Gun Control Debate thread

[Slush Puppie]

The "it's the person not the gun" argument is one that seems to be commonly offered up as some sort of explanation. And there are many people perfectly safe and capable of owning a firearm without hurting others.

However, whether thats a good argument or not, it should be obvious that it's very hard to shoot someone with a gun that doesn't exist.

What it comes down to is a basic choice of opinion:

a) I find gun crime to be an acceptable inevitable consequence of the having firearms in circulation
b) I do not find gun crime to be a acceptable inevitable consequence of having firearms in circulation.

Because for all the arguments it really comes down to that. For all the wishful thinking in the world, and for every 'safely' owned gun out there, you just can't have it both ways i'm afraid.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Slush Puppie

What it comes down to is a basic choice of opinion:

a) I find gun crime to be an acceptable inevitable consequence of the having firearms in circulation
b) I do not find gun crime to be a acceptable inevitable consequence of having firearms in circulation.

Because for all the arguments it really comes down to that. For all the wishful thinking in the world, and for every 'safely' owned gun out there, you just can't have it both ways i'm afraid.

Personally, I'd add a 3rd choice.

3) what level of gun violence is acceptable in a 1st world society?

I would agree that zero is an unrealistic answer.

That said, with a legal gun ownership rate of 9 guns per 10 Americans and a gun violence rate of nearly triple the second leading developed country, it is painfully obvious that the claimed deterrent effect of having an widely armed population has never materialized.

[AcroPhile]

Originally Posted by Bones

In Canada, defense of the home is limited to the amount of force needed to remove a trespasser from one's home. Lethal force is not acceptable. The only time that lethal force is acceptable is to protect yourself and others from imminent harm when no other options are available. Basically if you can escape, then you have to do that. And imminent harm is a lot more stringent than merely having an intruder in your home: they have to point a gun at you (or appear to do so) or something of that nature. Use of lethal force to protect real property is not self defense and is not legal. Basically if an armed intruder breaks into your house and starts to steal your Big Screen TV and you blow him away, you will be charged. Similar to a bank robber who merely hands you a note: there's no imminent danger. You would have to prove that something more than a mere robbery happened.

Am I mistaken in thinking that this is very different in the US?

I think this part may be different in Colorado. About a few months ago or so a drunk college girl mistakingly entered a home that wasn't hers. She proceded into the bedroom and got shot by the homeowner. The homeowner was never charged with any crime and the girl was charged with B&E or trespassing. Woman shot after wandering drunk into home pleads guilty | 9news.com

[cc898]

The legalities of 'lethal force" are not in question, as the perps of these events are not at all considerate of the laws.

As far as a home invasion goes, you are WAY more likely to get a face full of bear or hornet spary fom me than I am EVER to shoot at you. While I am a decent shot with a gun, I am a GREAT shot with bear or hornet spay! Google what happens if you get a lot of hornet spray in the eyes=NO FUN. With much less chance of hurting someone else with a stray bullet.

Is anyone else concerned that guns sales have tripled in the last few days, and ammo and mag sales are through the roof......how is a ban going to stop whats out there? "Hey, sir, you can't sell that gun!" "Oh, okay, guess I won't then." Yeah sure, that will happen.

The public wants to have the "idea" of guns gone, in reality, its not gonna happen.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by cc898

The legalities of 'lethal force" are not in question, as the perps of these events are not at all considerate of the laws.

My question of a few posts back was more to inquire about the American legalities of what appears to be a prevailing attitude: "I am allowed and will use lethal force to protect my PROPERTY"

Originally Posted by cc898

The public wants to have the "idea" of guns gone, in reality, its not gonna happen.

I'd say that the public wants everyone else's gun gone, just not theirs.

[Deimus85]

Originally Posted by Bones

That said, with a legal gun ownership rate of 9 guns per 10 Americans and a gun violence rate of nearly triple the second leading developed country, it is painfully obvious that the claimed deterrent effect of having an widely armed population has never materialized.

The original intention of the 2nd amendment was so that the general populous would be able to defend their rights against a tyrannical and oppressive government via armed revolution. That too has yet to materialize, despite our rights being slowly stripped away year after year. It's ok though, as long as we have our McRib and Best Buy gift cards we can go about mooing like the cattle we are. Bah bah black sheep.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Deimus85

The original intention of the 2nd amendment was so that the general populous would be able to defend their rights against a tyrannical and oppressive government via armed revolution.

I disagree.

I believe the 2nd amendment intended the existence of a "well organized militia", not an armed and unorganized general population.

Arguments about command and control aside, one would think that "well organized" would require, at a minimum, some regular training, a method of identifying militia members and required storage/maintenance standards like the Swiss?

[ThunderChunky]

Lets look at straight facts. Try to be objective.


America has extremely high gun violence and mass shootings

America has very loose gun laws compared to other countries



So people would say "easy it's the guns to blame, restrict guns"


America has enacted tighter firearm laws such as the assault weapons ban of 1994 and the handgun band in both Chicago and D.C.

During these legislation periods these gun crime rates did not decrease.

One of the most infamous shootings happened at Columbine.



I'm ok with gun restrictions. I'd say lets get the ability to get weapons the same across all states and then let the states decide what is acceptable to restrict and not. But banning weapons is not going to solve the problem. Stop thinking it is. It has been proven. You say America's loose gun laws are to blame. They have been changed and nothing happened. There are a lot of phenomenons like this. America is a very obese country. It's not like we have looser food laws than the rest of the world. It's the culture. And culture can't, and shouldn't be regulated....well to me at least.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

. But banning weapons is not going to solve the problem. Stop thinking it is. It has been proven.

Since you have "proof", please provide the "proof" that refutes any link between gun bans and the exponentially lower rates of gun violence in Japan, Canada, Switzerland, England, etc.

[cc898]

You can't put any particular country on that list, most of the largest killings in world history took place there after the gun bans. Here is a good link if you want to see the actual records. While it is true, we rank high on the list of numbers, but so do MANY other countries, even with strict gun control. And one of the worst ever took place in 1927! So its not exactly a new problem.

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, not ALL were done with guns.