Obama; New Type of Hope, Same Type of Stupid (Gun Control)

[Crazed Rabbit]

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

Still wouldn't work - simple guns are not too hard to make at home, plus there would be corrupt police and army personnel selling arms.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

[Yoyoma1910]

Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

Possibly, however most of the gangs where I live developed out of a sense of street vengeance. You killed my peeps, so now I'm going after your peeps.

Drugs do exist as a way to make quick cash, without having to have either an education or a place of work, and I suppose that helps the gangs purchase a better arsenal and such, however the violence would likely still exist.

[Devastatin Dave]

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?

He's just trying to enlighten us dumb old American hicks..

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Seamus Fermanagh- i dont know if the murder rate would go down. it could also go up. as was said before, crooks who want guns will get them, and law-abiding people wont. there wont be means of viable self-defense.
too much reliance on the governemnt for protection is not good.
Reagan (or maybe someone elese?) once said: "the scariest words to hear are 'im fromt he government and im here to help.'"

it is much easier to train with a gun than it is to train with a knife. now, for self defense for the averae person, man or woman- is a knife better than a gun? maybe for men, since they are by nature stronger and more able with weapons and could successfully fend off an attacker with a knife.
but women, who are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to male attackers, are not at an advantage.
a gun is far more suited for women.

I said that I thought the murder rate would go down -- but suspect that violence would increase. Murders would be lessened not because of the criminal element -- there'd be a slight increase from that direction as some of the nuttier ones felt less threatened. I was referring to the fairly large chunk of those murders that represent loved ones killing loved ones during a fight of some kind. Firearms make such killings easier. I'm well aware that you can kill someone with a knife and that cutting tools can do horrific things (John Wayne Bobbitt), but they are usually far less lethal in this advanced medical era we're in. Again, I'm talking a decrease in deaths, not a decrease in violence or injuries.

On the flip side, criminals would still have guns and would be at a significant advantage in their quest to deprive others of rightful property -- and the rightful owners would have little chance of the authorities stepping in to prevent such a theft in time. As you suggest, the physically stronger would also be in a position to enforce their will on others more readily, again presuming that the police can't get there in time to prevent it. I would find this a gross infringement of my rights.

Be aware, however, that many gun control propronents truly believe that the life of a person who is seeking to take your property is worth more than your property -- even though you have sacrificed a portion of your life to acquire same. In their opinion, you should incur an ongoing cost (insurance) so that your property may be replaced when taken by another.

I view them as having abrogated their right to life by directly threatening your property rights, but then again I am a Conservativus Rex who hasn't evolved to higher* levels.

*to be read properly, this word should DRIP sarcasm.

[Fisherking]

Still wouldn't work - simple guns are not too hard to make at home, plus there would be corrupt police and army personnel selling arms.



Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

My infuses.


Sorry CR but that part just won’t fly. You have no idea what length the US military, particularly the US Army will go to in order to recover a missing weapon or even its parts.

You may have heard stories, but that is all they are.

[Lemur]

[M]any gun control propronents truly believe that the life of a person who is seeking to take your property is worth more than your property -- even though you have sacrificed a portion of your life to acquire same.

Hmm, surely some sort of proportionality has to be taken into account. If a bully in school demands your pen, shooting him is probably an overreaction. Even if you sacrificed a minute of your life to have that pen.

People who use deadly force to defend their families and homes have my sympathy. People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates who would argue for indiscriminate use of lethal force. Likewise, I don't think there are many gun-control advocates who don't believe you have a right to defend your home and your family. The differences are in matters of degree and context.

That said, I think gun control in the U.S.A. is abysmally stupid. If the Obama Administration wastes its time bringing back a ban on pistol magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds ... man, that would just be the height of foolishness.

[Husar]

So basically the problem are not the guns and everybody here thinks that murder, rape and stealing are pretty normal in a free society and the only counter that should be there is telling your kids how to blow a guy's brain out?

Or does anyone have another suggestion for what should be changed?

