General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

First, I have serious doubts that I would have such need. Mostly because people who might harm me are not well armed. As long as I don't piss off organised crime, I am good.

well armed is relative. Take the example of the mother in Georgia that made the news a week back - her attacker was one man with a crow bar, but that would've been more than plenty against a young mother with two kids hiding in an attic.

2nd, no one does chalk outlines anymore. At some point you got to move away from TV shows and enter reality.

really? surely you've heard of something called a figure of speech? would it make you feel better if I had said picture instead of chalk lines?

[Solace]

Bill Maher's take on the subject:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/XpcmFaYraIo

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

An interesting commentary.

[Kaijo]

Careful, Solace; someone will tell you we can't accept that commentary, because it comes from a biased source. And it was something I was trying to say. We have guns, but we're losing civil liberties, and I don't see any gun owner doing anything with their guns to prevent those losses of liberties.

By the way, I'll also toss this webpage up, without saying anything about it. Just to put it up as a source people can look through if they want to see some information, and make their own decisions.

United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime Homicide Statistics

They have information there sorted by sex, by firearms, and populous cities (2012 is now available as well). They also have their data collection and validation information there, so you can look through and decide for yourself how valid it is.

I put this out, just to put everyone on common ground. As I said, I won't draw any conclusions from it; at least in this post, as I am still looking through the data myself.

Edit: I'll also toss this up, a chart created based on the year 2000 numbers, which breaks down homicides by gun, and homicides by other means. To be completely impartial, I will also state there is evidence that supports some positions of both gun control and gun rights groups.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

And as I said, none of that matters if the SCOTUS rules in favor of free-speech zones and/or constitution-free zones. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the constitution can be thrown out at the border, so that border guards can search and seize without warrants, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You have no rights at the border, because the SCOTUS ruled that a country has the right to secure it's borders in any way possible.

No they haven't ruled on it as of yet, the ACLU case is still ongoing.

I'll just say, that I have yet to be presented with any evidence or argument, that the citizens having guns will do anything but Jack and Shit if the president orders the military to invade our towns to suppress dissent. If he decides to order a city bombed, or order a drone strike on US soil. Obama recently signed a defense bill that allows American citizens to be seized and imprisoned without limit, and without any due process.

I've seen this fantasy reiterated by people online.
If this President were to do as you illustrate, he would be impeached and removed.
Not too mention the highly unlikelihood of military compliance with such an order.

Gonna stop you right there. The rest of the world, and statisticians use Per Capita for a damn good reason: because it is the best equivalency we have. You can't just toss it out on a whim. There are many more things compared between countries other than just gun violence. If you throw out Per Capita, then you throw out GDP.... something the rest of the world relies on for damn good reasons.

I threw it out because the means by which countries rate violent crime and murder are not universal as they are for economics.
Thus it becomes difficult to compare per capita due to different criminal reporting techniques.

Interesting use of California here, since California is the only state that still has the assault weapons ban, and thus would be a strong argument in favor of continuing to use it. Probably not the argument you want to make.

No, actually many states still have an "assault weapon" ban, including Connecticut (for 18 years), and it did no good. California is safer than Canada, but not Texas.
New York state has had such a ban for many years, and yet a felon obtained a paramilitary rifle and killed two firemen in an ambush, using 10 round magazines.
That is proof postitive that these bans do not work, at all.

I notice you seem to like to use "violent crime." That's not what this entire argument is about. Sure, plenty of countries still have violent crime... but what you should be looking at is actual deaths. The comparison has been trotted out before, but a man in China stabbed 22 people the day a Newtown shooter killed 26 people. All 22 people in China lived. That was a violent crime, but I'm sure those families are glad their loved ones are still alive.

No, we're talking about gun control: its constitutionality, and its effect on violent crime.
Also, your strawman is on fire due to the simple fact that in Osaka, Japan, in 2001, 8 children were murdered and 15 other people injured.
In March of 2010 a Chinese doctor went on a rampage over a failed romantic relationship and killed 8 children and injured 5 others with a knife.
So yes, a knife can be just as deadly.

