "need" it, self defense can and has been a convenient excuse to commit murder.

Belgium has a law that states a knife carried without good reason is considered an illegal weapon.
So if you want to cut an apple on the train, that's fine, you can have your knife with you.

I'm not a fan of concealed carry, but you are outright denying people the right to proportional self-defense. That's pretty bad from where I'm standing. Let me guess, you've never lived in a bad neighborhood?

Self-defense just becomes an excuse for violence, the type of person who would be victimized anyway would be unlikely to use a knife or other melee weapon against thugs, likewise with a gun, on the other side of it though are those all too willing to use the weapons available to them.

In Ireland, An Gardaí Síochána (The Guardians of the peace - Our police force) don't even carry firearms, the regular ones anyway, only the plain clothed Gardaí and the Emergency Response Units carry them and we manage to police our nation just fine.

That's what the brits thought as well until recently, right? Look at their violent crime statistics for the past 20 years and tell me how this has been working out for them.

The UK is far worse off than Ireland, it's a cultural difference, anyway, I'm in favor of the police force be given more freedom actually, a lot more freedom.

Increasing the circulation of firearms among the civilian population is not a good thing, firearms should be under the control of only the state.

Because "the state" has absolutely no history of abuse of those weapons, amiright?

Oh wait...

By all means define abuse for me.

Which implies the United States military wouldn't defeat such a movement with ease.

Afghanistan, Vietnam,...

Yeah, easy peasy.

I like how you snipped out the second part of that quote.

The police should be enough.

Yes, because the police sure served the people who died in London this week so brilliantly well, let alone those who lost their livelyhood or their homes. How shortsighted can you possibly be?

Ha, that was not a problem with the police, that is a political problem, if the police tried anything there would be complaints left, right and center about police brutality and so on.

Alright, so I have some exceptions for farmers and hunters but that's a very limited circulation.

Oh, right, so YOU and the army can own guns, but OTHERS not so much, right?

I neither farm or hunt.

I like how you make assumptions.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

the type of person who would be victimized anyway would be unlikely to use a knife or other melee weapon against thugs, likewise with a gun

I'm sure that's what the kids mugging Bernie Goetz were counting on.

Whoopsie!

That's a lethally naive assumption to make, especially in light of what motivates many of these school massacres (Columbine, VaTech etc.).

 

[Four Suited Jack]

the type of person who would be victimized anyway would be unlikely to use a knife or other melee weapon against thugs, likewise with a gun

I'm sure that's what the kids mugging Bernie Goetz were counting on.

Whoopsie!

That's a lethally naive assumption to make, especially in light of what motivates many of these school massacres (Columbine, VaTech etc.).

I had to search this up.

Bernhard Goetz (legal name: Bernard Hugo Goetz[1]) shot four young men who tried to mug him in a New York City subway,[2][3][4][5] resulting in his conviction for illegal possession of a firearm. He came to symbolize New Yorkers’ frustrations with the high crime rates of the early 1980s. The incident occurred on the Seventh Avenue No. 2 express subway train in Manhattan on December 22, 1984. It sparked a nationwide debate on vigilantism, the perceptions of race and crime in major cities, and the legal limits of self-defense.[4]

Goetz fired an unlicensed revolver five times, seriously wounding all the alleged muggers. Following this incident, he was dubbed the "Subway Vigilante" by the New York press, and was both praised and vilified in the media and in public opinion.

He surrendered to police nine days later and was eventually charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except an illegal firearms possession count, for which he served two-thirds of a one-year sentence. The incident has been cited as a contributing factor to the groundswell movement against urban crime and disorder, and successful National Rifle Association campaigns to loosen restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms.

That's an example of:

Self-defense just becomes an excuse for violence

He needn't have shot the gun at all and even if he just needed to do it to prove that he would he would have just needed to shoot one of the guys once.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Until you are put in that situation you have no right to judge. One person cornered by four. You have no idea what their intentions are, maybe they just want to mug you, maybe they will beat you senseless. If you are a woman maybe they will gang rape you. Hell, it was New York, maybe even if you were a man they would gang rape you.