[Lemur]

So basically the problem are not the guns and everybody here thinks that murder, rape and stealing are pretty normal in a free society and the only counter that should be there is telling your kids how to blow a guy's brain out?

Violent crime is a reality in any society. It's not common and it never has been (thank God), but it does exist, and to pretend that it's particular to any nation is silly.

The police cannot be everywhere. The police should not be everywhere. The first person who should defend you is you. The first person who should defend your family is you.

In America we are and have been an armed society since inception (although we were a lot less armed before the mid-1800s, if you believe the historians). We believe in the individual's right to defend self, hearth and home.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I said that I thought the murder rate would go down -- but suspect that violence would increase. Murders would be lessened not because of the criminal element -- there'd be a slight increase from that direction as some of the nuttier ones felt less threatened. I was referring to the fairly large chunk of those murders that represent loved ones killing loved ones during a fight of some kind. Firearms make such killings easier. I'm well aware that you can kill someone with a knife and that cutting tools can do horrific things (John Wayne Bobbitt), but they are usually far less lethal in this advanced medical era we're in. Again, I'm talking a decrease in deaths, not a decrease in violence or injuries.

Hmm. What information are you using?

Looking at the 2007 FBI Crime stats, there are only six more husbands and wives of offenders (596 total) killed by all weapons during none felony events (arguments and brawls) than they are people beaten to death (590) during the same none felony events.

Overall, murders where the victim is a relative, and the murder doesn't occur during another felony crime, account for 9.5% of total murders.

It isn't known how many of those are actual 'loved ones' killing people they would normally love. (Wives as victims make up 3.3% of those none-felony relative murders.)

People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

Playing devils advocate, he did first confront them. He did not shoot them from hiding. But I do think people are justified in confront robbers with all force necessary even if they don't invade your home.

Sorry CR but that part just won’t fly. You have no idea what length the US military, particularly the US Army will go to in order to recover a missing weapon or even its parts.

We're talking world government here - I wasn't speaking necessarily about the US Army (I would worry first about the police here) but armies and soldiers in other countries. Such a worldwide ban would greatly increase the prize for black market guns and so greatly increase the incentive. Doesn't Thailand execute all drug dealers? Yet people still try to smuggle them in, because of the immense profit.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

CR

[Husar]

Violent crime is a reality in any society. It's not common and it never has been (thank God), but it does exist, and to pretend that it's particular to any nation is silly.

The police cannot be everywhere. The police should not be everywhere. The first person who should defend you is you. The first person who should defend your family is you.

In America we are and have been an armed society since inception (although we were a lot less armed before the mid-1800s, if you believe the historians). We believe in the individual's right to defend self, hearth and home.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

Yes, I agree on most points, in fact, I wouldn't mind being allowed to have a gun but I doubt I would feel the need to spend a lot to get one or the need to get one at all. Apparently a lot of Americans however, do feel a strong need to get one and behave as if they will get swamped and overrun by criminals if they're not allowed to get one which makes me look at the USA as much more criminal than Germany where I feel pretty safe even without a gun.
I don't have any statistics in my head but IIRC the crime rates in the US(and possibly the UK) are a lot higher than in some other western societies, so why is that? Do you ever ask yourselves that outside of "we needz moar gunz!!!" or do you just accept it and shoot everybody who enters your minefield on the front lawn?

Concerning CCTV, I have never supported that, I accept cameras in the subway stations but I would certainly not want them on every public place, street, road, school, university etc.
I recently read some politician here wants that and said he expected people to vote for his party because of that so I decided to vote for the party he attacked for a lack of cameras...

And to come back to guns, I work at a fuel station and company policy is to give out all the money and let the thieves leave if there is a robbery. quite frankly with one or two guys pointing guns at me I would not appreciate if some customer drew his own gun and started shooting around. Generally I would only find a personal gun useful if I were always allowed to carry it around in a concealed holster, if I got robbed at gunpoint in a dark street I could hardly run home, get my gun and then start a firefight, even just drawing a gun would prolly make the other guy pull the trigger so the use of guns is somewhat limited to home defense if you ask me and even then how can you get your gun while you sleep?
Like I said, nothing against having one IMO, but the use of the things seems a bit blown out of proportion sometimes if you ask me.

