[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

At this point they are. We have enough gun laws on the books.

Hear that, everyone? GundamFan0083 says that we have enough laws on the books. The ultimate authority on gun laws and the dictator of society says that we have enough, so wrap it up - no more gun laws.

Get real. Society determines whether we have enough laws - not you.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Any more laws that ban, restrict, or otherwise deprive citizens access to military/militia weaponry is a violation of their individual rights as ruled by the SCOTUS in the Heller case.

For better or for worse, laws aren't set in stone.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I'm pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-2nd amendment. I'm consistent in my absolute commitment to freedom.

Oh, how wonderful. I'm sorry that I don't live in that black and white world, as nice as it sounds. I support freedom, but I don't do so blindly. If misuse of guns begin to threaten people's freedom to live their lives without having to worry about some random madman gunning them down, then I think that their place in society should be re-evaluated.

The way you've presented it, you're basically arguing for the freedom to own a toy that can injure and kill others. What a freedom to have.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

What you're saying between the lines of your posts is that gunowners are too stupid to know how to use their weapons and that they would have done what the NYC police did at the Empire State Building--it's called "Spray and Pray."
Again you show an unwarranted, and unjustifiable fear of firearms by continuing to claim that more people would have been injured.

I don't claim that anyone is stupid. Have you never been in a movie theater? Have you never felt the adrenaline rush when you thought that you were going to die? This has nothing to do with anyone's intelligence, this has to do with our limitations as humans. It's one thing to know how to handle a firearm, it's another entirely to be able to react properly to a tough situation.

I get that you think that some miracle shooter would have been able to stop the Aurora theater shootings. And because it's a purely hypothetical situation, you're free to believe that and nobody will ever be able to say that you're absolutely wrong. What I'd appreciate hearing from you is some acknowledgement that these situations are tricky, and that the risk of collateral damage is high. That's realistic. I'm not convinced that you're grounded to reality.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

We have to settle for the BEST solutions to a problem
Gun control was tried in the US from 1934 to 2004 with increasing the number of bans, restrictions, and requirements.
It's done NOTHING to deter the violence.

How many times do I have to repeat this line? I am not arguing that a ban on guns will affect the rates of violence. Read that over a few times, I don't want any pro-gun advocate to try and argue that point with me again on this thread unless I really do use it as an argument.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

What has worked?
Increasing the standards of living, improving law enforcement techniques such as forensic sciences, greater enforcement of existing laws, and stronger anti-gang initiatives.
Therefore, now that we know beyond any doubt that gun-control does not work, there is no justification to violate people's rights to have weapons.

I agree with you in terms of reducing violence and crime, but your waving off gun control only works if you assume that the purpose of banning guns is to reduce crime and violence.

And that's not what I've been arguing.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I vehementy disagree with his "reasoning" about the nature of morality.
Society operates off of fear and has done so for thousands of years.
Why do we cooperate?
Because we fear starvation, we fear invasion, we fear disease, we fear criminals, we fear being poor, we fear being alone...etc.
To say otherwise is to deny your instincts as a human being.

I'm not going to deny that some people - perhaps many people - operate based off of fear. I'd appreciate it if you'd be open enough to admit and accept that some people have moved beyond that, and are not primarily motivated by fear.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

And their argument is as sound today as it was in their time in the 1700s, or Aristotle's time 2000 years ago when he said "neither Oligarch nor Tyrant can suffer a people to be armed."
When government proceeds to attempt to stop a wrong before it happens, then that government has now committed a wrong by becoming authoritarian.
This is why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment, it is a safeguard against government going from being passive in its enforcement of law to active.
I don't see why that's such a big deal, it is what it is, which is why I don't bother discussing it.
Unless of course you're going to try and stake a claim that totalitarian government is benevolent?

