Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[Bill]

If you want to live in a civilized society, you regulate what people can and can not do, or own. You have to sacrifice some personal liberties in return for others. That's the basic principle of law and order.

The gun rights people are coming of as children who only care about their toys. And that's what guns are are to many people here. A hobby.

Guns, especially semiautomatic rifles, are not action figures. They're not even paintball guns (which can cause minor injuries). They're extremely deadly weapons.

I wouldn't want one if it wasn't.

What you are failing to understand is that criminals, by definition, care not at all about the basic principles of law and order. So while you're busy sacrificing your personal liberties in the name of some perceived notion of law and order, Joe Criminal is scoping out your pad because you're now an easy target.

You haven't provided any sound reasoning why I should have to give up my personal liberties due to what criminals do with a certain type of gun, especially one that accounts for so little of overall gun deaths. And that none of those bans or restrictions address, even one iota, the problems of what cause criminal behavior in the first place.

So by all means, give up YOUR personal liberties if you feel you must. I'd rather keep mine. You haven't given me a good enough reason why I should.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Dead children should be a good enough reason.

But I feel I am wasting my time here. I do not believe in an England-style gun ban. But I do believe that such deadly weapons need more oversight. Mandatory background checks for example. Seems like a rather modest proposal, but it's a start.

Newtown should have never happened. The shooting at least, was avoidable. Those living with insane people under their roof should not have semiautomatic rifles lying around. But some people just can't be bothered with paperwork.

 

[Kelly]

The Gun-Ban people need to get a better message, and messengers....the people that are speaking up in the media, really don't know what they are talking about. When I know more than they do to know.....wow, they got that wrong. THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM.....Including the President, they all need to do some research and study a little before they get on tv and radio and make fools out of themselves.

 

[SV Fan]

But see, that's not an accurate analogy. You wouldn't ban drunk driving. That's the same as banning murder. No, to compare with a ban or restriction on guns, you would have to ban certain types of alcohol or restrict their amount. So, we would ban all hard liquor and restrict people to one can of beer per day. Going by that logic, of course.

In terms of restrictions for alcohol, they do have a limit of alcohol you can have in your blood when you are driving so that is a government enforced regulation. The Government does put that rule into enforcement to try cut down on drunk driving but much like doing tougher background checks or cutting down magazine sizes, it doesn't/won't stop drunk driving completely(or in the case of gun laws stop all murderers).

Also using the alcohol comparison they do have other rules they enforce with booze such as you have to be over 21 to buy alcohol(and if a store gets caught selling to minors they get heavily fined) so I believe making an analogy using booze and guns does hold some weight because both are substances we really don't need, alot of people want and need to be regulated in some fashion

The Gun-Ban people need to get a better message, and messengers....the people that are speaking up in the media, really don't know what they are talking about. When I know more than they do to know.....wow, they got that wrong. THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM.....Including the President, they all need to do some research and study a little before they get on tv and radio and make fools out of themselves.

Where I believe the gun ban people go wrong is putting way to much focus on stuff like Newtown(ie events that might happens 1-2 times a year but in terms of actual kills it is a very small percentage of the 30k killed every year). Once you turn events such as Newtown as the primary focus why we should make gun laws, you are just peddling fear to people like the pro gun side peddles fear that some guy might come in the middle of night and rape you at gun point and only a gun can protect yourself

 

[hammerhedd11]

Dead children should be a good enough reason.

But I feel I am wasting my time here. I do not believe in an England-style gun ban. But I do believe that such deadly weapons need more oversight. Mandatory background checks for example. Seems like a rather modest proposal, but it's a start.

The problem with the "I don't want to ban guns but..." argument is where do you draw the line? If you believe that banning some guns works, why not all guns? Why not go all the way? It's hard to argue in favor of "banning some guns" as the answer without also agreeing with "banning all guns".

 

[Thundercrack85]

The problem with the "I don't want to ban guns but..." argument is where do you draw the line? If you believe that banning some guns works, why not all guns? Why not go all the way? It's hard to argue in favor of "banning some guns" as the answer without also agreeing with "banning all guns".

Surely you wouldn't argue the reverse. Gun bans don't work, so all weapons should be legal. Cut to a sporting goods shop selling battle rifles and grenade launchers.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Then you're implying that because those weapons are suddenly legal, all hell would break loose, ignoring the fact that legal gun owners are not crazed lunatics wreaking havoc upon the public.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Then you're implying that because those weapons are suddenly legal, all hell would break loose, ignoring the fact that legal gun owners are not crazed lunatics wreaking havoc upon the public.

