General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I think the word "moral" is too overloaded with meaning, since as Don examples, it doesn't even mean "good" (since it could result in witch burnings, faux honor killings, etc).
Moral codes lead to mixed results, one reason I think the proposition that "morality is absolute" (or even tied to religion) fails.

Indeed. That's why I haven't used "Good", but "Morality".

That said, in this case (IE bystanders helping someone in need), the outcome of morality would be defined by pretty much everyone as "good".

Generally speaking, the fundamental elements of morality that are common across cultures are universally considered good. The specific elements of morality that are unique to certain cultures will be considered good by some, evil by others, and a few will simply not care one way or the other.

[Vexx]

Pretty much any so-called "morality" outside the various incarnations of the "Golden Rule" I find suspicious

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

As things stand, people can injure themselves with guns that are not shoddy. We're not losing anything there. On the other hand, shoddy weapons in the hands of criminals would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
So your saying if a person be they criminal or not who has a gun and dies from it is better off and did society a favor? Damn I didn't think you were that cold!

This doesn't matter. If you change the laws to go against guns, our culture that is currently accepting of guns will turn against it. Even if people could easily assemble or make their own guns, they won't. Sort of saying that if it's on the five o'clock news, Facebook, and Twitter that those mindless drones will just start admonishing their fellows who are gun owners? Don't have much faith in the human ability to think for ones self huh?


I somehow doubt that roaming stores and malls would stave off obesity The causes of obesity are multi-faceted, and while our modern lifestyles certainly do contribute to it, the fact is that people can and do maintain their fitness within our society. But this gets to my point, which is regarding the philosophy of not wanting to be told how to live: if one person is horribly obese, it's their business. If half of society is horribly obese, it becomes everyone's business. That's because it's a problem that begins to affect even people who are not obese. How should society respond? That's currently up for debate. Japan chose a penalty approach, fining people who are overweight in an effort to further give them incentive to maintain a healthy weight.

What do you think we should do about it? Penalizing one for being overweight is NOT THE ANSWER! All your doing is removing a productive member of society and ostracizing them! And taking away their ability to buy food will certainly make them skinny! But aren't the ads of waifs and size 0s also telling our kids that bulimia and anorexia is ok too? Your logic here escapes me!

Making the connection to guns involves a similar line of thought. If one unstable individual shoots off his gun inappropriately, it's a problem between him and his community. When multiple individuals are using their guns for purposes of harm and destruction all across the country, it's a problem for the entire country. So if the Crips or Bloods have a turf war we should unleash the U.S. Marines right? As long as they're not the ones getting hurt they could care less!

It's unfortunate that you, as a responsible and law-abiding gun owner, would be penalized. But this isn't about you or how responsible you are - it's about everyone else. Really? Since when?! While my neighbors mightily out for me and mine I doubt very well if society in general could give one wit about me! And don't patronize me, I took the steps to protect my own a long time ago!


Does training prevent people with mental problems from using guns against innocents? Does training prevent people with anger issues from using their guns in a fit of rage? Unfortunately no, even with the required Form 4473, they are not required to state if their unstable or pissed at the world.


Yes, either one can kill you. Which one can kill you more easily, and when wielded even by individuals who are weaker or slower than yourself? Are you really telling me that you would rather be assailed by a person with a gun than a person with a knife?

Neither as both would be grounds for getting shot!

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

This man has addressed the arguments by hoplophobes head on.
If they seem simplistic that is because the gun-banners aren't of a critical mind on this issue.

You're entering dangerous territory with your terminology here.

#1: Most people who are for stricter gun control are not hoplophobes. We're not afraid of guns. You re-use this term and expand on it a few times later on, so I'll come back to it.

#2: Don't begin to generalize people who disagree with you as "aren't of a critical mind." Go down that path and you're only fooling yourself into being unreasonable.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If they had been armed, that would be a different matter, but they weren't because it was illegal to bring a firearm into theaters in Aurora.

Right, if everyone were armed, we may have ended up with even more dead people. This is a stalemate scenario, GundamFan, and you damn well know it. In your fantasy, Holmes would burst into the theater, fire off one shot, and then cleanly be taken out by another movie-goer. In the scenario that I and many others envision, a chaotic scene where multiple people draw and begin firing would ensue, hitting many innocents.

I'm willing to concede that reality would be somewhere between the two. I want you to admit that guns aren't a perfect solution (if they're even a valid solution) in all of these cases.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No Legem actually "society" doesn't go after anyone, nor does it have any obligation to.
That kind of wrong-thinking is part of the reason gun-control is so flawed.
It stems from the erroneous notion that government is good, when history has proven beyond any doubt that it is not.
Governments have killed more people than practically any other force on Earth.
As Washington said, "it's like fire, and is both a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

I wasn't referring to the government, I was referring to society itself. Society has an interest (but not an obligation, as you say) in upholding justice. The reason is simple: someone who wrongs me could wrong you or our neighbors, thus it is within our best interest to take care of that person and return us to a state of peace.

