Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[Socrates]

I doubt many handgun owners are hunting with them.

 

Besides the points Anomaly made, there remains the issue of legitimate self-defense.

 

The second amendment was never really about hunting.

[Winchester]

"we're not saying to ban all guns, or make significant stops from ordinary people getting guns, so it's not really like requiring brethalyzers on all cars etc. "

 

and even if we did say to ban all guns, it wouldn't be the same. guns are made to kill, cars aren't. if we could transition to japan with the sparse deaths, we'd effectively be saying that we need or really desire cars for commerce and practical purposes... purposes which guns really serve little purpose for.

 

The commerce of government depends on guns.

[Socrates]

The commerce of government depends on guns.

 

Government is inherently good, benevolent, and trustworthy.

 

Unlike little people.

[Nihil Obstat]

Government is inherently good, benevolent, and trustworthy.

 

Unlike little people.

 

[PhuturePriest]

"we're not saying to ban all guns, or make significant stops from ordinary people getting guns, so it's not really like requiring brethalyzers on all cars etc. "

 

and even if we did say to ban all guns, it wouldn't be the same. guns are made to kill, cars aren't. if we could transition to japan with the sparse deaths, we'd effectively be saying that we need or really desire cars for commerce and practical purposes... purposes which guns really serve little purpose for.

 

Guns ARE made to kill. Cars are not. Isn't it funny how the thing designed to kill does not kill nearly as much as the thing designed not to?

[BG45]

Besides the points Anomaly made, there remains the issue of legitimate self-defense.

 

The second amendment was never really about hunting.

 

Don't know why, but this made me think about the folks who say "the Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets, not the guns we have now". 

 

To which I, an advocate of some gun control, reply, "Then freedom of speech is limited to parchment, because that was all that was available at the time.  It doesn't apply to protest signs, the internet, modern newspapers, books, television, or anything else."

[dairygirl4u2c]

''Guns ARE made to kill. Cars are not. Isn't it funny how the thing designed to kill does not kill nearly as much as the thing designed not to?''

if cars do kill more people, which i suspect is so, it's only because people drive cars all the time, and there's so many cars. etc. it doesn't prove much, cause people drive all the time.
it's kinda like when people say "hammers kill as much as assault rifles'. sure, but there's probably like 350 million hammers, and only a million assault rifles. that'd mean that the assault rifles, while being the same in terms of numbers of deaths, is hundreds of times as likely to cause a death.           

 

as to the issue of self defense. as i said. if we could be like Japan, with so sparse deaths, and a gun ban, we'd be basically protecting the minority right to a gun, at the expense of majority's right to safety. the only reason people need gun defense in this country, is primarily because we protect gun rights to begin with. we have to accept and admit, that when we see school shootings etc such as the recent one at Sandy Hook, that those deaths are the price we pay to protect gun rights. Japan shows that it can be done, a gun ban.
i do acknowledge that getting from here, the USA's current situation, to there, Japan, would be very difficult given our culture, gun attitudes, and the presence of guns everywhere. this is why i don't advocate for a complete gun ban, but would in theory be for it if it seemed feasible.
i and i suspect most peopel would be  for it, if we went from 120000 deaths a year, to 33.

we'd just have to accept the minority's loss of a right of self defnse, in favor of the majroity's right to safety.
there's nothing that says gun rights should inherently exist... as all the conservatives like to expound here, morals and ethics etc are meant to be inserted into the law, here as much as anywhere.

[Winchester]

Is it okay to kill people who refuse to cooperate with the gun laws, but don't do anything aggressive?

[PhuturePriest]

''Guns ARE made to kill. Cars are not. Isn't it funny how the thing designed to kill does not kill nearly as much as the thing designed not to?''

if cars do kill more people, which i suspect is so, it's only because people drive cars all the time, and there's so many cars. etc. it doesn't prove much, cause people drive all the time.
it's kinda like when people say "hammers kill as much as assault rifles'. sure, but there's probably like 350 million hammers, and only a million assault rifles. that'd mean that the assault rifles, while being the same in terms of numbers of deaths, is hundreds of times as likely to cause a death.           

 

as to the issue of self defense. as i said. if we could be like Japan, with so sparse deaths, and a gun ban, we'd be basically protecting the minority right to a gun, at the expense of majority's right to safety. the only reason people need gun defense in this country, is primarily because we protect gun rights to begin with. we have to accept and admit, that when we see school shootings etc such as the recent one at Sandy Hook, that those deaths are the price we pay to protect gun rights. Japan shows that it can be done, a gun ban.
i do acknowledge that getting from here, the USA's current situation, to there, Japan, would be very difficult given our culture, gun attitudes, and the presence of guns everywhere. this is why i don't advocate for a complete gun ban, but would in theory be for it if it seemed feasible.
i and i suspect most peopel would be  for it, if we went from 120000 deaths a year, to 33.

we'd just have to accept the minority's loss of a right of self defnse, in favor of the majroity's right to safety.
there's nothing that says gun rights should inherently exist... as all the conservatives like to expound here, morals and ethics etc are meant to be inserted into the law, here as much as anywhere.

 

Yes, rates of homicide by guns would go down if we had a complete gun ban. Britain has an extremely lower gun homicide rate. But do you know what Britain also has? A much higher violence rate. No guns does not equal no violence, it just equals violence minus guns. I've done karate since I was four. I have known and still know hundreds of people in my life that can kill without a gun with just as much ease. Do not think that people will somehow not figure out how to kill just because they don't have a gun in their hand. In fact, it's easier to get away with it without a gun. Guns make noise, snapping a person's neck from behind does not.

[4588686]

Is it okay to kill people who refuse to cooperate with the gun laws, but don't do anything aggressive?

 

Who has suggested that?

[Winchester]

Who has suggested that?

 

It's a simple question.

[4588686]

It's a simple question.

 

No.  And nobody has suggested that it is.

[Winchester]

No.  And nobody has suggested that it is.

 

Oh, so nobody is suggesting that the gun laws be enforced.

[4588686]

Oh, so nobody is suggesting that the gun laws be enforced.

 

Owning illegal firearms or owning legal firearms in illegal circumstances is a capital offense?  I missed that.  

[Winchester]

Owning illegal firearms or owning legal firearms in illegal circumstances is a capital offense?  I missed that.  

 

 

How are gun laws enforced? I seem to recall a couple of cases of gun law enforcement involving armed men and raids. If there's no chance of death, then we'd send someone to politely ask the person who has not committed any aggressive act to give up their property. When they declined, we'd be on our way. Instead, we have a situation in which someone not committing any act of aggression being met with aggression, and then killed if the person defends himself. Currently, you are subject to deadly force for not complying with the laws against non-aggressive actions.