The reason why it's a big deal is because the world has changed a lot since the country's founding. Weaponry and combat equipment has advanced. The weapons that the government holds cost too much for individuals to have access to, they require too much training to operate and maintain, and they're far too dangerous to allow into the hands of just anyone in society. (Go ahead and argue that last point - I know you want to - and tell me why you think your neighbor should be allowed to own a nuclear warhead.)

Aside from differences in the weapons power, politicians and various interest groups have done a spectacular job of fragmenting and polarizing society. Do you really think that armed citizens could unite and organize enough to take down the government? Really?

If citizens realistically can't fight back against the government, then firearms represent a vestigial trait in society. It's something that once had meaning and importance, yet is now ineffective and little more than symbolic. Firearms are to society what the appendix is to the human body.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No, I'm making the point that you still don't seem to grasp.
Let me draw you a picture.
If both opponents have equal force they have an equal chance of winning.
Understand?

Now, to your question about 5 on one, the five have greater force then your one don't they?
So there are two possibilities:

If you're a good shot, and they're not, you kill them.
If you're not a good shot, or if they're better than you are, you die.
That's life.

Oh, thank goodness. When you began to talk about a confrontation between two people again I thought that perhaps you were barely reading my posts. Thank you for addressing what I actually wrote, and thank you for including the realistic outcome of you losing out even if you're armed.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

So you're a serf?
You obey your lord and master (the government) without any thought about what they might be using you for because you falsely believe it is all for your benefit, right?
Stalin loved his useful idiots too.

Clearly I am 100% behind the government because I see that guns are used to carry out some heinous murders and injuries, and I question whether society would be better off without them.

If I'm a serf, what does that make you - a paranoid, antisocial man who needs the grown-up version of a security blanket in order to leave his house?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You mean you're a collectivist? Or more accurately, a socialist?
That's okay, I already figured that out when you started on the "I'm not talking about crime" nonsense.
However, I do believe that now we're getting to the meat of why you dislike gun ownership.
Doesn't matter what kind or flavor, they're all anti-American, and anti-freedom.
I've yet to find a flavor that preserves individual rights over the good of the collective.

Wow, I never expected to find this trash written on AnimeSuki. Anti-American and anti-freedom, all for disagreeing with you, and all because of one thing: guns. Doesn't that seem a bit... I don't know... idiotic to you? Nah, probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have written it. You must think so highly of yourself.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Don't dodge what I'm saying.
There is NO legitimate reason for the police to have this equipment.
NONE!

I gave you some hypothetical reasons for why they might have it, reasons aside from "they're tyrants who are trying to take us over." I am undecided as to whether there is a legit reason for such equipment. I lean against it, particularly since I am keenly aware of police brutality.

But then I hear about these fools who talk about civil war, or our own home-grown terrorists who want to rip up the government. I do not identify with those people. They are not fighting for me, and I do not want them to impose their way of life upon me. They might as well be the Taliban, wanting to impose Sharia law. When I read those types of news articles, I begin to lean toward feeling that it's all right. I trust the police more than I trust those types of people.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You're twisting the point he's making.
He's saying that an armed society is a polite one, in other words he always feels at peace because he knows that should an individual with a gun confront him, he has the means to defense himself properly.

I know of the "armed society is a polite society" concept. I don't think that it's an unrealistic notion, either.

However, the way this is worded is revealing. The idea that an armed society is a polite society means that everyone treats everyone else with respect and care, because they know that a confrontation could lead to a worst-case scenario where someone dies or is seriously hurt. If you say "I feel at peace because if someone attacks me, I can defend myself," your statement indicates that you're already thinking about being attacked. This isn't about a polite society - this is now about you getting attacked, and being able to ward off your attacker. I think you know the definition of paranoia. I don't think that this man is paranoid, but those are some paranoid thoughts.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It is obvious at this point what is happening.
We don't need drones in our skies, we don't need police with armored personnel carriers, and we don't need cops with machine guns.

On this we agree.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Not all guns increase injury or death in a situation and you cannot make that claim without evidence to back it up.

I don't need to make that claim, because your counter-argument makes absolutely no sense.