I agree that the government should not be trusted completely. So where are we now - do you want to go back to your argument that guns are necessary for society to repel a government that gets out of hand? Please do. I've been waiting for you to bring that up, but the last time I asked if that was what you were saying, you denied it.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No, he is pointing out equalization and there is no way to deny that rationally.
If both opponents are armed, then their chances are equalized.

Yes. Both opponents. You're making the same fatally flawed assumption that he did: that all confrontations are between two people. Tell me, what happens when you're confronted by five other men, and all of you have guns?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

All people rule by force.
It's the reason you pay your taxes, stop when a cop turns his lights on behind you, don't steal, and don't do a whole slew of other things.
As Nietzsche said, "fear is the mother of morality."

Not a huge fan of Nietzsche. I pay my taxes because I'm a fan of civilization, and recognize that taxes are necessary to support many aspects of life that I enjoy. I'd stop for a police officer because that's part of the agreement I made with society when I acquired my license to drive (rules of the road). I don't steal because I would feel badly about violating someone like that. None of this - none - is motivated by fear.

I'm a very collective-oriented person. I chose many activities and even my career based on what I could contribute to society, not what I could do to enrich myself. I make personal sacrifices for the betterment of others, even if I receive nothing in return. I am a strong believer in the "golden rule" (treat others as you want to be treated), and I am very conscientious of those around me. This is where I'm coming from.

I know that many people are not like me. They're selfish, committed only to themselves and not thinking much farther than beyond this moment. Yet even these people are reliant on society, and while they may kvetch about things like paying taxes or obeying regulations, society forces them in order to avoid their parasitism or taking advantage.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Why do you think our police use grenades, armored personnel carriers, machineguns, body armor, assault rifles, drones, and grenade launchers.

I don't know. My guess is that they want to be able to command a higher budget, and with such equipment they can make the argument that they're able to respond to more serious crimes (instead of deferring to higher government agencies). I know that some police forces have this equipment, but let me ask you this: when is the last time that you actually saw any of this equipment in action? Colorado may be different, but I can tell you that during my time in Los Angeles, New York City, and now Pittsburgh, I've never seen it in use. It isn't standard patrol gear.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Ah yes the good ol paranoia spin.
Sorry, that's a meme at this point it's so overused.
No, this gentleman made excellent points that were spot on and detrimental to the hoplophobic argument. After all, the real fearmongers here are the ones screaming "OMG there are too many guns in the hands of citizens...eww I'm gonna die! If we could only reduce them by banning them."

Let's get one thing straight: I've occupied some fairly crappy places in the three cities that I listed. I don't walk around outside in fear, worrying that I'll be shot. I don't make the arguments about reducing guns because I am afraid of them, I make the argument with regard to reducing harm and death related to the force that guns bring to a violent encounter.

Understand also that I walk outside of my apartment without a gun each and every day, and it's very rare that I worry about someone getting into a fight with me, or someone pulling a gun on me. The author says that walking around with a gun allows him to be "unafraid" - well, I'm unafraid, and I don't have a gun. What should I think of him if not paranoid, then?

But if I may also be honest with you, as a friend... you sound pretty damn paranoid when you start railing against the government and the "police turned paramilitary." I read the various reports and know that you're not lying or exaggerating, nor do I think that it's all fine and dandy. Just be careful with how extreme you let those thoughts slide.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Crime-free? This man made no such statement. You are making that up entirely and quite frankly lying.

It was a statement made in sarcasm. Sarcasm doesn't translate well to text and I know you're tired, so I won't hassle you about this one.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No he didn't. He simply points out the facts.
If you are confronted by a person with superior strength, skill, or some combination thereof and you have nothing to equalize him with, you lose, end of story.

...

And he is correct.
Bombs are far more deadly than a firearm.
Machettes can be also, and knives at close range are as dangerous as a pistol.
Every student of Martial Arts worth his Gi knows this.
...
No, he points out the stupidty of "TV/Movie" thinking which paints an irrational picture of how the world really works.
A gun is your best defense against an armed attacker.
However, it is a moot point since the 2nd Amendment isn't about just defense.
It is an individual right to keep and bear military style arms, end of discussion.

You're making the same mistake that he did. The three points that I made were not meant to be discussed separately, but rather to point out how he dodged the issue. Again, the issue was that guns will increase the injuries and deaths sustained in confrontations. Agree or disagree, and state why - don't run around by trying to talk about other weapons or force equalization.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You mean you don't understand why people don't have your irrational fear of firearms.
There are more homicides by gangs than there are anything else with regard to murder.
You want to reduce homcide?
Reduce the number of gang bangers.

1) I do not have a fear of firearms.