THAT is what this argument is about: death. As much as I love logic, there are a whole lot of people hyped on emotion who are looking for ways to save lives. If you ask those families of the dead children whether they prefer their children being shot and killed, or stabbed and living, you know what they would pick.

There is the problem.
They are running on emotion, not logic. We've tried a ban on weapons, it doesn't work. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Level headed people need to be dealing with this situation, not emotional wrecks.

That is why I looked at firearm death rate by country.

That is a propaganda term, and does not address the issue of violent crime.
Violent crime is the issue because there is always a potential of murder during a violent crime. Or are you going to stake the claim that women who are raped are never murdered, robbers never murder those they rob, and assaults never result in murder?
If you want to get into the facts about this, paramilitary rifles consists of less than 1% of all firearm related murders in the US, so this ban isn't even addressing the issue that these gun control advocates are claiming they want to stop.

If someone can do that, then my viewpoint will change. There is my line. That is one way my mind can be changed.

I highly doubt that, your mind seems to be made up about this issue.

Ah, but that is not the argument. The argument is that the 2nd amendment forbids Congress from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms. It doesn't refer to any particular type of arm. That is the argument that gun rights people have consistently put forward, as to why they should be able to own any type of gun they want. It is being sold to us as a binary choice: either we have arms, or we don't.

And if you've been reading my posts in this thread, you'd see that SCOTUS has defined what arms are protected. Military small arms useful for the common defense.
If that's not clear enough, another way to put it, is if the police can have it, we can have it.

Again, looking at the past few pages of posts, the argument is that if we want to ban any arms, we first need to revise the 2nd amendment.

A constitutional repeal or amending of the amendment is the only lawful way to change the current legal situation.
However, that is not what is being proposed by members of congress or the President.

Also note that if we are going to go down your route, we have to consider that at the time of writing, military arms was pretty much confined to muskets, cannons, bayonets, and ships. Perhaps some form of explosives, too. So the equipment that citizens could possess, were equal in individual strength to what the military would possess. If we truly want to go by what the founding fathers believed at the time, then the average citizen should be able to possess combat strength equal to what a military person could have.

Only on the infantry level, and only in addition to mandatory training (well-regulated militia and all that).
I have said it before an I will continue to do so, we need to change the law in this country to require citizens who wish to own military arms to be forced to join the Civilian Marksmanship Program (I push them since they are already set up).

After all, a militia armed with just handguns, isn't much good against *any* modern military force. If Canada or Mexico decided to invade with their tanks and planes, the militia such as you envision, would barely be a speedbump. In short, a militia of handguns, shotguns, and rifles, is insufficient to the task of defending a free state from invasion. So, do you want it to be up to the task? Or not? Make your choice.

My choice?
Nay, nay!
The SCOTUS has defined the obligation of US citizens. We are all members of the militia if we are male, abled-bodied, and between the ages of 17-45. There is no getting out of that.
Congress really needs to address this from a manner of mandatory training since that is the best way to do what Bri is suggesting. I.e. build public confidence in government, though I don't think Americans are likely to agree to amending the 2nd amendment and give up their arms any time soon, a mandatory training requirement would at least instill the proper mindset with regard to arms.

Oh, by the way, you may to consult to Saddam Hussein and the Kurds as to how well sarin gas worked to tamp down an insurrection. Because, frankly, if a city is rebelling, dropping gas or a nuke on the city is the quickest way to quell the dissent.

The US is not a dictatorship like Iraq was. We have natural human rights here and the use of sarin gas would obviously be a gross violation of the human rights of US citizens.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

What about the Firearm Owners Protection Act? You can still buy one of the grandfathered machine guns, but not any machine gun that was manufactured after 1986.

I already said I view Ronald Reagan's ban on new machine guns as a gross infringement to the constitution and a perversion of the 1934 NFA since it hasn't stopped the illegal spread, and use, of actual machine guns (well mostly submachine guns).
The NFA of 1934 did just fine for 52 years prior to Reagan's FOPA.

I'm pretty sure that missiles, rocket launchers and bombs would be pretty useful for putting down an insurrection, especially if that insurrection is armed to the teeth. Likewise, I'd say Nerve Gas would be useful in putting down an insurrection, or repelling an invasion.

