Gun control thread yay

[JohnnyEgo]

Just a few thoughts about bombs and guns:

First off, in this country, the components to make a wide variety of explosives are common, readily available, and completely legal to possess. Creating an explosive device is not even all that complicated. ANFO, the most commonly used explosive in this country, is nothing more then fertilizer and diesel fuel (Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil).

What is hard about explosives is the detonation process. That's why you see so many of them fail, by either premature detonation or complete failure to detonate. An explosive device poses a danger to all who are in it's vicinity at all times, as opposed to a firearm, which is more discriminatory by nature (has no blast radius and is generally unlikely to kill the user in operation).

A bomb also requires delivery. Although it can be detonated remotely, you have to get it to the place where it is likely to go off. Your ability to employ a bomb dynamically is generally limited; if you change your mind about where you want it to go off or whom you want it to target, you have to move it or move the target.

Because of the limitations of the bomb, it has not been as popular for spree killings in this country. The gun is generally available and has the advantages of being safer to the end-user, more discriminatory, more transportable, easier to operate, and requiring less of a knowledge burden. So I agree with Welsh in that if you were to take away all guns, it would be more difficult to conduct mass and spree killings.

But not much more difficult. They'd simply switch to the next most efficient method available. Which would be explosives. If you look at what is happening to Americans and Iraqis in Baghdad, you can see a clear example of what I mean.

The US has made assault via firearm a far less efficient method of conducting mass killings. Defensive tactics, armor, the ability to counter attack, and somewhat effective limits on firearm availability have significantly mitigated these kinds of murders. Where the firearm is no longer as viable of an option, the tactics have switched to explosives.

It doesn't take too much to manufacture an explosive, and the insurgency has proven remarkably effective at creating and detonating them with means both high tech and low.

Granted, domestic conditions in Iraq and the US are vastly different, but the conflict does serve to illustrate the point. Take away guns, and you may see a temporary drop in the volume of spree killings and mass murders... until the next most efficient method of mass murder is found.

Welsh- You are spot on about the ethics and legalities of suicide. For the most part, the desire to end one's own life is an inherent sign of irrationality, and it is society's duty to protect the irrational individual from harming himself or others.

 

[SuAside]

As for suicide- last I checked no nation allows its people to commit suicide and its still a felony. Generally, the consequences of attempted suicide are probably a bit of court ordered counseling. Whether that works or not, I am not so sure.

most european countries allow euthanasia (in strict forms). in belgium you have to be terminally ill (and usually in pain), in full command of your mental faculties and get 2 doctors to sign off on the fact. after that, they review the case and if everything is in order, they slowly pump you full of tranqs until your heart stops.

but in the end: what is that except state approved suicide?

why someone terminally ill and not someone mentally worn out? sure, you might argue that it is temporary? but what if the person is indeed mentally fubar and would spend the rest of his sane life miserable or even in an insane asylum because of his mental state and danger to himself?

pffft, get with the program: too many people on the globe already and society is struggling to support those in trouble. i cant help but being pragmatic in this... why not let those who want to check out kill themself? just couple it to a few shrink sessions, and if it doesn't help, let them die peacefully and painlessly.

At the end of the day, the idea is that no one has the right to take his own life. Why? Probably the social costs are too great.

as shown above, that's not entirely true.

as for your reasoning, how about the social cost of someone unhappy performing badly at work (or possibily living on social security), not giving a shit anymore and probably drinking his ass off (coupled to all dangers that ensue)?

But if they are of mixed motives, then what they might end up doing is causing trouble for others- potential rescuers, for instance. At the end of the day, a person considering sucide might be better off checking into a psychiatric clinic and reconsidering their choices. I have a bit more faith in psychiatry- we have medicine for depression.

why this idea of yours that life should be sustained over all else?

locking people up in psychiatric clinics and such. forcing them to take medicine they might not want.

I am willing to bet that we have not reached the point where Soyvent Green is the answer to overcrowded earth and I don't think the costs of psychiatric care is higher than the costs of suicide.

i fail to see how the loss of a person is greater than the cost to society for continued care and whatnot of a person who wants to die...

That said, I would also say that there is a difference between suicide and the "right to die with dignity" for those suffering great pain of an illness that is medically uncurable.

you mean to say we can cure all mental problems? haha, that's bullshit.

why can a person with a fatal disease get euthanasia, but an uncureable mental patient not get the same?

sure, some things can be fixed, but it's retarded to think that our current psychological sciences are that advanced. we understand even less of the brain than we do of any other part of the body.