2) I have not been talking about reducing homicide or crime. Please stop bringing these types of points up as if it's what I've been saying. What I have been saying is that reducing guns will reduce the injuries and deaths occurring from confrontations. I am not arguing that the rate of confrontations would be affected.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Neither am I, with the hoplophobe position on this issue.
It reeks of whining, blubbering, and wimpering on and on about "why won't people just become victims so I can be safe from those evil guns...OOOOOH the humanity."

Be careful with this line of thought, you're risking becoming unreasonable. And once again, I do not have a fear of guns or of being attacked. It seems strange (and paranoid) to me that people would be afraid to go outside without their gun, though.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You hate guns?
Fine, don't buy one, don't own one, but if you try to take away the right for others to have them, I will be there helping to stop you every step of the way.

This isn't about hatred of guns, this is about reducing injuries and deaths (but not crime, which always seems to slip into your mind even though I never make that argument).

Originally Posted by Vexx

I can see the points being made by Ledgem/Don and Gundam/Kyp depending on the context so what I'm getting out of this is that a 'win/win' path is going to be torturous no matter what. I refuse to relinquish the right or tools to defend myself but I don't know a good route to *prevent* "broken people" from exploding on the public.

Here's the way that I see it. A gun can be protective in a number of instances, but ultimately a gun is not a defensive device. If someone pulls a gun on you and shoots without warning, the gun at your waist will not ward off the incoming bullet. If you're walking on a sidewalk and there's a gun battle one or two streets down, a gun at your waist will not deflect a stray bullet that travels your way.

People like the idea that guns provide full force equalization and level the playing field, but even this is fantasy. A criminal can ambush you or can confront you with a group, of which both scenarios are tipped against you.

Do you really want to be safer, or do you just want to feel like you have some influence over a world that can't be predicted and can barely be controlled? It seems to me that having a gun on you offers a sense of control, but the reality is that you're still fairly powerless. Again, this is because a gun is not defensive. Eliminating crime from society will take a lot of work in areas of education and social services, and as I have stated repeatedly, reducing/eliminating guns likely won't have an appreciable impact. However, removing guns from society will reduce the magnitude of injury that you face; more importantly, it will greatly reduce the risk that you face from random, mentally unstable shooters (which is a realistic threat, in light of the fact that we've been steadily decreasing our support for mental health institutions, and we now have a lot of war veterans with PTSD and other problems coming home).

[Lost Cause]

And just how would you go about that? Removing crime from society, that is? Do we all line up for shock treatment or get frontal lobotomys? As long as emotions rule us there will be crime, because jealousy and the desire to want something or covet something will also be there.
And I find your faith in society to handle or the group mentality to deal with a given situation most disturbing.
The "sheep mentality" isn't going to do you much good when a pack of "wolves" descend upon you, especially if none of you are armed or lack the means or ability to defend yourself!

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Right, if everyone were armed, we may have ended up with even more dead people. This is a stalemate scenario, GundamFan, and you damn well know it. In your fantasy, Holmes would burst into the theater, fire off one shot, and then cleanly be taken out by another movie-goer. In the scenario that I and many others envision, a chaotic scene where multiple people draw and begin firing would ensue, hitting many innocents.

I'm willing to concede that reality would be somewhere between the two. I want you to admit that guns aren't a perfect solution (if they're even a valid solution) in all of these cases.

I think a situation where everyone was armed would have ended up like this. Would have been complete anarchy.

Yes. Both opponents. You're making the same fatally flawed assumption that he did: that all confrontations are between two people. Tell me, what happens when you're confronted by five other men, and all of you have guns?

The problem is when people only thinks in terms of individuals, and not in terms of groups.

Not a huge fan of Nietzsche. I pay my taxes because I'm a fan of civilization, and recognize that taxes are necessary to support many aspects of life that I enjoy. I'd stop for a police officer because that's part of the agreement I made with society when I acquired my license to drive (rules of the road). I don't steal because I would feel badly about violating someone like that. None of this - none - is motivated by fear.

" I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle (according to Diogenes)

I know that many people are not like me. They're selfish, committed only to themselves and not thinking much farther than beyond this moment. Yet even these people are reliant on society, and while they may kvetch about things like paying taxes or obeying regulations, society forces them in order to avoid their parasitism or taking advantage.

Personally, I think people are too negative about others. Yeah, there's scumbags out there, but the vast majority of people are decent. I fear irrational fanaticism and fear more then the reasoned selfishness of other human beings.

Let's get one thing straight: I've occupied some fairly crappy places in the three cities that I listed. I don't walk around outside in fear, worrying that I'll be shot. I don't make the arguments about reducing guns because I am afraid of them, I make the argument with regard to reducing harm and death related to the force that guns bring to a violent encounter.

Contrary to what many seem to think, we don't live in Iraq.

