Gun Control Debate thread

[IdahoFreshies]

^ well, first time really dropping into this thread and that just about covers everything I agree with. Good job! Wish more people thought like that!


/thread

[2hipp4u]

Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze

The Second Amendment does not recognize our right to own "guns". It recognizes our right to "arms" and the use of that word is very specific and intentional. Arms are what are used for a free man to protect his own right to life, both against criminals and a tyrannical government. They didn't write right to bear "muskets", "ball-and-cap revolvers" or anything like that. Every single empire has eventually crumbled and devolved into tyranny and the framers of The Constitution had just fought a revolutionary war to assert their sovereignty from a tyrant. It is our last check on government if our political process fails; and I think most would agree, our political process is failing as it's being bought out by lobbyist interests from ALL sides of the political spectrum. "Arms" is a colloquialism to mean the use of force to protect ones natural rights; for more information on that, start with Thomas Paine's the Rights of Man. It also doesn't state the government shall regulate arms. It says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state COMMA the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well regulated militia is the justification for the people to keep and bear arms; so that the people will ultimately regulate the militia and not the other way around. It has nothing to do with the regulation of arms.

The fact is, bad things will continue to happen. Mass murders will continue to happen. Ban and confiscate guns. Logistically, how you would confiscate something that is possessed on the order of estimated between 200,000,000 and 300,000,000 is beyond me and how you would get them out of the hands of the criminal element is even more far-fetched. Just confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens would be an enormous undertaking by itself. However, that is beside the point. People want something to blame that they can take easy action against to prevent more "bad stuff" from happening. Mental health and the idea of pure evil existing in this world aren't good enough reasons because the former is an extremely complicated issue that doesn't have any "real" solutions for government (it's a cultural one) and the latter is unfixable. So blaming guns and weapons is much easier. Plus, the idea that evil just exists is unpalatable to us in the first world because we've become arrogant to the point where we think we are just exempt from even experiencing the same type of suffering that the majority of the world faces.

As to the weapons themselves, particularly the so-called assault rifle. This weapon does not make a killer effective by itself. If you think so, you're purely ignorant and you're buying into media sensationalism and Hollywood bullshit. It's not easy to shoot something that can move. It's not easy shoot something under stress. It certainly doesn't make it easy to shooting something that is moving while under stress. Go rent one at a local range, if you've never shot before, and see how good you shoot. It takes years of practice to get good with a gun, just like any other weapon or any other tool for that matter.

What does that matter? It means that the effectiveness of a mass murderer is almost purely dictated by his SKILLS, PREPARATION, and WILLINGNESS TO DIE. The weapon itself has a very small bearing. Take away any of those three elements and he becomes much less effective. Take the Chinese school stabbings, and yes, there have been mass fatal stabbings in China. The most recent one resulted in no fatalities probably because the would-be murderer wasn't as SKILLED or PREPARED. The point is, those three things are what make a murderer effective with any sort of implement. Sometimes a murderer with a knife, gun or whatever is effective and sometimes he's not. It's not the weapon itself that matters.

No one is talking about the Oregon mall shooter that happened a week prior to Sandy Hook. In fact, the media is completely downplaying this event:

Armed citizen pulls gun on Oregon mall shooter - Tucson News Now

The man, when confronted by a trained CCW holder who presented his weapon at the murderer, fled. The CCW made the judgement call he couldn't get a shot without hitting a bystander (so much for the Wild West shootout argument against carrying guns) and didn't fire. The murderer fled and KILLED HIMSELF. He didn't have the WILLINGNESS TO DIE. Many of these murderers are cowards. The simple threat of force or the possibility of threat of force, which CCW states create by allowing responsible citizens to carry, is a great deterrent to both simple crimes and mass murderers.

The militaristic features on these guns (detachable magazines and the like) are ergonomic and functional advantages for fighting back against an ARMED enemy. They do little to increase the effectiveness of a mass murderer because he already has every advantage by very nature of how mass murders are carried out. And furthermore, you can't stop a criminal from possessing these features on weapons by making them illegal so what exactly is the point?

Taking away guns is, at best, going to have almost no impact on killing sprees. Contrary to what the media wants you to believe, these types of events are not becoming more common and more people are killed every year with things like knives than with "assault weapons". At the same time, you take away the ability of the physically weak to protect themselves. And worst, you marginalize the ability of the people to fight back against an armed tyrannical state if the worst should happen.

I can't speak for everyone but I know many people like myself are upset about our overly interventionalist foreign policy. A lot of it is UN manipulation of our armed forces for special international interests, IMO. Yet, we can't even get our government to stop sending our military around the world on quasi-imperialistic conquests for the benefit of international interests. To think we could petition it should it try to conquer its own people for the good of its own people without having an armed response is, in my estimation, the height of lunacy.

/rant off

Happy Shredding

Well said, logical thought about these things escape most people because of thier emotions.

[CheeseForSteeze]

I won't deny people kill people with guns and banning and destroying large amounts of guns (as long as it would take) would reduce the number of people killed with guns. I don't think, however, it would make us a less violent society in general and that really should be the goal. Gun control, IMO, has become its own ends and not the means to anything.