For the sake of clarification, you're not arguing that people should be able to sell battle rifles and grenade launchers over the counter, are you?

 

[hammerhedd11]

It doesn't matter. The point is, we already have a multitude of killing machines available to the public, and, as of this moment, for the most part, our cities have not devolved into wild west free-for-alls full of bloodthirsty maniacs. So the argument boils down to; is it the guns that are the problem, or people themselves?

 

[SV Fan]

So the argument boils down to; is it the guns that are the problem, or people themselves?

Both and you probably can add 101 other things to the list of problems that cause gun violence. No one thing will instantly stop gun shooting but there is some laws that might help in curbing the amount of deaths down(that don't involve banning ALL guns)

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Both and you probably can add 101 other things to the list of problems that cause gun violence. No one thing will instantly stop gun shooting but there is some laws that might help in curbing the amount of deaths down(that don't involve banning ALL guns)

But it seems the gun control advocates only want to touch on the superficial, instant gratification aspect of controlling gun violence and focus only on the guns. They never try to get to the long-term root causes of the violence (poor education, poverty, untreated mental health, and poor child rearing to name a few that are all interconnected with one another) because it's not the headline grabbing stuff they want to parade around and it's a lot of work they would rather pass off to someone else. Gun violence is merely a symptom and gun banning is merely covering up a symptom rather than curing the cause. I'd say identifying and treating mental health would do more to curb gun deaths since nearly 2/3 of all gun deaths are from suicides, not from people going on rampages with AR-style weapons.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It doesn't matter. The point is, we already have a multitude of killing machines available to the public, and, as of this moment, for the most part, our cities have not devolved into wild west free-for-alls full of bloodthirsty maniacs. So the argument boils down to; is it the guns that are the problem, or people themselves?

Answer the question.

And it does matter. Think for a moment. In any population you are going to have psychopaths, criminals and violently insane people. Obviously a civilized society is going to restrict access to certain kinds of weapons.

Just imagine how much damage a terrorist could do if high-end explosives were easily acquirable. Or even a more mundane example, with a spree-shooter acquiring a fully automatic rifle, with a grenade launcher option.

You really should put some more thought into this.

 

[Bill]

In terms of restrictions for alcohol, they do have a limit of alcohol you can have in your blood when you are driving so that is a government enforced regulation. The Government does put that rule into enforcement to try cut down on drunk driving but much like doing tougher background checks or cutting down magazine sizes, it doesn't/won't stop drunk driving completely(or in the case of gun laws stop all murderers).

Also using the alcohol comparison they do have other rules they enforce with booze such as you have to be over 21 to buy alcohol(and if a store gets caught selling to minors they get heavily fined) so I believe making an analogy using booze and guns does hold some weight because both are substances we really don't need, alot of people want and need to be regulated in some fashion

But those rules don't attack the problem at it's source. Before the first drink is taken. I don't think it stops drunk driving at all. It's an after the fact law that is only enforceable once you see the effects of the alcohol if you're fortunate enough to pull them over. Usually, you don't need to see the BAC to know their weaving all over the road or driving erratically. It's merely a guideline for prosecution to applicably enforce the law, but you haven't done one thing to stop the drunk driver before he takes a drink.

It's not that you just made a booze and guns analogy. It's that you didn't go far enough with comparing what you'd do with booze to get it close to what you want to do with guns. You're not just checking the mental deficiency of the person after they've already committed the crime to see if they've reached some arbitrary limit designed to keep them from committing the crime. A ban or limit is designed to keep it from happening. It historically doesn't. You need to attack the source.

 

[Bill]

Dead children should be a good enough reason.

But I feel I am wasting my time here. I do not believe in an England-style gun ban. But I do believe that such deadly weapons need more oversight. Mandatory background checks for example. Seems like a rather modest proposal, but it's a start.

Newtown should have never happened. The shooting at least, was avoidable. Those living with insane people under their roof should not have semiautomatic rifles lying around. But some people just can't be bothered with paperwork.

The problem is that you think that semi-automatic rifles would be the only thing that would have more "oversight." You think that the government would leave well enough alone and just ban AR15's and we'd never hear another peep. I really don't think you're thinking it through. What good would training do in that situation? I am certainly all for firearms training, but what would it have done to keep that from happening?