But if I may also be honest with you, as a friend... you sound pretty damn paranoid when you start railing against the government and the "police turned paramilitary." I read the various reports and know that you're not lying or exaggerating, nor do I think that it's all fine and dandy. Just be careful with how extreme you let those thoughts slide.

I'm more afraid of vigilantes stocking up weapons to fight the government then I'll ever be of the government itself. If I lived in Syria, I might think differently. But the United States, thankfully, is not Syria. Isn't Democracy great?

Be careful with this line of thought, you're risking becoming unreasonable. And once again, I do not have a fear of guns or of being attacked. It seems strange (and paranoid) to me that people would be afraid to go outside without their gun, though.

Due to the lack of guns in Ireland, everyone carries around Spears everywhere. You'll get attacked by leprechauns otherwise.

Here's the way that I see it. A gun can be protective in a number of instances, but ultimately a gun is not a defensive device. If someone pulls a gun on you and shoots without warning, the gun at your waist will not ward off the incoming bullet. If you're walking on a sidewalk and there's a gun battle one or two streets down, a gun at your waist will not deflect a stray bullet that travels your way.

People like the idea that guns provide full force equalization and level the playing field, but even this is fantasy. A criminal can ambush you or can confront you with a group, of which both scenarios are tipped against you.

Yes. If you live in an area filled with guns and knife crimes the best defence is a Kevlar vest. But for some reason I see a lot people wearing guns then wearing Kevlar.

I'd plus rep your post Ledgem, but I +rep you too often, alas.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

And just how would you go about that? Removing crime from society, that is? Do we all line up for shock treatment or get frontal lobotomys? As long as emotions rule us there will be crime, because jealousy and the desire to want something or covet something will also be there.
And I find your faith in society to handle or the group mentality to deal with a given situation most disturbing.
The "sheep mentality" isn't going to do you much good when a pack of "wolves" descend upon you, especially if none of you are armed or lack the means or ability to defend yourself!

Most of the really scary guys are the ones who think they're the sheep. Not the wolves. The Wolves will take your money and run, the sheep will kill you because they think you're in league with The Man. Such people are a danger to society.

Pretty much every gunman has come from the "sheep" segment, people who think the world is out to get them, and decide it's high time they started fighting back and took the fight to the government, and the sheeple who support them. They're not wolves preying on people for money and profit.

The "Wolves" understand that the best way to get their money is to leave people alive. That's why they go to work as CEOs.

[Ledgem]

I always appreciate the agreement, Don

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

And just how would you go about that? Removing crime from society, that is? Do we all line up for shock treatment or get frontal lobotomys? As long as emotions rule us there will be crime, because jealousy and the desire to want something or covet something will also be there.

This topic isn't related to the gun thread, so I don't think we should go into great detail on it. In short, it is highly unlikely that crime can be 100% eliminated from society, but it is dramatically reduced when people are provided with a stable environment, education, the opportunity to be productive, and a stable economic situation.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

And I find your faith in society to handle or the group mentality to deal with a given situation most disturbing.

Right back at you: you're a part of this society, and yet you seem to have no faith in your neighbors and fellow countrymen. Doesn't that seem a bit weird?

This isn't about group mentality, this is about everyone working together for the benefit of all individuals involved.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Right back at you: you're a part of this society, and yet you seem to have no faith in your neighbors and fellow countrymen. Doesn't that seem a bit weird?

This isn't about group mentality, this is about everyone working together for the benefit of all individuals involved.

Indeed, if Anime has taught us anything, it's the power of FRIENDSHIP.

The reason that Toyota completely wiped the floor with GM in the 80s and 90s was because it's workforce all operated as one big team, be they managers or just workers on the line. They all worked together to make their products and manufacturing processes the best they could be. We built the society we have today by working together. We will lose it when we work against one another.

Together we are far more powerful then we are apart. Have a little trust. After all, if you don't trust your neighbour, why should he trust you?

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I always appreciate the agreement, Don


This topic isn't related to the gun thread, so I don't think we should go into great detail on it. In short, it is highly unlikely that crime can be 100% eliminated from society, but it is dramatically reduced when people are provided with a stable environment, education, the opportunity to be productive, and a stable economic situation.


Right back at you: you're a part of this society, and yet you seem to have no faith in your neighbors and fellow countrymen. Doesn't that seem a bit weird?

This isn't about group mentality, this is about everyone working together for the benefit of all individuals involved.