Now you're being silly.
Like I told Kaijo, the US citzenry wouldn't tolerate it.
They barely tolerated Waco.

The Supreme Court clearly has a pretty wide mandate to define whether or not a weapon is useful to a militia. I could see a hunting rifle still being of use to a militia, and likewise a military rifle still being of use in hunting. How can you define whether a gun is intended for militia use or hunting use? There's no clear cutoff between the two.

It must be a weapon that is of common use by the military for its era.
In other words a Lee Enfield or Musket are obsolete and therefore not protected. Whereas a tactical Remington 700 bolt action would be since the US military uses it. Weapons that are no longer in common use, according to US vs. Miller, are not protected.
Thus all of the "tactical" pump-shotguns, semiautos (rifle, pistol, shotgun), and I would add full autos, are protected.
Like I posted earlier, there should be a training-tier system that qualifies you to purchase higher levels of weapons in the same manner as advancement in a Martial Art, using the current FFL scale.

That argument is splitting hairs. Practically speaking you can be arrested for shouting fire in a theater. Under the same logic, you could be arrested if your ownership of a gun endangered another person, or caused them injury.

No, that is a red herring.
Action to incite a lawless act is what is required. Simply owning arms is not grounds to deny or disparage the right to have them. If however, a person conspires with others to commit an act of violence, then that would be grounds to seize the weapons until such time as they are either acquitted or convicted. If acquitted their arms are returned, if convicted their arms are taken.

How is it any different from the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which banned Machine Guns?

The FOPA didn't ban machine guns, it banned the sale of new machine guns, and I already said it is clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment. The problem is, it hasn't been challenged before the SCOTUS.
Whereas the weapons involved in the 1994 ban were challenged in DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago since they were semiautomatic weapons.

Yes, but they can only keep one handgun, which would likely infuriate most gun rights advocate.

As I said, Israel does not have a constitution that protects their natural right to own firearms. Thus while using the Israeli model to protect schools is a positive, I would not support their gun laws without either a repeal of or revision of the 2nd amendment.

That's a crude understanding of the situation.....I have little doubt that they would have attempted to form a state of a most bigoted and persecuting type, that would have marginalised the rights of the protestant majority in Northern Ireland. As it is, both the IRA and Ulster paramilitaries have morphed into Ireland's most powerful Organised Crime groups. The barrier between paramilitaries and criminals is a very porous one.

Of course my understanding of the situation in your country is crude. I don't live there, you do, so I take your word for what happened. However, by that same token, please take my word for the situation here in the US.
We have problems with gangs, not paramilitary groups so much, unless you want to consider the MS-13, Crips, Bloods and other gangs to be such a force, and in a city like Chicago or Tulsa, they might be better classified as such.

As far as I can see, in the modern era every government that's been established by a paramilitaries has been of the most tyrannical kind. In fact, almost all the worst tyrannical governments in existence today were all established by paramilitary organisations, like:
Iran
Taliban in Afghanistan
Cuba
Cambodia
Numerous Sub-Saharan African governments
Maoist China

I agree, which why I don't want to see these fools in the congress or this fool in the White House start a bloody revolution over gun control.
The proposals are being recieved so badly that many Sheriffs over the US are declaring they won't enforce the laws being proposed.
My state is no different.
Like I said on this thread awhile back, the law enforcement officials I know personally have told me they will not comply with these laws.

There have been almost no cases where democratic governments legislated their way into tyranny. The only (obvious) instances are Fascist Italy and Germany, and in both cases it was only achieved through intimidation by the Fascist Party's Paramilitary wing (In Italy they simply marched on the capital and seized it, in Germany they engaged in a sustained effort to undermine the government's institutions from the outside, in fact the Nazis loosened gun control laws, in order to facilitate the arming of it's paramilitary wing). In neither case did the fascists ever actually win a majority in an election (furthermore, in both countries the loss of liberty was facilitated by the mass disillusionment with democracy that occurred after WW1).