One of the most basic and universal rules of firearms is to never point a firearm at something that you are not prepared beyond a shadow of a doubt to destroy. When a person or group of people threatened the basic liberties of another human being, they forfeit their life. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. If a single one of those muggers was not prepared to die for what they were able to do they should not have been there.

The same logic applies to to home intrusion, castle doctrine is a wonderful thing. I keep a loaded handgun and loaded 12 gauge shotgun by my bed at all times. If someone breaks into my home with possible intent to harm myself or my loved ones, why should I have to further risk my safety by subduing him or making him flee? Center mass with the blast from a 12 gauge or four or five rounds from the XDM and the situation is taken care of.

Criminals should not resort to crime unless they are prepared to reap the whirlwind.



On a side note, dig around the archives for a bit.

http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/

They all have sources you can check if you believe they have been fabricated. Real cases where real people who (legally) own firearms have defended themselves (in some cases killed offenders) thanks to the gun laws in the United States.

 

[Hassknecht]

Yeah, that NRA page looks pretty unbiased, I'm sure they would never ever withhold information that would be bad to their cause.
Note that I do not question their accounts to be legit.
But those are still anecdotes and unless you also take into account the undoutbly existing cases where firearms in the household have gone wrong, this page is completely worthless and has no business in a discussion.
Mind you that also purely anti-gun pages have no value.


On a side note, that NRA page is hilarious. Looks like a fundamental christian page. Seriously. Quote in a fancy font in the banner, tasteless newsticker, on the right side a bar with undoubtly totally scientific "facts"...
Awesome.

 

[SuAside]

Feel free to provide said case material.

If you had read the thread, you'd known that I've already provided links with sourced material that can be double checked.

Self-defense just becomes an excuse for violence, the type of person who would be victimized anyway would be unlikely to use a knife or other melee weapon against thugs, likewise with a gun, on the other side of it though are those all too willing to use the weapons available to them.

So you basically mean everyone should just surrender themselves to the good will of the criminal? People have been killed AFTER handing over their wallets. Not to mention a resurgance in rapes across europe...

The UK is far worse off than Ireland, it's a cultural difference, anyway, I'm in favor of the police force be given more freedom actually, a lot more freedom.

In the 1900's brits could buy the best weapons available to them. Webley revolvers and so on were free to buy for all. Yet, the Bobbies remained entirely unarmed.
Now, the population has almost no gun rights at all, let alone the right to self-defense (yeah, someone whose house got broken into FIVE TIMES shot 2 thieves and is sitting in jail RIGHT NOW because of it) and the cops now patrol with MP5 submachine guns.

That's some nice evolution, isn't it? Cultural difference or not, Ireland may very well be next.

By all means define abuse for me.

War? Genocide? Does that qualify as abuse to you? It does to me. No source of violence has ever caused greater casualties than that wielded by "the state".

Ha, that was not a problem with the police, that is a political problem, if the police tried anything there would be complaints left, right and center about police brutality and so on.

It does not matter what problem it is. Those people died, those people lost their shops and/or homes, regardless of who is at fault. They had no feasable way to defend themselves.

The cops or the state were NOT there to protect their citizens.

I neither farm or hunt.
I like how you make assumptions.

You said: "However, I am partial to hunting and I advocate it, I forgot about that."

That's prejudiced in favor of it. Either way, shooting defenseless animals is just dandy, but actually saving lives or defending those you hold dear is "evil", ey? Nice...