Oh lovely, now it's two against one, sweet!
First I never said I lost faith in or didn't trust society! I said your total dependence on it to get things done is disturbing. Have you ever led those around you in a rally or signed a petition? Ever made your voice heard outside of an Internet forum?
I trust my countrymen, and love my country, but I have little use for those who try to tell me how too live, what too wear, how too think, etc.
Despite facts put forth by GundamFan that show that the presence of a firearm did indeed change the tide or alter an other wise gruesome outcome, you both still cling to just "getting rid of all guns" and creating some sort of Utopia!
Your never ending rhetoric of the same old thing has quashed an otherwise interesting and insightful thread. That and I personally think it all about the post count and "rep points" for you both.
GundamFan said your afraid of guns. I say your afraid of those if us who have taken the responsibility of protecting ourselves, and do our own thing, march to a different drummer. It's called Free Will, we all have it, but only some of us use it and make our own decisions in life without checking to see if "society" approves! That's what scares you both!
And despite that I would still protect you if the need arose.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Oh lovely, now it's two against one, sweet!

It's actually been "two against three" this entire time. Don and I have been arguing against you, kyp, and Gundamfan (and Vexx occasionally takes a pro-gun stance, but he does so diplomatically and treads very lightly ). Not that it really matters what the numbers are: this isn't a shouting match. Even if 100 people were in agreement with me, if you make valid points, I am happy to say that the point is good and to accept it. I only ask that you do the same for me.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

First I never said I lost faith in or didn't trust society! I said your total dependence on it to get things done is disturbing.

Don't take things to an extreme, please, because that sort of rhetoric shuts down any meaningful discussion. There's a big difference between expecting that society will work together to carry out justice, and having a "total dependence" on it.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Have you ever led those around you in a rally or signed a petition? Ever made your voice heard outside of an Internet forum?

Yes, although I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

I trust my countrymen, and love my country, but I have little use for those who try to tell me how too live, what too wear, how too think, etc.

This isn't about telling you how to live, or what to wear, or how to think. Your gun is not your life... at least, I hope it's not the most important part of your life.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Despite facts put forth by GundamFan that show that the presence of a firearm did indeed change the tide or alter an other wise gruesome outcome, you both still cling to just "getting rid of all guns" and creating some sort of Utopia!

Gundamfan has raised some good points, and I am not ignoring them. It is true that a firearm can be used to get people out of bad situations. However, it is also true that firearms have been used for some very vile purposes. Unfortunately, based on the available data (which isn't satisfactory, but it's what we have at the moment), the number of innocents lost to firearms has exceeded the number of people saved by them. Those are the facts.

So, you and I, along with the rest of America, have a choice: do we want to allow firearms to be prolific among our society? On one hand, it grants us a slight bit of control over our own fate. On the other hand, many people are killed or seriously injured by these weapons, and that poses a direct risk to us as well; that number and risk would be reduced (but probably not eliminated) if we could reduce the number of guns within society. Isn't it a worthwhile trade-off?

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Your never ending rhetoric of the same old thing has quashed an otherwise interesting and insightful thread. That and I personally think it all about the post count and "rep points" for you both.

Don't insult me like that, Linda. I've been on this forum for close to 10 years, never cared about my post count, and have essentially maxed out my rep, yet you have the gall to claim that I'm just posting here to raise my count and to get positive rep (which, I might add, I have not received any from this thread)?

I'm taking the time to read what you write and then I take the time to give you a response because I'm interested in what you have to say, and I'm interested in hearing what you think about what I have to say. With the sentiment that you've displayed you have completely blown me off and disrespected me. I hope that you simply wrote it in an emotional outburst, but please do not say such a thing again. If what I write riles you up, please take a few minutes to cool down before penning your response. We cannot have a meaningful discussion otherwise.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

GundamFan said your afraid of guns. I say your afraid of those if us who have taken the responsibility of protecting ourselves, and do our own thing, march to a different drummer. It's called Free Will, we all have it, but only some of us use it and make our own decisions in life without checking to see if "society" approves! That's what scares you both!

Why do you feel the need to say that we're scared? Is it really so alien a concept (or dare I say, scary a concept ) that people could live their lives without a gun at their side, and still leave their house, unafraid?

This isn't about living by society's approval. As I'm sure you're aware, you are currently legally entitled to own a gun. My guess is that you're also in an area of the country where guns are common. For all your talk of "free will" and living life without caring for the approval of others, you're not defying anything. No, this is simply about reducing needless injuries and deaths within society, a cause that should not give anyone reason for disagreement. The disagreement is purely over whether reducing guns would tip the balance one way or another, and if it would be worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

And despite that I would still protect you if the need arose.

I appreciate that. I'd offer you help if you needed it, too.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Don't insult me like that, Linda. I've been on this forum for close to 10 years, never cared about my post count, and have essentially maxed out my rep, yet you have the gall to claim that I'm just posting here to raise my count and to get positive rep (which, I might add, I have not received any from this thread)?

I'm taking the time to read what you write and then I take the time to give you a response because I'm interested in what you have to say, and I'm interested in hearing what you think about what I have to say. With the sentiment that you've displayed you have completely blown me off and disrespected me. I hope that you simply wrote it in an emotional outburst, but please do not say such a thing again. If what I write riles you up, please take a few minutes to cool down before penning your response. We cannot have a meaningful discussion otherwise.