When we get to the point where life is easily extinguished then we are moving to a very bad place for human civilization.

and why is that welsh?

- freedom choice (as long as it doesnt hurt other people's rights)
- overcrowded earth
- cost on society

the only real damage of assisted suicide that i can see is emotional.

As for alcohol and drugs- I think mix alcohol and drug use and firearms and you have a dangerous mix. Add immaturity and things get really dangerous- which is why I don't support guns on campus.

yet you actively recruit youngsters into programs as ROTC while they're doing their studies. if war comes, you'll arm those and expect them to fight. yet, you dont trust them to protect their fellows?
yet, people of the same age are also enrolled in law enforcement and army. you trust them, dont you?
the hypocrisy is high...

as for the original statement, how is it less dangerous than mixing alcohol, drugs and cars? stop singeling out firearms will you?

note: i dont support concealed carry in my own country at all, so don't take this post as such.

Welsh- You are spot on about the ethics and legalities of suicide. For the most part, the desire to end one's own life is an inherent sign of irrationality, and it is society's duty to protect the irrational individual from harming himself or others.

at all costs?
i'd beg to differ. if someone is diagnosed sane (enough) and still wants to kill himself, i say let him...

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Welsh- You are spot on about the ethics and legalities of suicide. For the most part, the desire to end one's own life is an inherent sign of irrationality, and it is society's duty to protect the irrational individual from harming himself or others.

at all costs?
i'd beg to differ. if someone is diagnosed sane (enough) and still wants to kill himself, i say let him...

I'll leave Welsh to argue his comments with you, but I will respond to mine. Rational, sane, and healthy people do not want to take their lives. What you are left with is the irrational, the insane, and the unhealthy. I can see a valid reason for medically assisted suicide for the terminally ill where they are lucid and cognizant enough to make that decision. That is a far cry from the general concept of state assisted suicide.

One sign of a rational and sane individual is the desire to continue one's own existence. The desire to end ones existence, for the most part, implies that one is not a rational human being. So, outside of a few carefully contrieved instances such as terminal illness, you are not going to find a "sane enough" person who wishes to kill themselves, by definition.

Even in terminal cases, I doubt there are too many people who would merit assisted suicide. We have hospice and palliative care to ease suffering and pain in most cases. I can see a rational and sane person electing not to have any extraordinary measures taken to extend the technical state of being "alive" after brain death, but that is letting nature take it's course, a different concept entirely from suicide.

Suicide itself will never be "illegal", because you can't really punish the successful. The attempt of suicide, however, is illegal, and as such, allows society to treat the insane individual against their will. There is no reason for society to provide the imprimatur of sanctioned euthanasia, any more then we would condone the execution of the insane for their crimes.

 

[Sorrow]

I want to have a gun and a right to shoot anyone who attacks me. Nothing less, nothing more.

 

[Brother None]

One sign of a rational and sane individual is the desire to continue one's own existence.

Only if you define the desire to exist as an inherent part of rationality and sanity. You just defined a part of rationality and sanity and then say "hey, look, they're not it." Is the tail supposed to prove the dog's existence or the dog supposed to prove the tail's? Bit circular, there.

as for the original statement, how is it less dangerous than mixing alcohol, drugs and cars?

Mixing alcohol, drugs and cars is also illegal.

You're not still running with the cars = guns argument, are you? Hasn't that been stomped into the ground enough, yet? It's a stupid argument, SuA, get over it

 

[SuAside]

JohnnyEgo, while i'm not a doctor or anything, i think that saying a rational and sane person doesn't want to kill himself is rather unfounded. you're making more of a disguised moral statement here than you are making a scientific one.

there are tribes where elders simply leave when they feel they are getting too old and becoming too much a burden on the other members of the tribe. they simply pack up a few things, say their goodbyes and leave. usually, they hike away from the village, stop eating and die a few days later.

is this totally insane? surely it isn't. it's incredibly noble and pragmatic in my view.

personally, i wouldn't feel bad about doing the same when i decide that my time is coming.

Mixing alcohol, drugs and cars is also illegal.
You're not still running with the cars = guns argument, are you? Hasn't that been stomped into the ground enough, yet? It's a stupid argument, SuA, get over it

i never said they were totally equal, just that they were both tools that could be abused. cars being a tool that cause much greater strain on european society than guns do.