Let me show you why through an analogy on a topic that you're not as blinded by. Some people can drive at 100 MPH through a crowded city and not hit anyone or anything. No problem, right? We should allow everyone to do that, and persecute only those who screw up? Not all 100 MPH drivers cause injury or death in a situation, after all.

No, the entire reason why we have these regulations is to avert tragedies in the first place. To put it back to guns, it's true that the number of people with firearms who use their firearms improperly is a small percentage of firearms owners, but that's no consolation to the innocent dead and wounded. I'm not talking about the gun owners who use their guns responsibly, I'm talking about the people who do not. If you can come up with a solution that eliminates those injuries and deaths while allowing others to continue owning guns, I will fully support you, I will tell all the liberals and the conservatives, and I will contact the state legislators from every state that I have ever resided in.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If that's the case then why are we having this conversation?
We already know that accidental gun injuries (outside of crime) are statistically insignificant (only 600 deaths per year), so why
are you making this non-argument in the first place?
Clearly it cannot be about safety, since the safety issue is a moot.

Wow, "only 600 deaths per year." 600 is larger than my entire high school population was. I suppose you could have dropped a bomb on my school and people would have said "ah what ever, it was less than 600 kids that died."

Are you out of your mind? The fact that the number is "only" 600 (a number seems damn big to be for being limited to accidental shooting deaths) means that gun legislation should be a low priority compared to other areas of society. We're not arguing about what legislative priority should be, though. This thread is all about guns.

So tell me, if those 600 deaths could be reduced to zero, don't you think that it would be worth it? Oh, we don't necessarily need to restrict guns in order to get that number down to zero... but don't you think it's worthwhile to avoid preventable deaths?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Oh that's right, because you're a collectivist by your own admission.
Now, why do collectivists want firearms banned and/or heavily restricted.
I know, because they provide a means for individualists to overthrow any totalitarian regime that attempts to erect a collectivist society, that's why.

I thought you said it was because I was an anti-American, freedom-hating socialist

In all seriousness, what is so hard to understand here? A large number of people die or are seriously injured each year of multiple causes. If we can do something to prevent those from happening, why shouldn't we? Yes, there are many causes for these deaths, and guns are just a small part, but if the gun-related ones can be averted, then why not? What reason do you have that is so important that it's worth the thousands of lives that are lost to guns each year? I can think of a few possible reasons (some that you've sort of touched on), but I'm not convinced that they're worth the trade-off. So why are you?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Oh I've been quite reasonable throughout this entire thread.
I've provided you with all the evidence necessary to show that you're desire to "ban all the gun stores" as you said a few pages back is completely irrational and without justification.

I guess it would seem that way to someone who can throw around a figure like "600 deaths" and feel that it's nothing.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If it's not about reducing crime--I keep having to repeat this to you--then it is irrelevent and has no legal standing. Just because you or anyone else doesn't approve of gunownership does not make your emotionally driven opinion valid.

I don't particularly care about gun ownership. I care about guns that are used inappropriately.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I called you on your fuzzy-logic, provided you with all the evidence necessary, and you have given NOTHING in return.

Nothing at all, huh? Fuzzy logic? Well, if we can't even agree on the value of 600 lives...

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

They way you see it, isn't the way others "see it" and therefore it doesn't matter.

Oooh, that sounds so cool. Hey, mind if I try?

The way you, GundamFan0083, see it isn't the way others "see it" and therefore it doesn't really matter. So deflate that sense of self-important authority and rejoin the rest of us.

Oh, sorry - I decided to spice it up with that last bit. I hope you don't mind.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If guns aren't for defense, then why do the cops have them?
Oh that's right, to DEFEND themselves from armed criminals.

Huh? Cops have guns to subjugate us lowly serfs. Didn't you know?