+1. I don't make posts for the rep. Though admittedly +rep is always nice. Don't misconstrue our thoughts (also, while we both are on a similar side of the issue, we don't agree totally, I take a somewhat harder line then Ledgem).

Why do you feel the need to say that we're scared? Is it really so alien a concept (or dare I say, scary a concept ) that people could live their lives without a gun at their side, and still leave their house, unafraid?

I'm quite happy to say that I am able to live my life without ever feeling any fear(except when I want to talk to an incredibly attractive woman). Certainly, I never exit my house planning out contingencies for if I got attacked. I have more profitable things to think about.

This isn't about living by society's approval. As I'm sure you're aware, you are currently legally entitled to own a gun. My guess is that you're also in an area of the country where guns are common. For all your talk of "free will" and living life without caring for the approval of others, you're not defying anything. No, this is simply about reducing needless injuries and deaths within society, a cause that should not give anyone reason for disagreement. The disagreement is purely over whether reducing guns would tip the balance one way or another, and if it would be worthwhile.

Yes, while I generally trust my society, that doesn't mean I totally depend on it. I know it's not going to get me a job or pay my bills. But free will and self determination doesn't mean you have to be totally self reliant and able to do everything for yourself, because that's impossible. If I break my arm, I can't fix it myself, I have to go to the hospital. If a man robs me, I won't be able to get justice for myself, instead I will go to the Police.



To go back to guns I'd like to move away from statistics, and towards morality. Ultimately, if we legalize the possession of guns, then we have to legalize the using of guns as well. And a gun can only be used for one purpose: Killing. You can try to trot out statistics about how most gunshot wounds aren't lethal, but that's not the point. The gun is designed to kill. That is it's entire purpose. I believe that objects and substances whose sole purpose is the destruction of another human being should be heavily restricted to those who are known to be of sound mind and body. We wouldn't let just anyone buy arsenic or cyanide, either, would we?

Now you can say, "what about knives?" But knives have a myriad of other uses. I can use it to prepare food, I can use it burst blisters. Any competent outdoors-man can elaborate even more uses for the humble knife. But there's only one use for a gun: To Kill. Even in defence, it's purpose is still to kill. Even in intimidation, it's use is to threaten to kill.

We should take care not to trivialize death. Shooting a guy dead who just wants money from your wallet might be described by some as self defence. To me, that seems a lot more like disproportionate retribution. We must separate the material from the spiritual. If I lose 100 bucks in a mugging, my beard just got shaved. But you know what? It will grow back. But if I take his life, that can never be returned. And furthermore, how will I be able to face his family in the court room, learning that he was only stealing to feed his starving children?

[Ithekro]

I've used guns many, many time. I've never killed anyone or any creature with a gun. I have put many, many holes in nonliving things though.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

To go back to guns I'd like to move away from statistics, and towards morality. Ultimately, if we legalize the possession of guns, then we have to legalize the using of guns as well. And a gun can only be used for one purpose: Killing. You can try to trot out statistics about how most gunshot wounds aren't lethal, but that's not the point. The gun is designed to kill. That is it's entire purpose. I believe that objects and substances whose sole purpose is the destruction of another human being should be heavily restricted to those who are known to be of sound mind and body. We wouldn't let just anyone buy arsenic or cyanide, either, would we?

The argument made on the basis of morality might be able to go somewhere, but as you've presented it I have to disagree. Guns can be used for sporting, and they can be used for hunting. While I'm not a huge fan of hunting, it's a necessity in many parts of the USA in order to keep deer populations in check (and possibly other animal species, but deer is the big on in the Northeast).

This line of reasoning is also problematic with some other things. For example, should archery be banned? Bows and arrows were designed for killing. Should swords and sword-based arts be banned? Swords were designed for killing. A gun is a much more efficient killing tool than either of those, but looking at morality alone, those two (and others like them) should be banned, no?

[Liddo-kun]

Is this thread only for those who live in the U.S?

I don't own a gun, but my dad has one and it's mostly kept at home. He told me once the secret hiding place where the gun is kept, and to quickly get it in the emergency that someone should break into the house. With that being said. I don't know if I could fire a gun properly if the situation arise (hopefully such a situation never happens). I always make sure all the doors are properly locked at night, before I sit in front of the comp as an added precaution.

[Irenicus]

A little contribution from the Net about the strictest gun control law in the world:

[Warning: link in PDF]
An English Introduction to the Japanese Firearms and Sword Control Law, as it stood in the year 2000.

The article is short, the law's provisions are organized into tables, the focus of the analysis being on the provisions themselves and the motivations of the Japanese government, with few examples of the methods of enforcement.