 

[Brother None]

i never said they were totally equal, just that they were both tools that could be abused. cars being a tool that cause much greater strain on european society than guns do.

And apples and ackee are both fruit. Yet one is nutritious and the other poisonous.

You say "they're both tools" as if that actually means something. It doesn't. "Tool" is just a designation for something mankind uses which has some kind of function. The fact that two separate things are both tools doesn't mean anything. Not just that "they're not equal", they're simply not comparable, on any level. They're two different things, worlds away, and calling them both tools doesn't change that.

Do you really expect me to dignify that "greater strain" remark with a response? I seriously hope not, because that's a really stupid point to make.

 

[SuAside]

i'm not expecting anything, it's you that's bringing the same shit up again. we don't see eye to eye when it comes to guns as a recreational and hunting tools, but there's no need to repeat your same stuff over & over again without the possibility to convince anyone at all.

 

[Brother None]

i'm not expecting anything, it's you that's bringing the same shit up again. we don't see eye to eye when it comes to guns as a recreational and hunting tools, but there's no need to repeat your same stuff over & over again without the possibility to convince anyone at all.

Convince anyone? What? Is this the first time you've been in an online gun debate? People never get convinced in these, gun debates are one of the most futile efforts on the internet, which is exactly why I've mostly avoided this thread.

And I'm not the one repeating a point that's already been torn to shreds. It may hurt your feelings that I'm repeating the fact that your point is inane, but you can't accuse me of being the one bringing something up again when I'm quoting you...bringing something up again.

As far as I remember, last time around you suddenly ran from this argument after I pointed out all other tools had an alternative use for society that was vital to society's functioning, whereas guns are at most recreational and are usually replaceable by non-lethal weapons for recreational purposes. Yet despite not having an answer for this, you feel your point is strong enough to repeat? I'm sorry, but is it just hood-on-and-march-straight-on for you?

Without cars, society as it is can't function, without knives, society as it is can't function, without the freedom to own and carry guns...hey look, society is functioning.

 

[SuAside]

ugh...

the point that "legally owned firearms are overly regulated (to no effect) and that they pose no greater threat (even a much smaller one in reality) than lets say cars (in the EU)" still stands, regardless of how much you believe it has been 'torn to shreds'.

as far as for you hurting me feelings? not at all. just tiring, just as i'm sure you're finding this tiring.
besides your mentioned points about tools are just as weak as mine:
without cars, society can function just fine if you enhance public transportation or change the way you work. without knives, we could still function just fine, who the fuck are you kidding?
as for firearms having no use aside from recreation (which you find 'replaceable'), i'm reluctant to mention it but: firearms keep you from being utterly buttraped by a hostile society or government. yes, i know, this point has been done overzealously and ad nauseum, but it's really no surprise at all that most if not all totalitarian regimes have phased out gunownership during their rise to power. besides, find me a hobby to replace shooting. that's like saying a baseball player/fan shouldnt be pissed off if they outlawed baseball (because, ye know, bats are used for violence & all that. the dutchies are even thinking of bat permits, haha) and that the person in question simply should go watch soccer instead.

as for running away? actually just busy and had to skip on some pointless discussions (hey, that happens when you get up at 5:45 and get home from work at 20:20 every goddamn day of the workweek). by the time i had time again (i.e. next weekend) the discussion had already progressed far past that point and i didn't want to rake it up again, since i bloody damn well knew you wouldnt validate my points while i wouldnt concede to your points...

either way, the only way that all out guncontrol is going to significantly lower crime is if there are no guns (at all, legal or illegal). this is however not the case (criminals will always have access to guns, even if you dont) and as such going to either ends of the spectrum will cause an increase in crime (absolute availability of guns and totally illegalise ownership). everything in the middle of said spectrum has little to no effect.

whereas of course, banning alcohol or tabacco would have far greater effects, but also affect a far greater group of people. a far greater group of people would thus be outraged and as such react politically. sadly, recreative and sport shooters are a small minority in europe and we cannot take any such action (nor even react to the constant slander in mainstream media).

 

[alican]

Rational, sane, and healthy people do not want to take their lives.