[Strike For The South]

Hmm, surely some sort of proportionality has to be taken into account. If a bully in school demands your pen, shooting him is probably an overreaction. Even if you sacrificed a minute of your life to have that pen.

People who use deadly force to defend their families and homes have my sympathy. People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates who would argue for indiscriminate use of lethal force. Likewise, I don't think there are many gun-control advocates who don't believe you have a right to defend your home and your family. The differences are in matters of degree and context.

That said, I think gun control in the U.S.A. is abysmally stupid. If the Obama Administration wastes its time bringing back a ban on pistol magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds ... man, that would just be the height of foolishness.

Joe Horn did the right thing.

[Major Robert Dump]

Someone being in your house, where all sorts of things can be done to you and you don't know their intent or numbers, is one thing. But simply using deadly force to stop, say, a theft of something in your front yard or a purse snatching is both barbaric and dangerous. Now, were you to attempt to make a lawful citizens arrest and restrain them, which escalated into your defending yourself because they used force on you or came at you, then yeah use force.

We don't hang people for stealing horses anymore. People who advocate deadly force for property crimes in general really are the scourge, and thankfully the minority, of gun-rights supporters.

[Major Robert Dump]

LaPeirre calls out a reported on CNN, she blindly defends, she is wrong, he is right, exactly what we've been saying all along: automatic weapons are already banned. The CNN ban story showed a bunch of clips with autos being fired

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8

[LittleGrizzly]

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

Why is this being treated as an either USA stlye gun plicy or UK style CCTV theres plenty of good examples outside of our overuse of CCTV. It seems like an attempt to build an argument of having guns vs having CCTV, the truth is you don't need either for security...

[Husar]

We don't hang people for stealing horses anymore. People who advocate deadly force for property crimes in general really are the scourge, and thankfully the minority, of gun-rights supporters.

Well, most of the threads popping up here by pro-gun people are about some ex-marine shooting people in a shop, then we have them defend a guy who runs outside to shoot the thieves who just robbed his neighbor despite a policeman telling him not to and then there was this thread about the really great patriot who managed to see some guys coming into his house and then did the following within the (roughly estimated) 5 seconds he had before they were inside:

- ran to his porperly locked weapons locker
- opened the lock with the key
- got his unloaded gun out
- loaded the gun
- shot at the criminals and made them flee

obviously this patriot was as fast as Superman because we all know the real responsible patriots always lock their guns up in a safe place and unload them before doing so because having them lie around loaded is very unsafe, kids or other people could grab them and do stupid things.
Well, that's just what I learned on this forum of course, so I fully understand how a properly locked up and unloaded gun can:

- keep your kids from doing stupid things with it

and:

- allow you to shoot any possible intruders

especially the ones that come during the night while you sleep.

Now seriously, I understand this works now and then, when someone seems to have really bad sleep or the criminals are absolute idiots, but if someone with a little bit of brain comes I'd think you don't really have a chance, alternatively your kids starts a school shooting because you didn't lock your gun away and everybody on every forum calls you an idiot because you didn't unload your gun and lock it away as every responsible gun owner should.

[Jolt]

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

[Strike For The South]

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

The zombies aint gonna kill themselves.

[Devastatin Dave]

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

Because I have a small penis of course...

[Lemur]

It's not small, Dave, it's concentrated goodness. I thought we agreed that was how we would refer to it ...

[Major Robert Dump]

Why does it have to be about need?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Because some people don't think through their arguments.

Jolt, do you need the internet?

[Major Robert Dump]

I thought there was a life long ban on gun threads anyway. Didn't something crazy happen back in 2000, like a bunch of Welsh TW players broke into Gregoshi's house and made inflammatory posts in the now-defunct Org gardening section which made Idaho mad and threaten to kill himself? Or am I getting things mixed up?

[Ronin]

Jolt, do you need the internet?