 

[TheWesDude]

Yeah, that NRA page looks pretty unbiased, I'm sure they would never ever withhold information that would be bad to their cause.
Note that I do not question their accounts to be legit.
But those are still anecdotes and unless you also take into account the undoutbly existing cases where firearms in the household have gone wrong, this page is completely worthless and has no business in a discussion.
Mind you that also purely anti-gun pages have no value.

you sir are an idiot. a gross idiot.

in a politically charged issue involving laws and personal freedom trying to find an UNBIASED source is neigh upon impossible.

in a situation like that, requiring unbiased sources means you will accept no sources.


guns have helped prevent crimes. do you deny this?

guns have helped commit crimes. do you deny this?

guns have been taken from the victim and used against them. do you deny this?


now, let me ask you a question. if there are 5 people who walk up to you on the street and have the intent to do you grave bodily harm to you and/or your wife/gf, would you prefer the option of being able to defend yourself legally with a firearm, or would you prefer the chance to not be able to defend yourself against those people with a firearm.


thats really the only question that matters, and the only criteria you should use.

if you would rather not have a firearm to defend yourself against superior numbers/ability and instead rely on the police to protect you, knowing they are not everywhere, then you should be opposed to guns, and i would say enjoy your hospital visit or funeral.

if you would rather have the option of using a firearm to defend yourself against superior numbers/ability, then speaking against guns overall just makes you an idiot.

please note, you can be BOTH for guns and for gun control and it does NOT make you a hypocrite.

and another thing, if all firearms become illegal, then only law abiding people will be without, criminals would still have the option of having them.

 

[Sabirah]

If I just said that guns can be good and bad depending on the person that used it and we should not restrict something that people in a rural area need to defend themselves would I be wrong?

 

[Hassknecht]

Yeah, that NRA page looks pretty unbiased, I'm sure they would never ever withhold information that would be bad to their cause.
Note that I do not question their accounts to be legit.
But those are still anecdotes and unless you also take into account the undoutbly existing cases where firearms in the household have gone wrong, this page is completely worthless and has no business in a discussion.
Mind you that also purely anti-gun pages have no value.

you sir are an idiot. a gross idiot.

in a politically charged issue involving laws and personal freedom trying to find an UNBIASED source is neigh upon impossible.

in a situation like that, requiring unbiased sources means you will accept no sources.

I just want unbiased statistics. Of course every study and survey is a bit biased, but a good survey eliminates bias.
But you won't find them on a NRA page or some anti-gun page.
That was my whole point.
Citing anecdotes from NRA is on par with citing Conservapedia when discussing actual science.

guns have helped prevent crimes. do you deny this?

guns have helped commit crimes. do you deny this?

guns have been taken from the victim and used against them. do you deny this?

No.
These questions are pointless. Unless you add numbers and relations to them, these questions are simle obvious facts and have no value or weight.

now, let me ask you a question. if there are 5 people who walk up to you on the street and have the intent to do you grave bodily harm to you and/or your wife/gf, would you prefer the option of being able to defend yourself legally with a firearm, or would you prefer the chance to not be able to defend yourself against those people with a firearm.


thats really the only question that matters, and the only criteria you should use.

Actually, this question is as pointless as the questions above.
Why? Because it tries to generalize a highly subjective issue.
See, I live in a country where muggers almost never have anything more than a knife.
I also live in a rather small town, rarely go out and if, I'm rarely alone. And even then, I'm 1.9m tall and although slender, but not scrawny looking man.
So, to me that question is pointless. I don't need a gun.
Hypothetically, yeah, a gun in that situation would be handy. But I'm not paranoid and scared enough to get a gun for a situation that with a very high probability will never happen to me.
That being said, if you live in a neighbourhood with high crime, if you're a woman or a little weak dude and you have to get through shady streets at night often, a gun would be handy.
In the end, that question does not answer anything, it's completely subjective and has no value in a real discussion.

if you would rather not have a firearm to defend yourself against superior numbers/ability and instead rely on the police to protect you, knowing they are not everywhere, then you should be opposed to guns, and i would say enjoy your hospital visit or funeral.

Again, subjective and pointless. The probability is pretty much zero that it would happen to me.
It could happen to someone else with a much higher probability, and that person would answer differently.

if you would rather have the option of using a firearm to defend yourself against superior numbers/ability, then speaking against guns overall just makes you an idiot.

That is true. Who speaks out against something that he is actually in favour of?

please note, you can be BOTH for guns and for gun control and it does NOT make you a hypocrite.