One sign of a rational and sane individual is the desire to continue one's own existence. The desire to end ones existence, for the most part, implies that one is not a rational human being. So, outside of a few carefully contrieved instances such as terminal illness, you are not going to find a "sane enough" person who wishes to kill themselves, by definition.

I don't agree with that. How do you define sane?

 

[Sorrow]

either way, the only way that all out guncontrol is going to significantly lower crime is if there are no guns (at all, legal or illegal). this is however not the case (criminals will always have access to guns, even if you dont)

Criminals don't need guns to rape, rob and murder defenceless people. They live by violence and have skills in using violence.
Gun is an equaliser for normal people that don't want to be beaten to death or raped by a criminal.

 

[Brother None]

the point that "legally owned firearms are overly regulated (to no effect) and that they pose no greater threat (even a much smaller one in reality) than lets say cars (in the EU)" still stands

That's an untenable position since that's not actually the case in the EU.

without cars, society can function just fine if you enhance public transportation or change the way you work. without knives, we could still function just fine, who the fuck are you kidding?

This was a joke, right? You don't understand how entire factory industries as well as all kitchens in the world can't function without knives? You don't understand how cars can never be fully replaced by public transportation?

Besides, I'm fairly sure I said "as it is". Y'know, "the world as we know it". I'm sure we can change all of society to no longer have cars, but obviously, nobody is willing to make that sacrifice.

firearms keep you from being utterly buttraped by a hostile society or government.

I am not being buttraped by a hostile society or government, hence this point is fully moot.

"The nazis did it!" is indeed not a point worth discussing.

hat's like saying a baseball player/fan shouldnt be pissed off if they outlawed baseball

Baseball bats were invented and are used in sports. Again, primary vs secondary function.

either way, the only way that all out guncontrol is going to significantly lower crime is if there are no guns (at all, legal or illegal). this is however not the case (criminals will always have access to guns, even if you dont) and as such going to either ends of the spectrum will cause an increase in crime (absolute availability of guns and totally illegalise ownership). everything in the middle of said spectrum has little to no effect.

I already said I'm not arguing this point. I'm not interested in talking about gun control in general, I'm just tackling some of the dumber points made in this thread.

whereas of course, banning alcohol or tabacco would have far greater effects

Drugs and tools are really worlds away, this was also already discussed.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Rational, sane, and healthy people do not want to take their lives.

One sign of a rational and sane individual is the desire to continue one's own existence. The desire to end ones existence, for the most part, implies that one is not a rational human being. So, outside of a few carefully contrieved instances such as terminal illness, you are not going to find a "sane enough" person who wishes to kill themselves, by definition.

I don't agree with that. How do you define sane?

You're not required to.

I define sanity along the lines of Merriam Webster, that being a state of soundness or health of mind. Since we lack a clear scientific method of certitude for establishing sanity, it is ultimately both subjective and based on societal standards. We are getting better at scientific certitude with advances in magnetic resonance imaging and other methods of brain tomography. However, we lack the technology or understanding to make a purely objective determination of sanity.

We still function just fine as a society by making subjective measurements on any number of issues, including sanity. SuA was absolutely right that my statement of sanity was not a definition within the context of scientific certitude. It is a moral judgement based on the society in which I live.

For the most part, the human race has had a long tradition of considering the desire to actively take one's own life as being an irrational act. Sure, there are limited circumstances in which one could claim to have a rational desire to end one's own life, such as certain cases of terminal illness. And there are even a few cultures in which ritual suicide was considered an honorable act within the societal structure. But again, these are the exceptions. Even SuA's example shows the point. It is societally acceptable to passively accept one's demise. The elders leave the village, so as not to be a burden. The dying man declines artificial resperation. But I know of no culture in which, upon reaching a ripe old age, where it would be socially acceptable for those same elders to actively slit their own throats one night while lying in their own beds.

You can make the argument that it would be more humane to give the man a knife and let him dispatch himself quickly and in the dignity and comfort of his own surroundings. Sounds more attractive then a drawn out process of starvation and exposure. But you just don't see that happening. You don't see suicide in the animal kingdom, either. Call it evolutionary imparitive, social conditioning, or whatever you want, most of us are inherently reviled at the concept of taking an active role in our own demise. And since the standard of rationality is based on the common man and his relationship to his society, it stands that suicide is an irrational act.