Personally I do not NEED the internet.....to follow through on what you are trying to get at here...I´ll say right here than when people start using the internet to blow other people´s heads off I´ll accept the need to make the internet use heavily regulated like guns should be.

whoever since I can´t violently kill my neighbour using my Internet connection I´d say that the parallel you are trying to create doesn´t really apply.

[Major Robert Dump]

You've obviously never used AOL

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

Why does it have to be about need?

It is not about needing anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am a free man and should not have to prove I need anything or convince the government they should allow me to have it.

It is my right.

I thought there was a life long ban on gun threads anyway. Didn't something crazy happen back in 2000, like a bunch of Welsh TW players broke into Gregoshi's house and made inflammatory posts in the now-defunct Org gardening section which made Idaho mad and threaten to kill himself? Or am I getting things mixed up?

It happened before I joined, or entered the backroom (there was a time when I spent most of my time on the MTW forums!), but I heard a gun debate caused a bunch of people to get their ideological friends to register and start some sort of super-flamming debate. And that was what made them put in the junior member bit.

CR
also I've been playing a lot of left for dead lately...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

whoever since I can´t violently kill my neighbour using my Internet connection I´d say that the parallel you are trying to create doesn´t really apply.

Mom: Girl killed herself over online hoax

edit: South Korean man dies after Starcraft marathon

Do you need video games Ronin?

[Jolt]

Jolt, do you need the internet?

I am making a simple question, to see if I can understand the rationale of violent opposition to banning firearms which frankly, don't add up to the protection of anyone.

As to your question, yes I need the internet as a concentrated source of information which I primarily use to the advancement of my personal life. Furthermore I need to internet as a tool to coordinate my country so my personal needs (And the needs of the society) are better fulfilled.

[Jolt]

It is not about needing anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am a free man and should not have to prove I need anything or convince the government they should allow me to have it.

It is my right.

From your point of view, we can extrapolate that it is in your right to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry without your government having any say in it whatsoever. Why are they banning nuclear weapons anyway? Pfft, it only limits your own freedom to defend yourselves.

[Major Robert Dump]

I am making a simple question, to see if I can understand the rationale of violent opposition to banning firearms which frankly, don't add up to the protection of anyone.

As to your question, yes I need the internet as a concentrated source of information which I primarily use to the advancement of my personal life. Furthermore I need to internet as a tool to coordinate my country so my personal needs (And the needs of the society) are better fulfilled.

They do add to the protection of people, both implied and literal, but you don't hear that from most of the media the US exports. Maybe in your country, firearms wouldn't help. We live in different places.

Gun control works fairly well in countries that have not allowed firearms for a very long time. Constitution aside, it won't work here. There are too many guns, there is too much crime, and we have a fairly open immigration and legal system which does well at protecting peoples rights but nonetheless slows justice down to a snails pace sometimes and makes it very easy for people to move around the country to avoid prosecution and target new victims.

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is from ABCs 20/20 from 2007. I don't like the packaging of the story, but considering its coming from what many consider to be a liberal network maybe somebody listened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YT...eature=related

This violent opposition to firearms regulation is just as furious on the other side, where people lie their heads off or use personal tragedies as a catalyst for regulation. Even the leadership if DC -- in the wake of a city who clearly expressed they wanted their guns back -- refused to acknowledge facts, smothered people with hyperbole, accused them of fraud, muzzled peoples opinions and laid out the typical "I know whats best for you" that career politicians are so good at. It took the highest court in the nation to give back what the city had been asking for for years.

The "assault weapons ban" is just feel-good legislation that will do nothing but punish people who have been obeying the law all along, and every step taken is a step gained towards a complete agenda. I don't particularly want to sit through a 20 year period of the literal urban warfare that would ensue between criminals and victims for the long term grand noble cause of a gun free society.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

From your point of view, we can extrapolate that it is in your right to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry without your government having any say in it whatsoever. Why are they banning nuclear weapons anyway? Pfft, it only limits your own freedom to defend yourselves.

Right, and we can extrapolate from your point of view that you want to ban video games and the internet

Everything you've said was already answered in this thread. Check Seamus's posts and you'll find and answer to this question.