General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by totoum

-You have to kill an animal to eat it.
-Self defense involves killing or hurting a person that is trying to hurt you.

If you're using a firearm correctly someone or something is going to end up hurt , the same can't be said of cars or computers.

Of course in the case of self defense and hunting that's quite useful but the comparison with cars and computers just isn't valid.

Don't cars pollute due to their combustion engine?
Isn't that what we're told is causing global warming?
Don't say cars don't hurt the environment, because they do, so yes they do hurt.
Then there is all the road kill of innocent animals hit by drivers in the course of their travelling.

With computers you can steal a person's identity, ruin their life, and/or steal every digital dime from their bank accounts.
In fact, a computer can be used to make someone commit suicide via cyberbullying.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10...n_1959668.html

Bullying has also played a big role in school shootings like Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Are you living in Feudal Europe where only the King's men are afforded the right to keep and bear arms?

Guess you need to get out of Santa Barbara more often.
There are many people in rural America that suplement their grocery bill by hunting game on their property.
Also, Ranchers use AR-15s and M14s to protect livestock from coyotes, wolves, and other predators so that you have food in the grocery store.

No I live in the modern United States where most people go to local grocery stores or farmers markets to get their food. Hunting game is not a need of the vast majority of people in the US, and for the people that cannot provide enough for themselves, that is a problem with US poverty more than anything else. We have enough resources in this country to get these people fed, it is not necessary to hunt.

As for ranchers, I think that hardly qualifies as your average civilian. More to the point, it doesn't change a damn thing I've said about guns. They are lethal tools, and the vast majority of people are not going to be using such tools on a day to day basis for their livelihood.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Oh, just grow up already. A gun is a tool. It is a piece of mechanical technology developed by humans that utilizes the kinetic energy of a "slow" oxidation reaction to accelerate a small projectile at high velocity.

It is an inanimate object. It is not sentient nor does it have an inherent "evil" property.

I swear, the media has so poisoned people's minds that they think a useful tool is somehow possessed by a demonic force and must be destroyed.

Please remind me where I ever insinuated guns are inherently evil.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Don't cars pollute due to their combustion engine?
Isn't that what we're told is causing global warming?
Don't say cars don't hurt the environment, because they do, so yes they do hurt.
Then there is all the road kill of innocent animals hit by drivers in the course of their travelling.

With computers you can steal a person's identity, ruin their life, and/or steal every digital dime from their bank accounts.
In fact, a computer can be used to make someone commit suicide via cyberbullying.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10...n_1959668.html

Bullying has also played a big role in school shootings like Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc.

And all this doesn't contradict what I said.

I don't get the need to reach for computers and cars when swords were also mentioned and are a much better example.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

No I live in the modern United States where most people go to local grocery stores or farmers markets to get their food. Hunting game is not a need of the vast majority of people in the US, and for the people that cannot provide enough for themselves, that is a problem with US poverty more than anything else. We have enough resources in this country to get these people fed, it is not necessary to hunt.

Tell that to a starving rural family.
I help many of the people in my community by hunting deer, paying for it to be butchered and dressed by a friend of mine in LaSalle, and then donating it to a local food bank.

As for ranchers, I think that hardly qualifies as your average civilian. More to the point, it doesn't change a damn thing I've said about guns. They are lethal tools, and the vast majority of people are not going to be using such tools on a day to day basis for their livelihood.

Sure it does.
It shows that guns have utility beyond just being "killing machines."
Power tools can be lethal, so "lethal tools" is a bit misleading.
A bow and arrow can be deadly, and has been used recently in a school attack in Wyoming.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...-arrow-attack/

Vast majority?
There are at least 80,000,000 gun owners, most of whom hunt, so I think you're a bit misinformed.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by totoum

And all this doesn't contradict what I said.

I don't get the need to reach for computers and cars when swords were also mentioned and are a much better example.

Swords aren't as common, but they are a great example I agree.
Knives are an even better example.

[grylsyjaeger]

Originally Posted by totoum

If you're using a firearm correctly someone or something is going to end up hurt , the same can't be said of cars or computers.

I shoot anywhere between a hundred and three hundred rounds a week. Mostly shotgun but a good portion are rounds from my rifles.

And a 90% of the time I use my firearms it is just on targets so please don't think that each round fired something dies.

I'm sure if you asked any other hunter and they'd say similar things. You train and fire hundreds of rounds in preparation for delivering that one clean killing shot on your game.

Hell, the number one reason I shoot is for recreation at home on the range with my mates. I'll fire up the BBQ down the paddock and we'll sling some lead down onto targets all afternoon.

It's a great day out.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by grylsyjaeger

Hell, the number one reason I shoot is for recreation at home on the range with my mates. I'll fire up the BBQ down the paddock and we'll sling some lead down onto targets all afternoon.

It's a great day out.

I really enjoyed my twice-a-month trips to the range with four boxes of 9mm and my pistol... just me and a piece of exquisite engineering, honing my skills and competing against my own best scores...

I really miss that.

I think my graduation present to myself will be a brand-new M1911A1... in two and a half years. Something to look forward to, at least?