But DQ, George Bush Jr. has already done what totalitarian regimes do by militarizing the police to a level heretofore unseen in the US, creating the US equivalent of the KVD in the DHS, creating a checkpoint system via the TSA, and opening up the door to total surveillance of the American people via the Patriot Act.
Obama continued and expanded the Patriot Act, has a DHS that declared veterans and gun owners potential terrorists, signed the NDAA giving him power to kill American citizens with the stroke of a pen, and many other abuses of power.
Add to this the "Constitution Free Zones" that Kaijo brought up and you can start to see the makings of a really bad situation.
Calling for registration with intent to confiscate paramilitary arms only adds to the very clear picture of what is going on here.

If tyranny comes to United States, it will most likely come at the end of a paramilitaries gun. I think it's shortsighted to regard the second amendment as a good defense against tyranny. History indicated otherwise.

Paramilitaries created the United States, so I disagree with you in part. I tyranny is already forming in the US, and has been gonig down this path since the civil war. It's been a slow slide, and I don't think it's any conspiracy or any nonsense like that, but rather the same way Rome slipped into an Empire because the people kept trading their liberty for security.
That's how we're becoming a totalitarian state.

I share the fear, but I don't believe we should obey the will of terrorists when devising our laws. Because that's what those people are.

The line between paramilitaries and terrorists, like with criminals, is highly porous.

We do agree on that.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Solace

Bill Maher's take on the subject:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/XpcmFaYraIo

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

An interesting commentary.

Never thought I'd see the day I agreed with Bill Maher, but he's right IMHO.

[monir]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Never thought I'd see the day I agreed with Bill Maher, but he's right IMHO.

He can be a pompous ass at times, but his wisdom is undeniable. Our constitution has been under attack since the Patriot Act was conceived and things have steadily gotten worse.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No they haven't ruled on it as of yet, the ACLU case is still ongoing.

That is why I said "IF" the SCOTUS rules in favor of. I am well aware it hasn't gotten to that point, yet.

I've seen this fantasy reiterated by people online.
If this President were to do as you illustrate, he would be impeached and removed.
Not too mention the highly unlikelihood of military compliance with such an order.

Okay, so if the president would be impeached if he attempts to become a dictator or tyrant and seize power, then what need have we for guns to defend us from tyranny? If the system works, then we don't need guns. If the system doesn't work, guns won't make a difference. Either way, I'm not seeing how guns would protect us from tyranny. I am still waiting for someone to explain how exactly guns will help us. Just tell me how, that's all I ask.

Because the bare minimum I see, if I wanted a populace that could adequately challenge the military, are surface-to-air missiles. This would protect a town from bombing, although granted, not from bigger missiles like ICBMs. If the military really wanted, they could simply missile a town to death. If they weren't willing to go that far, then surface-to-air missiles would force them to come in on foot... and thus your guns would actually provide some benefit. And still, I'd like some powerful explosives and HEAT RPGs, in order to penetrate armor on tanks.

I threw it out because the means by which countries rate violent crime and murder are not universal as they are for economics.
Thus it becomes difficult to compare per capita due to different criminal reporting techniques.

Ah, good some information. And I'll agree with some of it. I'll note that, as the video explains, Britain includes far more crimes under it's "violent crime" statistic, then the US does. So even though Britain may have a higher violent crime rate, it is only because it is counting many more crimes than the US doesn't. What would be useful is if the US included the crimes the UK does, would it match the Uk rate? Or be higher/lower? But that's violent crime, which is naturally harder to measure because of the differences.

Death, however, is fairly solid across every culture. If a person is dead, you can rest assure that they aren't moving, and aren't alive. Which is partly why I wanted to focus on deaths, homicides, rather than violence. If a person dies, a hospital will record that, and will record the cause of death. We can gather those statistics, and build a comparison between countries.

So gun violence is difficult to compare, but deaths and homicides aren't.

No, actually many states still have an "assault weapon" ban, including Connecticut (for 18 years), and it did no good. California is safer than Canada, but not Texas.
New York state has had such a ban for many years, and yet a felon obtained a paramilitary rifle and killed two firemen in an ambush, using 10 round magazines.
That is proof postitive that these bans do not work, at all.