I have no problem with background checks. Most gun owners don't. The problem arises when what I'm buying gets listed. If I have no record of mental illness or criminal behavior, then the Government doesn't need to know what I have or am buying. None of the tools the government uses for registration like ballistic fingerprinting, have been any boon to solving, much less restricting, crimes. By all means, institute background checks. As long as it's just a background check, and once I pass it, I'm not restricted further. After all, I'm not the problem, and restricting me doesn't make anyone safer except the criminals.

You see, what you think of as a background check and what the politicians want to institute for a "Universal Background Check" is two different things. We have a taste of it here in NY. You don't really have to ban or even confiscate anything. You can simply use arbitrary laws that are so restrictive your firearm becomes useless.

It all becomes a catch phrase. "Well, at least we're doing something." There are many things that could have been done to both notice and treat or help Adam Lanza (Remember him? The guy who actually killed those kids you keep mentioning.) before he killed those people. But a lot of the mental illness help he could have received was dismantled because the government couldn't be bothered with the paperwork.

 

[Bill]

Answer the question.

And it does matter. Think for a moment. In any population you are going to have psychopaths, criminals and violently insane people. Obviously a civilized society is going to restrict access to certain kinds of weapons.

Just imagine how much damage a terrorist could do if high-end explosives were easily acquirable. Or even a more mundane example, with a spree-shooter acquiring a fully automatic rifle, with a grenade launcher option.

You really should put some more thought into this.

OK, let's think for a moment. The certain kind of weapon, read: AR15, is used in so few crimes that it doesn't even warrant it's own category. It's listed among other rifles and shotguns. In fact, fully automatic weapons are used in even fewer crimes. Criminals can still get them however. A lot easier and less expensive than I can. But the point is that in your society of psychopaths, criminals, and violently insane people, you're going after the tools that they use, and not only that, but the ones that they use the least.

That's forward thinking for you.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Answer the question.

And it does matter. Think for a moment. In any population you are going to have psychopaths, criminals and violently insane people. Obviously a civilized society is going to restrict access to certain kinds of weapons.

Just imagine how much damage a terrorist could do if high-end explosives were easily acquirable. Or even a more mundane example, with a spree-shooter acquiring a fully automatic rifle, with a grenade launcher option.

You really should put some more thought into this.

I'm not going to answer the question because it is wholly besides the point. Your folly is that you think that simply because a weapon would be made legal would suddenly a "terrorist" use it for illegal means, as if the restriction is the only thing stopping him in the first place.

 

[Victarion]

Some of Thundercrack's examples cause far more damage than the weapons they're looking at banning. You really should have put some more thought into this.

 

[wiegeabo]

Instead of wasting energy fighting to ban guns, both sides should be focusing their energy on promoting responsible ownership.

Events that talk about the dangers of mishandling guns.

Free trainings and tutorials on things like proper cleaning and storage.

Government incentives like rebates on gun safes and lockers. Even insurance companies might want to get in on that one.

And, of course, harsher penalties for irresponsible handling of firearms. There are thousands of accidental shootings a year that this could stop, without ever having to touch who can own what.

 

[SV Fan]

Not sure if this should go here but

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57578677/at-least-14-wounded-in-texas-college-stabbing-attack/

At least 14 wounded in Texas college stabbing attack

Sort of sad when first thing you say to yourself is well at least he didn't have a gun or what are the chances that a school violence spree in Texas doesn't have a gun.

 

[kedrell]

Time for Obama and the Dems to try and ban X-acto knives.

 

[wiegeabo]

So we ban knives now, right guys?

Sadly, this is all that will happen if we "get rid of guns". We're just lucky they haven't started using backpacks full of molotov cocktails yet. Toss one of those in a classroom, and see what happens. We might actually wish they just went back to guns. At least bullets can miss.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Shows that guns aren't the cause of violence; just a tool being used by whichever crazed person wielding it.

 

[SV Fan]

Sadly, this is all that will happen if we "get rid of guns".

Personally I don't consider people wounded(knives) instead of killed(guns) as equal evils both are bad for sure but given the choice of 2, I much rather be wounded then killed.

 

[wiegeabo]

And yet the problem still goes untouched.

 

[SV Fan]

And yet the problem still goes untouched.

Well finding ways to get guns away from crazies is a start but surely not the end to stop such things