PS: I'm not a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a doctor, a lawyer or even a philosopher. Neither, would I imagine, are most people here. So please do not take my words as those of an authority on the subject. My authority these days is limited to the fields of electrical engineering and catastrophic loss analysis. Almost everything else beyond that is nothing more then opinion and conjecture on my part. I imagine this is true of most of the rest of you as well.

 

[alican]

Well, I'm only discussing. I'm not gonna call you a know-it-all for saying something If you feel uncomfortable, we could end this, but I think the concept of sanity is very interesting. We have different points and it's only natural I don't agree. You don't have to agree either.

I have a kind of odd idea about mental health and sanity. If you would like to discuss it further, I'd love to

 

[welsh]

SuAside- Couple things.

(1) I agree with Kharn, these gun control threads are kind of useless.

But more importantly-

(2) you have a habit of making this personal. I sympathize because you have strong feelings for the ownership of guns. Fine. But don't make it personal. I have been polite with you thus far and expect the same in return.

With regard to suicide-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide

Interesting how the rates of suicide are so much lower in Western Europe compared to Eastern Europe.

While you are right that one need not use a gun for a suicide, in the US 55% of suicides are done with guns.

Major cause- depression. Many , but certainly not all, of the other causes are reversable or treatable.

Studies show a high incidence of psychiatric disorders in suicide victims at the time of their death with the total figure ranging from 98%[17] to 87.3%[18] with mood disorders and substance abuse being the two most common. In schizophrenia suicide can be triggered by either the depression that is common with this disorder, or in response to command auditory hallucinations. Suicide among people suffering from bipolar disorder is often an impulse, which is due to the sufferer's extreme mood swings (one of the main symptoms of bipolar disorder). Severe depression is considered a terminal illness due to the likelihood of suicide when left untreated

So should we allow suicide? Some, if in minority, think so.

Some see suicide as a legitimate matter of personal choice and a human right (colloquially known as the right to die movement), and maintain that no one should be forced to suffer against their will, particularly from conditions such as incurable disease, mental illness, and old age that have no possibility of improvement. Proponents of this view reject the belief that suicide is always irrational, arguing instead that it can be a valid last resort for those enduring major pain or trauma. This perspective is most popular in continental Europe, where euthanasia and other such topics are commonly discussed in parliament, although it has a good deal of support in the United States as well.

A narrower segment of this group considers suicide something between a grave but condonable choice in some circumstances and a sacrosanct right for anyone (even a young and healthy person) who believes they have rationally and conscientiously come to the decision to end their own lives. Notable supporters of this school of thought include German pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer and Scottish empiricist David Hume. Adherents of this view often advocate the abrogation of statutes that restrict the liberties of people known to be suicidal, such as laws permitting their involuntary commitment to mental hospitals. Critics may argue that suicidal impulses are often products of mental illness rather than rational self-interest, and that because of the gravity and irreversibility of the decision to take one's life it is more prudent for society to err on the side of caution and at least delay the suicidal act

One of the goals of law is to regulate social interactions, to communicate what is acceptable and what is punishable- to establish and sustain social standards. Should the law promote suicide? I don't think so. Why? Because the law communicates a sense of value- and one of those values is to live a productive and healthy life, to value life. The existence of government places a society sometimes over the individual- and that includes some limits of what they can do with their lives. For example- thou shalt not kill- is a standard of conduct throughout the civilized world.

In No Country for Old Men (the book), the Sherriff is asked by a reporter how his county could have become so filled with crime. The sherriff answers, "Well it starts with bad manners. First the young stop saying 'Sir' or 'Madam'. " Next thing you know they are allowing abortion, and then killing the old in their sleep.

So its a slippery slope. What kind of society do you want to have and where is it going? What's the next thing? Are we going to begin liquidating the poor? Terminating the old and infirm (like the eskimos who send their old out on an iceflow to die)? Maybe get rid of minorities for 'coloring up' society? What's next?

Is suicide rational? Honestly, my position acknowledges that the "sane" = "rational" person is confusing. A better question is- what is rational.

To help- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
Or for that matter- what is sane-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanity

Here's the thing about rationality- it often involves a calculation of what is in the best interest of the person. But it also anticipates a future. Death anticipates no future. We may believe in an after life, or even an end of suffering, but if we "off" ourselves, there is no return. No hope for the future.

Is that rational? We believe that the desire to survive is inherent. I suspect that gets plugged into our definition of rationality.