What must be noted, and is beyond the scope of the review (which was only meant to "translate" to Westerners the specifics of this law), is that the law is merely one pillar of a much larger apparatus. Any debate in the United States which intends to direct policy towards reducing the rate of homicide -- of which Japan's is at a remarkable 1/10th of the United States, per capita -- must be holistic, with gun control being part of the solution. Moreover, many Americans, even the most left-wing, are unlikely to be willing to trade away certain differences such as the Japanese police's broad legal powers in comparison to the United States which allow for much more effective measures of gun control to be enforced. And of course, one cannot change geography.

I am not willing to jump into the debate itself, but if I may make an "emotional" statement: some of you are asking me to distrust my government more than I distrust my fellow citizens. As much as I am aware of the pitfalls of power and the United States government's far from spotless human rights record and certain authoritarian behaviors associated with the police authorities among its states, I must ask: why should I trust you more? I am everything which the typical members of American "citizens' militias" dislike: a minority, an immigrant, poor, liberal, pro-gun control, "pro-abortion," anti-clerical atheist. Why should I trust you? Why, when the ascension of President Obama four years ago, amidst inspired hopes among my peers, were accompanied by an immediate and alarming rise in right wing terrorist activity, and when the current President is under at least three times more death threats than the previous? When so many of you truly believe, pushed as you are by media influence from the likes of Fox News, with intensely confrontational rhetoric, that you are on the verge of being oppressed, threatened, to lose everything you'd ever know, and therefore more than willing to fight back? Frankly, in the hypothetical and implausible situation that paramilitary violence breaks out in the United States, I have absolutely no reason to expect better treatment from the statistical owners of civilian firearms in the United States than from the current regime.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I am not willing to jump into the debate itself, but if I may make an "emotional" statement: some of you are asking me to distrust my government more than I distrust my fellow citizens. As much as I am aware of the pitfalls of power and the United States government's far from spotless human rights record and certain authoritarian behaviors associated with the police authorities among its states, I must ask: why should I trust you more? I am everything which the typical members of American "citizens' militias" dislike: a minority, an immigrant, poor, liberal, pro-gun control, "pro-abortion," anti-clerical atheist. Why should I trust you? Why, when the ascension of President Obama four years ago, amidst inspired hopes among my peers, were accompanied by an immediate and alarming rise in right wing terrorist activity, and when the current President is under at least three times more death threats than the previous? When so many of you truly believe, pushed as you are by media influence from the likes of Fox News, with intensely confrontational rhetoric, that you are on the verge of being oppressed, threatened, to lose everything you'd ever know, and therefore more than willing to fight back? Frankly, in the hypothetical and implausible situation that paramilitary violence breaks out in the United States, I have absolutely no reason to expect better treatment from the statistical owners of civilian firearms in the United States than from the current regime.

I certainly hope you're not implying that everyone who's pro-2nd amendment is a Faux-News watching neo-con terrorist?

I'm a minority, immigrant, certainly not rich, neither liberal nor conservative, pro-choice, agnostic, and I'm very much pro-2nd amendment, hardly the stereotype you've implied here. TBH, your reverse fear mongering isn't any better than the usual stuff that comes from the right wingers.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I'm quite happy to say that I am able to live my life without ever feeling any fear(except when I want to talk to an incredibly attractive woman). Certainly, I never exit my house planning out contingencies for if I got attacked. I have more profitable things to think about.

Great, but I hope you realize that everyone have very different life experiences. I also don't live my life being afraid, but I'm well-aware of what CAN happen. I live in a pretty decent suburb in one of the more affluent county in the US, we don't have any major crime issues, but break-ins do happen (right next door as a matter of fact), nor is murder something unheard of, which is normal given the size of the city.

Maybe you've just been so lucky that all your life you've only ever seen the good side of humanity, and that's great for you. Me on the other hand have seen both the good and the bad. I don't live in fear, but I'm also not ignorant of what can happen.

Granted, yours is the more typical attitude in the general population. Those of us who've dealt with risk/emergency management etc. knows that one really ought to plan for the unexpected, yet how many people even bother keeping an emergency kit in their car? or even a simple plan for family members to meet up during an emergency, where cell phone service is likely to be out or extremely unreliable?

You can live your life however you want, but I find it insulting when you categorically label everyone who have decided to be more prudent or keeping their options open as "living in fear".

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

We should take care not to trivialize death. Shooting a guy dead who just wants money from your wallet might be described by some as self defence. To me, that seems a lot more like disproportionate retribution. We must separate the material from the spiritual. If I lose 100 bucks in a mugging, my beard just got shaved. But you know what? It will grow back. But if I take his life, that can never be returned. And furthermore, how will I be able to face his family in the court room, learning that he was only stealing to feed his starving children?

I can't speak for others, but I for one don't trivialize death, I've stared at its face more times than most(those that lives in 1st world countries anyway) ever would, and I'm very much aware of the nature, capability, and limitation of firearms.