Which is actually my stance.
If you need a gun, I'm fine with owning them legally. If you store them safely and out of reach of children, which somewhat negates gun value in home defence, which makes that quite a tricky issue.

and another thing, if all firearms become illegal, then only law abiding people will be without, criminals would still have the option of having them.

In the short term in a country that has been filled to the brim with guns and without enforcing the law, yes.
But if you'd actually enforce the law and dry out the black market, eventually ordinary criminals will have a very hard time to get hold of guns. Most european countries have strict gun laws, it's more or less a tradition from monarchic times. It's really hard to get illegal firearms around here, and for muggers it simply isn't worth the effort and risk.

 

[JPanzer]

If I just said that guns can be good and bad depending on the person that used it and we should not restrict something that people in a rural area need to defend themselves would I be wrong?

That actually sounds sane. Odd for this forum.

Does the United States have any legislation prohibiting any criminal convicted of a serious offence from possessing a firearm, or anyone shown to be 'unstable' or does the 'right to bear arms' thingy I hear about so often effectively stop that? I'm woefully ignorant of other cultures so I have no idea.

 

[Per]

I'm not sure where the "rural area" thing is coming from. On Svalbard everyone walks around with a rifle because there are polar bears and the need for guns is legitimate. Clearly having gun restriction laws in parts of the world lacking polar bears haven't meant people on Svalbard have had to walk around with clubs instead.

Also, the whole "imagine you're getting raped, now do you want to restrict guns" argument is somewhere around the level of "they knew better three hundred years ago", which is to say not very high up.

 

[Sabirah]

I'm not sure where the "rural area"

Here in NYC if someone breaks into you're house the cops will be there really quickly (Although I may be biased, I live a block away from a police station) In a rural are, that's not the case.

 

[Wintermind]

Honestly, keeping guns out of the hands of children is fucking stupid. If you're going to have guns and kids in the same household, you have to teach them how to respect them, just like you would the pool, the family pet, or the power tools in the garage. If you actually take the time and effort to teach stuff like that to your kid, chances are they're less likely to do something stupid with it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

yeah and then some kido shoots his own face with a machine pistol on a gun show.

*Edit
What I don't understand is how someone can feel fine with his 5 or 10 year old shooting a tec 9 or just a handgun but giving them driver lessons sounds suddenly "wrong".

What I am worried about is if you get children "used" that early to weapons they might be losing the respect regarding those objects where it suddenly starts to be about love and any rational thinking is thrown eventually over board. A "gun culture" if you want so. And that can lead to the same dangerous habits like people which love their cars and always drive to fast. You might go well with it. But at some point you will be facing issues. Careless use of something with a potential to harm you or others cant be a good thing. Regardless if we are talking about guns, cars or medications.

 

[Per]

I'd have guessed that even if you factor in that the police will take longer to get to your door in Hicktown, Minnesota than in downtown Washington D.C., Hicktown is probably the safer place to be all around.

 

[DammitBoy]

The internet has been used by pedophiles. It's also been used to rob and bilk people out of their money and to steal people's identity. People have used the internet to coordinate riots and people have commited suicide online, using the internet as an audience.

Clearly, the internet is dangerous and should be strictly regulated and banned in some cases.

Most of you posting here should have to qualify for a permit to use the internet and let your government decide if it's something you really need....

 

[.Pixote.]

Clearly, the internet is dangerous and should be strictly regulated and banned in some cases.

I agree, people were happier before the Internet...right DammitBoy...remember the 60s when you were just a kid, you rode your bike around to a friends place, and played ball in the front yard. Fashion was what ever your Mum bought you, you bike was your greatest possession, the idea of rioting to express your frustration was inconceivable. The pedophile lived just across the street, Mum alway had dinner on the table when Dad walked in the door, life was simple...what the fuck happened.

 

[Sabirah]

Clearly, the internet is dangerous and should be strictly regulated and banned in some cases.

But isn't the internet actually regulated (Tracking Pedo IPs on Child Porno sites and such)