But from what I can see, with very few exceptions, there are few cases where "suicide" makes rational sense. In most cases its a release from some present circumstances while preventing any possible "better" future. Its an escape.

When one commits suicide "heroically" whether because of love for fellow man or someone in particular, or to avoid shame- the motivation there is not a rational calculation for the future- for there is no anticipated future. Rather, its an escape from an emotional, irrational, experience.

Honestly, although the social sciences and law often anticipates human beings to be rational, and holds them to a rational standard, in practice human beings are irrational beings capable of doing terrible things to others and themselves. The ideal is that, had they been more rational, they wouldn't have done it.

Use of rationality in social sciences, for instance, supports this. Rationality gives us an idea of how people are "supposed to act if rational". But the interesting questions arise when people fail that expectation - and begs the question, what motivates them.

With regard to the justifications of society-

- overcrowded earth- seems a bit early for that. Not with so many obese people around.
- freedom of choice- no society allows individuals unbridled freedom to do with their lives what they will. The idea is the antithesis of government and, realistically, denies a fundametental of human social existence- collective action.
- Costs of society- With few exceptions, I don't see the costs as being too high. To open that exception puts one on a very slippery slope that jeopardizes the norm that human life is valuable.

I suspect this question of human life being valuable might help explain why you have significant differences in rates of suicide by culture. However, in Western Society- I think its a very minority opinion that life is not valued.

Note- I am not saying that we can cure all mental problems with psychiatry. I am saying that we are moving in that general direction, and that we are doing better. Given that suicidal individuals can, with therapy, lead productive lives and the high rates of depression that drive suicide- yes, I think its generally treatable. Suicide is not the anwer most of the time.

ROTC, law enforcement, etc- these are a small exception to the majority and they often possess or have guns under very limited conditions. What I said about college campuses (as I teach on one) stands- mix drama, alcohol, drugs, and a lack maturity in a small population and you have a recipe for disaster. Parents send kids to colleges so they get an education in a safe environment. They can also go target shooting or hunting when they get home.

As for alcohol, drugs and guns. Alcohol is allowed largely because a lot of people support consumption of alcohol. Hard drugs are not, because there is no constituent support. Soft drugs (like marijuana) may be legalized because more people are supporting the use of marijuana and the health risks are low.

Given the high rate of gun ownership in the US, I doubt anyone can reasonable believe that guns can be taken away from the general population nor, I suspect, should they. The question of regulation is really a matter of keeping guns out of the hands criminals and would-be criminals as well as regulating their control so that individuals are not harmed by them.

My argument thus far has generally been that gun violence in the US reveals two different tendencies.

(1) On one hand we have violence related to criminal activity- that is usually limited to inner city, poor and often minority communities that rarely touches the middle class white majority. These communities often seek higher gun restrictions to disarm their neighborhoods.

(2) We have acquaintenance and family related homicides- this does touch the middle and upper classes - and generally impacts white communities. In these situations many of the victims are people that the shooter knows or is in family with, and victims often female.

@Sorrow- you are coming into the debate a bit late. Don't forget, not all criminals are violent. And that's the danger- we'd like to be able to narrow "criminals" into a clear class of perpetrators- of 'bad guys'.

But not all those who use guns for violence have long rap sheets or histories of criminal behavior. Sometimes the shooter is some dude who got drunk, got upset with his girlfriend, and shot her. Or maybe its a son who shoots a father because they had a fight. Or maybe its two assholes in a bar fight. Or maybe its some asshole who is having a really bad day on the road and is pissed off that someone cut him off. Or maybe its a guy who just got laid off from his job, or his job has gotten too stressful, or maybe its another guy who didn't pass a psyche test.

And sometimes the shot misses and some poor innocent person gets killed.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with you keeping a rifle or a shotgun or, perhaps even a pistol at home. Get a hunting license and go hunting. Keep it locked away so that your kid doesn't play with it or its difficult to steal and if you sleep better at night, great.

But at the same time I don't see a problem with making it more difficult for someone to get a gun to shoot someone, or keeping drug dealers disarmed, or even making it more difficult for a person to shoot themselves.

You wrote-

I want to have a gun and a right to shoot anyone who attacks me. Nothing less, nothing more.

The problem is "who is I"- a drug dealer, a lunatic, a minor, an ex-con? Are you sane? Are you thinking of using the gun to kill your wife who happens to be sleeping with your neighbor and you caught her?