Well, if we are going to claim that we can't compare ourselves to other countries because of differences, then we can't compare states, either. After all, many states have vastly different attitudes and cultures (See: red states and blue states). Thus, following that line of logic, we can't compare anything, and thus no numbers anywhere have any meaning.

What are we left with? Feelings.

I generally find that people who want to toss out all science and data and numbers and reduce the discussion to just feelings, do that for a reason. It is easier to argue a position, if you forbid the other side from using data that supports their position.

No, we're talking about gun control: its constitutionality, and its effect on violent crime.
Also, your strawman is on fire due to the simple fact that in Osaka, Japan, in 2001, 8 children were murdered and 15 other people injured.
In March of 2010 a Chinese doctor went on a rampage over a failed romantic relationship and killed 8 children and injured 5 others with a knife.
So yes, a knife can be just as deadly.

Oh, I never said that a knife couldn't be deadly. But you'll notice that 8 people dead, is a smaller number than 26. Given the choice, which would you prefer? Because my thought is: let's reduce deaths as much as we can. Even if we can't hit 0, a lower number is better than a higher number. Wouldn 't you agree?

There is the problem.
They are running on emotion, not logic. We've tried a ban on weapons, it doesn't work. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Level headed people need to be dealing with this situation, not emotional wrecks.

I'd love to, and ban handguns (shotguns and rifles are okay for hunting and sports). Unfortunately, I have to deal with the reality that people are emotional, and so we have to balance what works, with what they want. For instance, we have to do something to combat gun crime, with the emotional position that people want their guns.

And for what it is worth, I feel the assault weapons ban is pointless, too. Handguns are the biggest issue. So, as I have said before, either a handgun ban, or requirement to use smart gun technology.

I highly doubt that, your mind seems to be made up about this issue.

Then prove me wrong. I've given you an avenue to do that. Change wikipedia with your reasoning and your sources. If it is sound and holds up, then once wikipedia changes to remove some sources I formally depended on, I will be forced to change my mind. If one scientist publishes a paper, and another wants to contradict it, they will publish a paper showcasing the flaws in the original study. So, in such a case, I will believe the first paper, up until the second paper comes along. Then I will believe the second paper. That's how my mind changes.

At this point, I haven't seen an y published studies, or peer-reviewed papers, that contradict the studies and papers that I have seen. It's as simple as that.

And if you've been reading my posts in this thread, you'd see that SCOTUS has defined what arms are protected. Military small arms useful for the common defense.
If that's not clear enough, another way to put it, is if the police can have it, we can have it.

But that's not the point, is it? the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about whether certain arms are okay simply because the police have it. in fact, a militia is not a police force; it is a military force. Thus, the arms we should be allowed to have, via the 2nd amendment, are military-grade arms.

But you bring up a good point that I mentioned before... the 2nd amendment ultimately doesn't matter, because it is what the SCOTUS says. They banned you from having some arms, in defiance of the 2nd amendment.

I don't see too many people whinging about that.

[kyp275]

This is a point I've brought up several times before, though seemingly ignored for the most part, so here it is again.

To those that favors banning guns due to the deaths resulting from misuse of guns:

What is your rationale that guns should be banned due to the number of deaths they caused, but alcohol, tobacco, and unhealthy food shouldn't be, even though they result in far more deaths than guns?

Guns have practical uses such hunting, sport, self defense, the other three? not so much. Or are you saying that the live of kid who got killed by a gun is worth more than the live of kids who got killed by drunk drivers or second hand smoke etc.?

and again, because I know if I don't say it, someone will make that assumption - I'm not advocating the ban of alcohol etc., simply using them to demonstrate my point.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Now you're being silly.
Like I told Kaijo, the US citzenry wouldn't tolerate it.
They barely tolerated Waco.

Whether the US citizenry would tolerate it is besides the point. Under the constitution, by your definition, a citizen would have the right to own nerve gas. It is a weapon, that can put down an insurrection, or defend against an invader.

Part of the nature of the constitution is to defend individual rights against the "tyranny of the majority". How is banning assault weapons because "the majority doesn't like it" any different from banning nerve gas?

In fact, I'd say Nerve gas would be a far more effective in any manner of ways then a gun would be. Why shouldn't a person be able to defend their home with Nerve Gas?