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Tell that to a starving rural family.
I help many of the people in my community by hunting deer, paying for it to be butchered and dressed by a friend of mine in LaSalle, and then donating it to a local food bank.

If a sizable amount of people used hunting as their primary source of food, I'd agree, but the statistics do not back this up. Also, there's little reason to believe that people could simply not use alternative means to obtain a different primary source of food.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Sure it does.
It shows that guns have utility beyond just being "killing machines."
Power tools can be lethal, so "lethal tools" is a bit misleading.
A bow and arrow can be deadly, and has been used recently in a school attack in Wyoming.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...-arrow-attack/

Bows are not really any different from guns. They're lethal tools as well, however, they do not possess the same destructive power of a gun. This is a very important point in considering the societal implications of having such lethal tools circulated through the population.

Vast majority?
There are at least 80,000,000 gun owners, most of whom hunt, so your I think you're a bit misinformed.

The vast majority of people who hunt do it for sport, not food. A very small percentage of people use it as a primary food source.

[synaesthetic]

It's clear that you've plugged up your ears and will not listen to reason. My only comfort in this whole ridiculous scene is that the media will quickly grow tired of their disgusting parade of this tragedy and people will stop running purely on knee-jerk reactions and uncontrolled emotions.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It's clear that you've plugged up your ears and will not listen to reason. My only comfort in this whole ridiculous scene is that the media will quickly grow tired of their disgusting parade of this tragedy and people will stop running purely on knee-jerk reactions and uncontrolled emotions.

I've never been a fan of the 2nd amendment, and this event did not change my opinion .

However, all I ever contested in this thread is that the main purpose of a gun is to act as a lethal tool. This makes it different from computers,cars, and a whole slew of other examples people posted in this thread. The closest analogies in our society one can draw are things like swords and bows, which honestly are little different from guns in purpose, but have nowhere near the same potential for destructive power in the hands of the insane.

I am willing to listen to reason, but not reason that is predicated on using mere sophistry to try and convince others.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

If a sizable amount of people used hunting as their primary source of food, I'd agree, but the statistics do not back this up. Also, there's little reason to believe that people could simply not use alternative means to obtain a different primary source of food.

What does that have to do with what I said?
Oh, I know.
Absolutely nothing.
Now stop making up excuses about why people don't need to supplment their food via hunting.

Bows are not really any different from guns. They're lethal tools as well, however, they do not possess the same destructive power of a gun. This is a very important point in considering the societal implications of having such lethal tools circulated through the population.

Indeed, we can start by disarming the state, local, and federal police forces.
Espeically the BATF, they've armed too many drug lords already.

The vast majority of people who hunt do it for sport, not food. A very small percentage of people use it as a primary food source.

Yeah, that's why wild game butchers are so prolific and popular with hunters right?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I've never been a fan of the 2nd amendment, and this event did not change my opinion .

Well feel free to move to China or some other country.

However, all I ever contested in this thread is that the main purpose of a gun is to act as a lethal tool. This makes it different from computers,cars, and a whole slew of other examples people posted in this thread. The closest analogies in our society one can draw are things like swords and bows, which honestly are little different from guns in purpose, but have nowhere near the same potential for destructive power in the hands of the insane.

You mean in a mass shooting incident don't you?
Because serial killers do not normally use guns at all and they kill far more over their monstrous careers.

I am willing to listen to reason, but not reason that is predicated on using mere sophistry to try and convince others.

That's almost funny considering your rather thinly veiled and poorly contrived attempt at attacking gun ownership here.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

What does that have to do with what I said?
Oh, I know.
Absolutely nothing.
Now stop making up excuses about why people don't need to supplment their food via hunting.

No explain to me.

People use hunting as primary source of food ==/==> that is their only method of obtaining food.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Indeed, we can start by disarming the state, local, and federal police forces.
Espeically the BATF, they've armed too many drug lords already.

Quite a bit of a strawman you're perpetrating here.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Yeah, that's why wild game butchers are so prolific and popular with hunters right?

And this contradicts what? Yeah people might still eat what they hunt, but it's for recreation. Just like your average joe going to the fishing hole on a vacation.

And in fact people who want to use it as a primary source of food better learn to butcher their own food, since it's more profitable that way .

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Well feel free to move to China or some other country.

No thanks.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You mean in a mass shooting incident don't you?
Because serial killers do not normally use guns at all and they kill far more over their monstrous careers.

Not just mass shooting events. There are about 30 thousand gun related deaths every year.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That's almost funny considering your rather thinly veiled and poorly contrived attempt at attacking gun ownership here.

Ah, so it's an attack on gun ownership to say that guns are lethal tools different from the likes of a computer or car.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

No explain to me.

People use hunting as primary source of food ==/==> that is their only method of obtaining food.

No one said it was a primary source of food, or do you not know what the word supplement means?

Quite a bit of a strawman you're perpetrating here.

Pot, meet kettle.

And this contradicts what? Yeah people might still eat what they hunt, but it's for recreation. Just like your average joe going to the fishing hole on a vacation.

Contradiction? No one said anything about a contradiction.
You were just called out for being wrong.

No thanks.