What does "attack me" mean- did they come after you with a gun? Are they breaking into your house? Did they steal your job? Hurt your feelings? Call you a name? Tarnish your reputation? Frustrate your way of life? Are you going to use them to launch of liberation? Against what government?

Sorry but we need to have some rules about when use of guns is acceptable and who can own them. We have to be serious about punishing those who break those rules or assist those who intend to break those rules.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Well, I'm only discussing. I'm not gonna call you a know-it-all for saying something If you feel uncomfortable, we could end this, but I think the concept of sanity is very interesting. We have different points and it's only natural I don't agree. You don't have to agree either.

I have a kind of odd idea about mental health and sanity. If you would like to discuss it further, I'd love to

I don't feel uncomfortable about it at all. Sometimes tone is hard to convey in writing. But let me assure you, I wasn't offended (it's difficult, though not impossible to do) in the least.

Welsh and I have been arguing at length for pages, and although he and I have different opinions, I respect him for it. Reasonable people can see things differently, and can voice their opinions without disrespect.

My post was an honest reflection of my point of view. The disclaimer was my attempt to make clear where my opinions come from. I run into a lot of "internet experts" all the time, as I am sure you do as well. I enjoy polite argument and being tested on my beliefs. Forces me to think them through and become better at expressing them as time goes by.

The concepts of sanity and rationality would indeed make for an interesting discussion, though perhaps as a separate thread.

 

[New Enclave]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with you keeping a rifle or a shotgun or, perhaps even a pistol at home. Get a hunting license and go hunting. Keep it locked away so that your kid doesn't play with it or its difficult to steal and if you sleep better at night, great.

I'm pretty sure that is all a reasonable gun owner expects, but it just never seems to be "enough" to appease anyone on either side in these days of escalation.

Realistically speaking it WILL be an all(obviously not every gun known to mankind) or nothing issue one day.

 

[welsh]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with you keeping a rifle or a shotgun or, perhaps even a pistol at home. Get a hunting license and go hunting. Keep it locked away so that your kid doesn't play with it or its difficult to steal and if you sleep better at night, great.

I'm pretty sure that is all a reasonable gun owner expects, but it just never seems to be "enough" to appease anyone on either side in these days of escalation.

Realistically speaking it WILL be an all(obviously not every gun known to mankind) or nothing issue one day.

Well, I honestly don't think it will be an all or nothing issue, least not in our lifetime.

I think its kind of impossible for a government to even try to take all the guns away. Considering how hard it is to punish straw purchasers sellers, I think the government would face significant resistance if it took all the guns away.

That said, completely allowing everyone or anyone to carry a gun without restriction is also precarious. No sanity checks? No criminal background checks? I know gun advocates keep saying, "but look, gun control didn't work in DC!"- Yes, but then a DC resident just has to cross a river to buy a gun in Virginia.

I recall that it wasn't uncommon for towns in the frontier west to ban guns to keep the peace. I don't think its unreasonable to allow jurisdictions to fashion their own restrictions while having some narrow limits on how guns are put in the stream of national commerce.

As mentioned earlier- the question is "what is reasonable." I think a fair answer is "that depends." But I suspect its going to be something of a political question - how ironic that it comes in an election year.

 

[Sorrow]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with you keeping a rifle or a shotgun or, perhaps even a pistol at home. Get a hunting license and go hunting. Keep it locked away so that your kid doesn't play with it or its difficult to steal and if you sleep better at night, great.

I don't need a gun at home.
Home is safe and streets are dangerous.

What does "attack me" mean- did they come after you with a gun? Are they breaking into your house? Did they steal your job? Hurt your feelings? Call you a name? Tarnish your reputation? Frustrate your way of life? Are you going to use them to launch of liberation? Against what government?

Anyone who tries to use lawless violence agaist me.

Speaking of limiting the means of self defence.
Since, the government seems to want to tell people who can have guns and who can't and how can they use them for self defence or not, it takes responsibility for people's safety.
I.e. if I don't have a gun and get attacked on the government's street, the governement should be responsible for the attack - i.e. it should pay me a compensation and fund eventual therapy. Does government do anything like that?
No, because government isn't reasponsible for anything. It can limit or even forbid self-defence, but it doesn't feel responsible for safety of citizens when someone gets attacked.