Now I know there are obvious reasons why we'd want to restrict nerve gas, but from a legal perspective I don't see how restricting nerve gas should be different from restricting firearms. It's a weapon in much the same way a gun is, even if it is far more vile. But then again, in other countries, people find guns to be almost as vile as nerve gas. The constitution says your right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Banning the gas seems like infringement to me.

Of course my understanding of the situation in your country is crude. I don't live there, you do, so I take your word for what happened. However, by that same token, please take my word for the situation here in the US.
We have problems with gangs, not paramilitary groups so much, unless you want to consider the MS-13, Crips, Bloods and other gangs to be such a force, and in a city like Chicago or Tulsa, they might be better classified as such.

Where a paramilitary ends and a crime gang begins is very fuzzy line. Both aim to use physical force and intimidation to achieve certain ends. And like Paramilitaries, many are formed on ethnic lines. Interestingly, if we look at Chinese history (before the 20th century), every single rebel movement originated with organized crime gangs ("secret societies"). Even today Chinese triads have oaths pertaining to the triad's original political goals when it was formed. For instance, quite a number of oaths to restore the Ming dynasty, which at this point are largely meaningless.

I agree, which why I don't want to see these fools in the congress or this fool in the White House start a bloody revolution over gun control.

Certainly anything done should be gradual. But I think americans should be wary of any paramilitary organizations with a mission statement to "protect liberty".

But DQ, George Bush Jr. has already done what totalitarian regimes do by militarizing the police to a level heretofore unseen in the US
...
Calling for registration with intent to confiscate paramilitary arms only adds to the very clear picture of what is going on here.

Certainly, but America is not a tyranny yet, and the democratic process must be used to overturn these things. But while the actions of Bush & company are cause for alarm, the paramilitaries won't help. If Paramilitaries were successful in overthrowing the state, their first order of business would be to establish a theocratic police state along the lines of Iran.

Paramilitaries created the United States, so I disagree with you in part. I tyranny is already forming in the US, and has been gonig down this path since the civil war. It's been a slow slide, and I don't think it's any conspiracy or any nonsense like that, but rather the same way Rome slipped into an Empire because the people kept trading their liberty for security.
That's how we're becoming a totalitarian state.

Not entirely true. When the United States declared independence it did so through the already existing colonial governments at the time. It was not a case of paramilitaries fighting the government, but rather a government (the colonies) fighting an independence war from another government (Britain) using irregular troops. There was continuity between the government before independence, and the new American government, and in fact the American legal system is a descendant of the British legal system at the time. The elected leaders of the colonies before independence remained the elected leaders after independence.

In fact the founders were highly wary of "popular revolutions" as would later be seen in France, where you do have a genuine case of paramilitaries completely overthrowing the government and starting a new regime, and ultimately what we saw there was tyranny of the worst kind.

I don't think it's correct to strictly call the American "Patriots" paramilitaries, as they were organized by a government.

If Americans were to take up arms against the government it would not be like 1776, but a lot more like 1789.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

This is a point I've brought up several times before, though seemingly ignored for the most part, so here it is again.

To those that favors banning guns due to the deaths resulting from misuse of guns:

What is your rationale that guns should be banned due to the number of deaths they caused, but alcohol, tobacco, and unhealthy food shouldn't be, even though they result in far more deaths than guns?

Guns have practical uses such hunting, sport, self defense, the other three? not so much. Or are you saying that the live of kid who got killed by a gun is worth more than the live of kids who got killed by drunk drivers or second hand smoke etc.?

and again, because I know if I don't say it, someone will make that assumption - I'm not advocating the ban of alcohol etc., simply using them to demonstrate my point.

I expect guns to be regulated, as tools that are inherently unsafe and with limited peacetime use. The same way foods, tobacco, cars, and everything else are.

But have fun with your "Liberty" anyway. Even though you haven't got much left to protect other than guns themselves. I am thankful I am so far away from those who call themselves "patriots".

[monir]

Originally Posted by kyp275

T\
What is your rationale that guns should be banned due to the number of deaths they caused, but alcohol, tobacco, and unhealthy food shouldn't be, even though they result in far more deaths than guns?.