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze

I won't deny people kill people with guns and banning and destroying large amounts of guns (as long as it would take) would reduce the number of people killed with guns. I don't think, however, it would make us a less violent society in general and that really should be the goal. Gun control, IMO, has become its own ends and not the means to anything.

This. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, there's more going on than just the availability of guns. Whether it's "gun culture", contempt for failure, lack of a safety net, too many video games/violent movies, excessive political correctness in parenting, or whatever -- something else is causing people to snap. The availability of guns just makes the snappage a dangerous event.

[cc898]

Check out the gun news from England. Theirs did become a slippery slope. and now they are throwing a fit that they let it happen to begin with. So, while its true that in some cases it worked out fine, there is evidence that in others it may not. All depends on the political agenda of those in charge.

[CheeseForSteeze]

Originally Posted by Donutz

This. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, there's more going on than just the availability of guns. Whether it's "gun culture", contempt for failure, lack of a safety net, too many video games/violent movies, excessive political correctness in parenting, or whatever -- something else is causing people to snap. The availability of guns just makes the snappage a dangerous event.

No, it doesn't exclusively. Anything can be mastered as a deadly weapon and a semi-auto rifle is no different in that it requires more of an investment in training than the media and entertainment have misled the population to believe to be deadly. Anyone who is a firearms hobbyist will tell you this.

I have friends that study Japanese history and many of them are kenjutsukas of decent skill; decent in the absolute scale of mastery relative to samurai. They are more than skilled enough to use a katana or any large knife and cause havoc worse than most of these shooters given the adequate preparation and willingness to die for the "cause". Luckily, they're just harmless video game nerds that would only use lethal force if their lives were in jeopardy.

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze

No, it doesn't exclusively. Anything can be mastered as a deadly weapon and a semi-auto rifle is no different in that it requires more of an investment in training than the media and entertainment have misled the population to believe to be deadly. Anyone who is a firearms hobbyist will tell you this.

Cheeze, you can claim this until you're blue in the face, and no-one is going to swallow it. YES, you could become good enough with a sword if you took the time and had the discipline and could find a good instructor. YES, you could kill people with a kitchen knife. YES, you could kill people with a bow as in that link I posted a while back in this thread. But you ARE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT THESE ARE LIKELY TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS A GUN! Don't insult my intelligence. Don't insult the intelligence of the other people on this forum. With a gun you can stand at the doorway and shoot people like fish in a barrel. Even with a trained swordsman, all everyone has to do is stand at the other end of the room and look at you. Anyway, explain to me how a couple of kids managed Columbine if it requires so much training. Mark Lepine, with virtually NO training, kept an entire room hostage and started killing women one at a time by the simple tactic of staying far enough back that he couldn't be rushed.

Sorry, no sale.

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by cc898

Check out the gun news from England. Theirs did become a slippery slope. and now they are throwing a fit that they let it happen to begin with. So, while its true that in some cases it worked out fine, there is evidence that in others it may not. All depends on the political agenda of those in charge.

Links please. Britain has always had similar gun laws to Canada. Still does. Why do you think we DO have these levels of laws in Canada? Because we were a British colony (except Quebec) and we didn't separate through war.

In fact I can't think of a single First World country that has this "slippery slope" problem. Actually I can't think of a single First World country that has the same guns and violence problem. Or the same gun culture.

[Noreaster]

Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze

No, it doesn't exclusively. Anything can be mastered as a deadly weapon and a semi-auto rifle is no different in that it requires more of an investment in training than the media and entertainment have misled the population to believe to be deadly. Anyone who is a firearms hobbyist will tell you this.

I have friends that study Japanese history and many of them are kenjutsukas of decent skill; decent in the absolute scale of mastery relative to samurai. They are more than skilled enough to use a katana or any large knife and cause havoc worse than most of these shooters given the adequate preparation and willingness to die for the "cause". Luckily, they're just harmless video game nerds that would only use lethal force if their lives were in jeopardy.

Pure and simple casuistry. You're choosing one highly irregular example and applying it as a general rule.

[poutanen]

Originally Posted by Donutz

Cheeze, you can claim this until you're blue in the face, and no-one is going to swallow it. YES, you could become good enough with a sword if you took the time and had the discipline and could find a good instructor. YES, you could kill people with a kitchen knife. YES, you could kill people with a bow as in that link I posted a while back in this thread. But you ARE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT THESE ARE LIKELY TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS A GUN! Don't insult my intelligence. Don't insult the intelligence of the other people on this forum. With a gun you can stand at the doorway and shoot people like fish in a barrel. Even with a trained swordsman, all everyone has to do is stand at the other end of the room and look at you. Anyway, explain to me how a couple of kids managed Columbine if it requires so much training. Mark Lepine, with virtually NO training, kept an entire room hostage and started killing women one at a time by the simple tactic of staying far enough back that he couldn't be rushed.

Sorry, no sale.

They only flaw in your theory is that gun violence isn't the largest scale killing device in recent US history:

Oklahoma city bomb made from fertilizer and diesel... killed/injured hundreds. Should fertilizer, diesel, and rental trucks be outlawed? (I realize this is a blanket statement with many flaws Snowolf! )

There is an appropriate level of control for all things potentially dangerous. It's unfortunate that we are reactionary about what that appropriate level of control is...