Seriously though, why do police have guns? Surely you realize that an armed police force is not a universal feature of societies that have police. So why do our police have guns? You hypothesize that it's for defense from armed criminals. OK, I think that's acceptable. But there are two points on this:

1) It is a part of the business of police officers to deal with those violent, unruly members of society. Regular people like you and me generally don't go patrolling crappy neighborhoods at odd hours, nor do we engage potentially hostile people. We're smart and we want to avoid trouble, and that applies whether you have a gun at your side or whether you're unarmed. Are we both in agreement so far? Police - if they're doing their jobs - don't follow that rule. They go into the high-crime neighborhoods and they seek out the suspicious-looking people. They're at high risk for encountering violent confrontations. It seems justified that they should have something - a gun, a taser, a baton - to shift the balance in their favor.

This gets into point #2:
2) How come some countries can have police without firearms? The reason I propose is that those countries don't have a lot of guns. So now we're in a chicken-and-egg scenario: if we reduce the guns, we won't need guns to ward off other guns. Yet if you give up your gun, there will still be some guns around to threaten you and everyone else; thus, you don't want to give up your gun, and we're stuck with a bunch of guns.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

How many criminals are out there plotting to ambush people who've done nothing to them?
Huh?
Not many, that's for sure (unless you're in trouble with the mob).
It's these types of over-the-top scenarios that have undermined your argument and thus your position as a whole.

What do you mean, "not many"? Are the criminals in Colorado honorable or something? Do they come up to you and say "excuse me sir, but I'm here to rob you, and just so that you know, I have a gun; we can walk twenty paces and then draw if you're armed"? No. Some scumbag walks into a store and pulls a gun without warning; some sleaze ball waits until they see someone alone in a park, and then they approach them with their weapon ready. That's an ambush, and that's how the majority of crimes take place in America. (Well, I'd say it's the majority if you leave the white-collar criminals out of it.)

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I already am safer because I own a firearm and know how to use it.

Security blanket. Were you safer when you were shot at in the Applebee's parking lot? Fat lot of good your gun did then, didn't it? And yet because that asshole was allowed to have a gun and because he couldn't keep his shit together, bullets were fired your way. Yet somehow you say you feel safer? This seems very short-sighted to me.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

My gun saved my life when I was confronted by two armed assailants, doesn't that make my gun my life?
I would argue that it does since I might not have been here right now if not for my having the .357 Colt King Cobra I was carrying.

Tell me more about this situation. What happened? If the two armed men simply wanted your wallet, then you probably know my response: handing it over would have saved your life, too. You would have been violated, but you'd still be alive.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

This is the point I wanted to address most here.
The FACTS are, only 600 people are injured/killed from firearms per year.

Based on the webpage that you linked, 600 people are killed from firearm-related accidents. The number of homicides linked to hanguns is approximately 8,000, and there's about another 3,000-4,000 homicides linked to "other guns". But go ahead and tell me about how 11,000-13,000 lives is nothing compared to auto accidents or some completely unrelated thing that people die from. Act as if we can only reduce deaths in one area at a time. Or maybe you'll throw me a real winner and tell me that the website that I linked to is a government website, and thus the numbers are exaggerated and made up. Tinfoil hat time, you know?

Originally Posted by Ithekro

You missed something there. I did not say "firearm related deaths" I said "victims". That means anyone who died to a crime (murder). Be it a gun, a knife, a bat, poison, a chair, a car, or bare hands.

Ah, I misunderstood. I'm sure there's data available for that, too. I can make a prediction, though. Based on the website that I linked to GundamFan, firearm-related homicides are far beyond homicides used with other weapons. As of 2005, handgun-related homicides were between 8,000 and 9,000 lives, and other guns were between 3,000 and 4,000 lives. Homicides due to knives and "other weapons" numbered around 3,000, and homicides from "blunt objects" numbered in the hundreds to 1,000. That's pretty damning.

If you reduced the number of firearms, I would anticipate that homicides wrought through those other means would rise. But would they all triple or quadruple in order to match the number of homicides carried out by guns? Anything is possible, but I don't find that to be a realistic scenario.