Blunt answer from another American:

It's all about perception. Guns aren't consumable food product. Guns are tools that can be used for killing things including human. Alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food product can also kill people, but the affect isn't an immediate one. The death from those food product comes in various way. It could be drunk driving after drinking alcohol, it could be cancer after years of smoking tobacco, or it could be high deposit of cholesterol that is clogging your artery thanks to a daily diet of McDonald. The psychological affect is intermittently and inherently varies between food product that eventually can cause death and a tool such as gun that can cause death immediately. All one has to do is point and press the trigger.

With a gun on your head, you will think about imminent death. With a cigarette between the lips, most people don't think about imminent death.

Again, it's all about perception.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Tobacco and Alcohol are banned for certain people. Cars are limited to those who are licensed and they are heavily regulated. Even unhealthy food has regulation on food labelling.

You treat guns like they are holy, that they are somehow different from every other object in society. I say they deserve to be controlled just like everything else in the world. I need special permits to access certain chemicals, explosives, and industrial machinery. Things that are dangerous need heavily regulation, and that's how the world works.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by monir

Blunt answer from another American:

It's all about perception. Guns aren't consumable food product. Guns are tools that can be used for killing things including human. Alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food product can also kill people, but the affect isn't an immediate one. The death from those food product comes in various way. It could be drunk driving after drinking alcohol, it could be cancer after years of smoking tobacco, or it could be high deposit of cholesterol that is clogging your artery thanks to a daily diet of McDonald. The psychological affect is intermittently and inherently varies between food product that eventually can cause death and a tool such as gun that can cause death immediately. All one has to do is point and press the trigger.

With a gun on your head, most people will think about imminent death. With a cigarette on your lip, most people don't think about imminent death.

Again, it's all about perception.

Agreed, but then what does it say about the mindset and logical reasoning of those who favors a ban?

10,000 deaths by gun? must ban them now!

10,000 deaths from drunk driving? whatever dude, where's the beer!?

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Tobacco and Alcohol are banned for certain people. Cars are limited to those who are licensed and they are heavily regulated. Even unhealthy food has regulation on food labelling.

You treat guns like they are holy, that they are somehow different from every other object in society. I say they deserve to be controlled just like everything else in the world. I need special permits to access certain chemicals, explosives, and industrial machinery. Things that are dangerous need heavily regulation, and that's how the world works.

Sigh, alcohol and tobacco have age restrictions, so does gun ownership. There sure as hell isn't any restrictions on gorging yourself on unhealthy food, even if it means that your baby will be born diabetic or become stillborn.

I don't treat gun as some sort of holy thing, it is you who's treating it like it's some sort of demon.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Agreed, but then what does it say about the mindset and logical reasoning of those who favors a ban?

10,000 deaths by gun? must ban them now!

10,000 deaths from drunk driving? whatever dude, where's the beer!?

I have no idea where you are going with this, your logic is collapsing. Drink driving is an extremely heavy offence. And there are entirely areas in public places where I live where alcohol consumption is not allowed. Of course drink driving causes outrage and heavy regulation. Thus same applies with weapons.

I don't treat gun as some sort of holy thing, it is you who's treating it like it's some sort of demon.

I treat guns the way they should be treated; dangerous objects with limited use in civilised society.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I have no idea where you are going with this, your logic is collapsing. Drink driving is an extremely heavy offence. And there are entirely areas in public places where I live where alcohol consumption is not allowed. Of course drink driving causes outrage and heavy regulation. Thus same applies with weapons.

because you're not thinking.

No one is saying that drunk driving is not a serious offense (though many would argue it's not serious enough).

The difference is that your response to death caused by guns is to ban all guns, even those owned by people who've done nothing wrong, yet your response to deaths caused by drunk driving is to punish only the person who caused the accident.

In one you're blaming the entirety of the instrument used to cause the death, in the other you're only blaming the operator of said instrument. Which part do you not understand?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

because you're not thinking.

No one is saying that drunk driving is not a serious offense (though many would argue it's not serious enough).