Your line of logic here is inherently flawed, since when did the right to protect yourself became a tug-of-war between what you'd lose versus what the attacker would lose? between life, dignity, properties, who gets to decide what is worth more to any person? Should potential rape victim not use deadly force to fight back because a rape is not as "final" or bad as death? Should an old man not be able to fight back against home burglars who would take everything he owes? It's one thing to throw out just a single scenario to support your argument, but you need to consider the potential implications behind the reasoning of your argument.

And just to entertain your scenario, if the man had threatened me or others with a deadly force, whether it be a knife or a firearm, then I would not feel guilty at all, whatever his reason may be.

[Lost Cause]

@Ledgem"I'm taking the time to read what you write and then I take the time to give you a response because I'm interested in what you have to say, and I'm interested in hearing what you think about what I have to say. With the sentiment that you've displayed you have completely blown me off and disrespected me. I hope that you simply wrote it in an emotional outburst, but please do not say such a thing again. If what I write riles you up, please take a few minutes to cool down before penning your response. We cannot have a meaningful discussion otherwise."
If I had completely done the above I'd wouldnt have said what I said! Nor do you need to be condescending or patronizing. I have worked hard to get where I am today, and while the gun isn't the most important part of my life, it's a part of it none the less!
Maybe I was out of line with the post count and rep thing, BUT despite everything that has been said here it's still the "ban them all" line that keeps popping up.
So I must ask, did you witness a horrific gun related accident? Is that why your against them so much?
And if you are reading my posts you'll have noticed that the words TRAINING and RESPONSIBILITY are used quite often by me. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART OF LIFE ITSELF! As you well know I have three children and am married to an active duty Marine, guns are a part of this household and I see men and women everyday carrying firearms, be they rifles, or pistols. So yeah guns flourish around here. And I'm quite proud of our Armed Forces for what they do. But back to the topic.
I can remember a time when I never gave a thought to having or owning a gun, my Daddy gave me his old .45 when I left for college but not before teaching me how to shoot it and maintain it...yeah it scared the hell out of me at first, but during my first year a close friend of mine was brutally raped and left for dead by her boyfriend. That changed me and I took the responsibility of protecting myself more seriously from then on!
And while you admit your open to guns for sporting purposes. So what's your stance on concealed carry?
And by the way, I've been studying Aikido for three years too.
As to legalizing the carrying of a gun, the law is: it only to be used as a last resort and in the gravest extreme. In other words you WILL have to articulate why you did what you did before a judge and possibly a jury! There are repercussions if you screwed up, I suggest you both do a little research into the subject. It isn't as easy as it seems, as you will be fingerprinted, have a background search done, and have to attend a class and shoot on a range to show your proficient.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Maybe I was out of line with the post count and rep thing, BUT despite everything that has been said here it's still the "ban them all" line that keeps popping up.

You're misreading me. Go back and re-read my posts, and you'll see that I have been very consistent about using the term reducing when I talk about guns in society. I have not been arguing for a full-out ban. If we talk about types of guns and ammunition, I might be inclined to say that certain things should be fully banned, though.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

So I must ask, did you witness a horrific gun related accident? Is that why your against them so much?

Why should it be something personal? I look at the numbers and read the news, and I see tragedies that seem like they should be preventable. Who wouldn't want to prevent them?

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

And if you are reading my posts you'll have noticed that the words TRAINING and RESPONSIBILITY are used quite often by me. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART OF LIFE ITSELF!

And I agree with you. However, training and responsibility don't prevent people from losing their tempers, developing mental illnesses, or flat out making mistakes. I think we already discussed this and you agreed with me on this point.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

So what's your stance on concealed carry?

Haven't given it much thought. If you want my raw impression, I'd say that if you're allowed to carry a gun, you might as well be able to conceal it. But I don't have any reasoning for that - it's just my initial impression.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

As to legalizing the carrying of a gun, the law is: it only to be used as a last resort and in the gravest extreme. In other words you WILL have to articulate why you did what you did before a judge and possibly a jury! There are repercussions if you screwed up, I suggest you both do a little research into the subject.

Yes, there are legal repercussions... but look, if a man kills someone wrongly, a court can convict him and sentence him to what ever punishment the judge sees fit, but that won't bring his victim back from the dead. The entire point of reducing the number of guns in society is to prevent scenarios like that from occurring in the first place. I know that GundamFan seems to think that people only behave themselves because of laws; whether you share that idea or not, I think you will agree that someone who is mentally unstable or who feels like their life is meaningless won't care much for laws and any potential punishment. It does nothing to help their victims.

[Ithekro]

The question to ask is: would the reduction of legal gun sales reduce or increase the number of victims? And do those killed from defensive fire still count as victims if they were the ones threatening harm of person or property in the first place (before self-defense kicked in and ended the situation)?