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.

[4588686]

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.

 

Right.  If somebody resist with deadly force then the police can legally use deadly force to defend themselves.  There are abusive enforcement and the police force is being increasingly militarized, yet one more reason to seriously restrict the arms industry, but none of this supports your original insinuation that in our society illegally owning a gun is a capital offense.  

I wonder which industries spend the most money lobbying state, local, and federal officials to beef up the capacities of their police forces.   

[4588686]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-war-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/#

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/police-militarization-9-11-september-11_n_955508.html

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Jesus_lol]

That is weird that cars and alcohol are not regulated and restricted.

 

 

I would be much more inclined towards restrictions on function or class of gun if the military and police abided by the same restrictions.

 

 

 

Do you think any of the cops or soldiers in canada have a handgun with a mag pinned to 10 rounds? Do any of the undercover cops try concealing guns with 4 inch barrels or longer? would a SWAT team bust down pot grower's houses with AR15's that only have 5 round mags in them?

 

why not? Oh, all of a sudden those things are necessary in any occassion where you might actually need to be using a gun? what a surprise.

 

Do you think politicians would be fine if their body guards werent allowed to carry pistols?

Edited January 12, 2013 by Jesus_lol

[4588686]

I would be much more inclined towards restrictions on function or class of gun if the military and police abided by the same restrictions.

 

 

I'm completely on board with demilitarizing the police and hacking away at the defense industry.  

 

 

Do you think any of the cops or soldiers in canada have a handgun with a mag pinned to 10 rounds? Do any of the undercover cops try concealing guns with 4 inch barrels or longer? would a SWAT team bust down pot grower's houses with AR15's that only have 5 round mags in them why not? Oh, all of a sudden those things are necessary in any occassion where you might actually need to be using a gun? what a surprise.  Do you think politicians would be fine if their body guards werent allowed to carry pistols?

 

Need a gun in what context?  People need guns in Aurora NC.  But a double barrel shotgun can handle most of those situations.  Those restrictions would be unworkable for a police department in a context with a pot dealer and his friends can have the firepower of a small army.  And vica versa.  It's a security spiral.  So start hacking away at the root which is the defense and arms industry.  

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

Right.  If somebody resist with deadly force then the police can legally use deadly force to defend themselves.  There are abusive enforcement and the police force is being increasingly militarized, yet one more reason to seriously restrict the arms industry, but none of this supports your original insinuation that in our society illegally owning a gun is a capital offense.  

I wonder which industries spend the most money lobbying state, local, and federal officials to beef up the capacities of their police forces.   

 

Not at all what I described. Refusal to comply with gun laws isn't aggressive. The aggression takes place when one attempts to enforce the gun law. Possession of a rifle that is under an arbitrarily set length, or of a magazine that holds more than an arbitrarily defined limit of rounds isn't aggression. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. You can say it's moral to commit an act of aggression against someone possessing these weapons, but you can't turn mere possession of a weapon into an act of aggression.

 

If you ask me to give up my property, and I refuse, if you then use force in an attempt to make me give it up, you initiated violence. If you put on a costume and do this, it remains that you initiate the violence. You may well believe a special subset of humanity is permitted to initiate violence.