The difference is that your response to death caused by guns is to ban all guns, even those owned by people who've done nothing wrong, yet your response to deaths caused by drunk driving is to punish only the person who caused the accident.

Which part do you not understand?

To "ban all guns" would imply something akin to medieval Japan. Where no one, not even the military, could use them.

Guns are necessary in the right hands for people to do their jobs. Thus no, I don't want to ban guns.

But I DO want to make it nearly impossible for normal people to get them without a good reason. And no, "I want to some day able to shoot someone who invades my home" is not a good reason.

Gun ownership should be a serious matter. And no, it is not currently serious enough.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

To "ban all guns" would imply something akin to medieval Japan. Where no one, not even the military, could use them.

Guns are necessary in the right hands for people to do their jobs. Thus no, I don't want to ban guns.

But I DO want to make it nearly impossible for normal people to get them without a good reason. And no, "I want to some day able to shoot someone who invades my home" is not a good reason.

sigh, would you slow down and at least try to get on the same page that everyone else is on? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just intentionally tossing out red herrings.

We're talking about civilian gun ownership, what does the military have to do with it?

You're more than welcome to your own opinion on whether people should have the right to self-defense, suffice to say I disagree with your opinion, and we can leave it at that, but I'm not gonna let you derail my original point:

Why is it ok for the likes of alcohol, tobacco, and junk food to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths every year in the US, with minimal to no regulation governing their use/ownership, while guns should be banned even though it's already subject to much more stringent regulations, and causes far less deaths than the former? A straight answer would be great.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

America is not that large as a country, and it certainly doesn't have a police force that have slower response times than other nations.

Not that large? How many countries are larger than the United States? Or let's consider that the State of California has a larger population than Canada despite being a similar size. I mean you've expressed your lack of knowledge about this country in this thread a lot, but this is like a new level of inaccuracy. I'm also not knowledgeable about many things, but that's why I don't try to sound so authorative

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that certain rural areas will have long response times by default.

If you need a gun to protect yourself despite your tax dollars paying for the existence of a police force, then the question is if the military budget should be shrunk to pay for better police. No point having a strong army if your cops can't be relied upon domestically.

Police can't be omnipresent, and even if they could arrive in 5 minutes, a lot can happen in 5 minutes.

[monir]

Originally Posted by kyp275

<snip>
No one is saying that drunk driving is not a serious offense (though many would argue it's not serious enough).

The difference is that your response to death caused by guns is to ban all guns, even those owned by people who've done nothing wrong, yet your response to deaths caused by drunk driving is to punish only the person who caused the accident.

In one you're blaming the entirety of the instrument used to cause the death, in the other you're only blaming the operator of said instrument. <snip> instead... Does that make sense?

Kyp, leave out the redundancy. The above is how your post read without redundancy that isn't adding to your argument. It's kind of silly the way you are choosing to word your post to maintain a certain tone. You too, Vallen! Cool it.

Once again, to your original point of why gun owner are demonized by some people: it's all about perception. The psychological impact of death from someone's getting shot, and someone dying of a cancer isn't the same. If one is shot in the head, his hope of surviving is very low. If someone has got cancer, there are all form of treatment to cause for optimism even if the odds are stacked against. From a logical point of view, I agree with you that death is death no matter how it was achieved. The counterpoint is, however, that even knowing we are all going to die eventually, I still should have a equal chance of fighting death even if I'm shot in the head point blank like another cancer patient.

What's the chance we are discussing this issue if the gravity of getting shot is as equal to getting a paper-cut?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Not that large? How many countries are larger than the United States? Or let's consider that the State of California has a larger population than Canada despite being a similar size. I mean I know this thread is full of people that talk without knowing what they're talking about, but damn, that's on a new level.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that certain rural areas will have long response times by default.




Police can't be omnipresent, and even if they could arrive in 5 minutes, a lot can happen in 5 minutes.

You think only America has rural areas? I am pointing out that America is not suppose to be some post apocalyptic wasteland where everyone is a cowboy.

Let's face it, you want a gun because you know an American criminal is very likely already armed with firearm. You are not arming yourself to fight criminals; you are arming yourself because guns are too easy to obtain.

Too bad that a criminal would likely get the first shot in.