Why not?
You'll be "safer" over there with no guns right?

Not just mass shooting events. There are about 30 thousand gun related deaths every year.

Actually the number is around 13,000 according to the CDC.

Ah, so it's an attack on gun ownership to say that guns are lethal tools different from the likes of a computer or car.

No an attack is saying they have no place in our society.

__________________________________________________ ________________

Alright back to more relevent things:

Austin Gun Store Owner Offers Teachers A Discount
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/a...rs-a-discount/

Chief Beck Wants To Start Program Where Officers Visit Schools At Least Once Per Day
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/...-once-per-day/

St. Louis County Police Chief: Arm School Personnel
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...-the-teachers/

Glad to see there is stil some sanity left in the US.

[Vexx]

My mother and brother probably get half their protein in a year from hunting. They live on a ranch. This isn't unusual for the entire region of that state. Despite what city dwellers might think, hunting remains a substantial portion of food acquisition in the rural US. In the Appalachia and Blue Mountain regions, it can be the only source of protein for many families.

[synaesthetic]

I'm going to go on record and say that I don't oppose restrictions on firearm purchases. I don't oppose legally requiring proper training and safety courses for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm.

I support the idea that if you want to own a gun, you should have to register it--there should absolutely be a paper trail--and keep a close watch on it. If your weapons are stolen, you should report it and inform law enforcement of all its identifying characteristics (serial number, bore characteristics, appearance, any unique distinguishing features).

I support the idea that in order to own a gun, you must pass a background check and be free of any mental defects or diseases that may cause you to go off your rocker. I support the idea that people convicted of violent crimes should not be allowed to own firearms. I support the idea that civilians should not own weapons capable of fully-automatic or three-shot-burst fire modes.

I support harsh fines and punishment for illegal possession of weapons. I support the BATF spending their time cracking down on the black market trade of stolen, counterfeit and smuggled weapons--especially military-grade weapons.

I support sensible regulations. I do not support "feel-good" nonsense like banning guns because they look "tacticool." I don't support media stereotypes that guns are inherently evil, like a cursed sword that renders its wielder bloodthirsty.

I don't support regulations that are a thinly-veiled ploy to take even more power away from the average person, regulations that are easily circumvented by the rich and by the politically powerful.

I don't have as much against gun-free zones as GundamFan does, however... if you want to make an area a "Gun Free Zone," you need to hire armed security. A gun-free zone is nothing but a big neon sign that says, "THESE PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY UNARMED. FEEL FREE TO KILL THEM WITH IMPUNITY."

If you want a gun-free zone, put armed security guards in it to protect the people who congregate there. If you fail to do this, and still persist in designating a gun-free zone, you clearly do not care about the safety of the individuals within.

[DawnEmperor]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Consider it like this: one person with a gun may have killed over 20 children in a school in CT, but eighty million people with a gun did not.

That's not something people just ignore. Preferably, we'd focus on mental health, but the line can get very blurry at times.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Vexx

My mother and brother probably get half their protein in a year from hunting. They live on a ranch. This isn't unusual for the entire region of that state. Despite what city dwellers might think, hunting remains a substantial portion of food acquisition in the rural US. In the Appalachia and Blue Mountain regions, it can be the only source of protein for many families.

I'm not going to pretend to know the region as I do not live there, but I have a hard time believing without any relevant data that a significantly large number of people in such regions have to hunt to put food on the table. That is all I am saying here. Especially when in many regions, simply fishing can provide more food for you.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No one said it was a primary source of food, or do you not know what the word supplement means?

What I was more trying to get at is the assertion that it is necessary to hunt to put food on the table.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Contradiction? No one said anything about a contradiction.
You were just called out for being wrong.

Because the fact that there are game butchers implies that most people do not hunt for pleasure?

Please.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Actually the number is around 13,000 according to the CDC.

Read closer:

Suicide: 18,735 deaths
Homicide: 11,493 deaths
Unintentional: 554 deaths
Legal interventions: 333 deaths
Undetermined: 232 deaths

Total: 31,347 deaths

Of course some of those are legal intervention, but still.

[Vexx]

I'll pretty much ditto what Syn posted.

I have a CCW permit and I think the laws regulating CCW's in most states *suck*. I'd like to see safety classes, I'd like to lethal situation training, law classes, marksmanship requirements. And continuing education.

I don't want to hear any gun owner complaining when we raise taxes to properly integrate the background check system for mental illness, domestic abuse, violent history. Nor should they complain with additional taxes taken to cover teacher arms training, the hiring of armed security for schools.

Gun owners have rights -- but rights come with responsibilities and accountability. From too many gun owners, I'm getting no sense of community responsibility at all and its pissing me off because I end up having to explain why a gun can be useful to people whom I otherwise agree on most issues about.

@Reckoner: check the cost of meat lately? Hunting and cleaning and preserving the meat of a deer or boar costs far far less. The world isn't the way it is in your neighborhood. You have a lot of legitimate arguments on this topic that I agree with but this isn't really one of them.

[GundamFan0083]

From the April 23rd 2011 issue of JAMA:



I had no idea tobacco was so damn bad.