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

[KnightofChrist]

So the party that supports the death penalty, carved out the legal space for torture, and launched the war in Iraq is the party of life?

Nope. But it doesn't change the hypocritical stance of the Party of Death.

[Socrates]

 

Definitely wouldn't trust those guys with guns.

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."

 

Excellent point, although books were definitely available at the time of the framing (and had been for many centuries), as were newspapers (though not containing "modern" features such as photographs).  [/quibble]

[Socrates]

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. 

 

It's not actually as simple as that.  I remember an article I linked to on a debate on this topic last year (unfortunately, I don't currently have it available) which pointed out that the murder rate in New York was always considerably higher than that of London - going back long before either city had anti-gun laws.  However, in the years since the passing of very strict gun laws in London, homicide rates have actually risen.  

 

Many of the U.S. cities with the strictest handgun laws also have the highest homicide rates.

 

Some countries with some of the world's highest per-capita gun ownership, such as Switzerland, have some of the lowest homicide rates, while some countries with strict anti-gun laws, such as Mexico and Russia, have some of the highest homicide rates.

 

 

However, even if it were to be decisively proven that "gun-control" laws lower homicide rates (which it has not), I do not believe this would justify the state forcibly depriving citizens of the means to self-defense.

[Socrates]

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 it's the job of politicians in DC to determine exactly what kind of guns everybody needs and doesn't need in every conceivable situation, as well as how much ammo their magazines are allowed to carry, etc.?

 

Whatever happened to the principle of representatives in Washington working for us - we the people - rather than us being treated as peons of the ruling Nanny State, who must make all the decisions for us.

 

  

 

So start hacking away at the root which is the defense and arms industry.

 

So how will this "hacking away" at gun manufacturers be enforced?  By guys with guns?

[PhuturePriest]

It's not actually as simple as that.  I remember an article I linked to on a debate on this topic last year (unfortunately, I don't currently have it available) which pointed out that the murder rate in New York was always considerably higher than that of London - going back long before either city had anti-gun laws.  However, in the years since the passing of very strict gun laws in London, homicide rates have actually risen.  

 

Many of the U.S. cities with the strictest handgun laws also have the highest homicide rates.

 

Some countries with some of the world's highest per-capita gun ownership, such as Switzerland, have some of the lowest homicide rates, while some countries with strict anti-gun laws, such as Mexico and Russia, have some of the highest homicide rates.

 

 

However, even if it were to be decisively proven that "gun-control" laws lower homicide rates (which it has not), I do not believe this would justify the state forcibly depriving citizens of the means to self-defense.

 

Oh, I wasn't saying it would lower homicide rates, I was saying it would lower gun-related homicide rates. But, as you say, it makes the homicide rates rise without them, so basically you are trading something better for something worse.

Edited January 13, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[Winchester]

 

 

So how will this "hacking away" at gun manufacturers be enforced?  By guys with guns?

 

No. Guys with guns and badges.

 

Totally different.

[4588686]

Nope. But it doesn't change the hypocritical stance of the Party of Death.

 

So then really we have two parties of death

[Winchester]

So then really we have two parties of death

 

I'd say it's one party with two slightly different factions.

[4588686]

No. Guys with guns and badges.

 

Totally different.

 

I don't know why you keep trying to attack a strawman.  I've said that I support disarming the state as well.  The arms industry could be crushed through legislative means.  Is that backed by men with guns?  Sure. to some extent.  Does that matter?  If you don't want to stop the engine that runs the ever increasing militarization of the state then what exactly do you want?  Just complain about the way things are without doing anything to substantively change them? 

[Winchester]

I don't know why you keep trying to attack a strawman.  I've said that I support disarming the state as well.  The arms industry could be crushed through legislative means.  Is that backed by men with guns?  Sure. to some extent.  Does that matter?  If you don't want to stop the engine that runs the ever increasing militarization of the state then what exactly do you want?  Just complain about the way things are without doing anything to substantively change them? 

 

So, to some extent, it's not a strawman.

[Jacen Marx]

Without guns you wouldn't need to worry about all of that in the first place.

 

You don't need a gun to kill a bunch of people at a school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20765528

[4588686]

You don't need a gun to kill a bunch of people at a school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20765528

 

Nobody was killed in that attack. 

[Jacen Marx]

Nobody was killed in that attack. 

 

That is besides the point.  It would have been extremely easy for all of these to be fatalities.  It is not hard to kill someone with a knife and they are easy to get a hold of.  You do not need guns to kill people.  You don't even need a weapon.

[Winchester]

It is only inherently immoral for mere citizens to carry self-opening blades, or blades over the sacred length of ______ inches (the sacredness is subject to change, so we will just leave it blank).

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually, that is the point. twenty some could have been killed, but weren't. it's much harder to kill with a knife, or with lesser and lesser deadly guns. eg pistols instead of assault rifles etc. it's much easier to take down someone with a simple knife too, or at least hold them off until police can get there etc.

if the sandy hook person only had a pistol, you can be sure tehre'd have been less deaths. with an AR ban, it'd be very likely his law abding mother wouldn't have had one, and all he'dh ave got was a pistol. if somehow it was such that all he had was a knife, you can be sure it would have been more like the chinese incident... injuries only, not deaths. or at least would have been much very deaths.

 

as to an earlier point about fixing people with mental illness. it's ironice that conservatives suddenly want the government invovled in something, if it's to help them keep there guns. like i said, though, it don't matter... we can use institutions to addresss them and use more gun control. it's worth a shot.

plus i said it might be more effective to just treat mental folks... but i was just agrreeing more for the sa\ke of argument. it's probably more effective just to keep the mentally ill away from guns. itd costs millions if not billions to hire more professionals, do screenings regularly, get drugs for the ill, etc.it's much more straightforward and simple to just keep guns away from mentally ill people.

but, like i said, not reason we can't do both, treat them, and ban from them etc.

[Jacen Marx]

actually, that is the point. twenty some could have been killed, but weren't. it's much harder to kill with a knife, or with lesser and lesser deadly guns. eg pistols instead of assault rifles etc. it's much easier to take down someone with a simple knife too, or at least hold them off until police can get there etc.

if the sandy hook person only had a pistol, you can be sure tehre'd have been less deaths. with an AR ban, it'd be very likely his law abding mother wouldn't have had one, and all he'dh ave got was a pistol. if somehow it was such that all he had was a knife, you can be sure it would have been more like the chinese incident... injuries only, not deaths. or at least would have been much very deaths.

 

as to an earlier point about fixing people with mental illness. it's ironice that conservatives suddenly want the government invovled in something, if it's to help them keep there guns. like i said, though, it don't matter... we can use institutions to addresss them and use more gun control. it's worth a shot.

plus i said it might be more effective to just treat mental folks... but i was just agrreeing more for the sa\ke of argument. it's probably more effective just to keep the mentally ill away from guns. itd costs millions if not billions to hire more professionals, do screenings regularly, get drugs for the ill, etc.it's much more straightforward and simple to just keep guns away from mentally ill people.

but, like i said, not reason we can't do both, treat them, and ban from them etc.

 

If the teachers would have been armed they could have shot the suspect before he killed more students.  And it is not that hard to kill people with a knife.  One slash to the front of the neck and they will suffocate (maybe we should bad knives).  And him having a pistol instead of an AR makes no difference.  They were in a school!  It isn't as if he was sniping these kids.  It was close range.  Pistols are still semi automatic.  They have large clips!!!  That is honestly a terrible argument.  And let us not bring political parties into this argument.  

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not necessarily against arming teacher principals etc. we do that though and engage in mroe gun control.

 

while it's not hard to kill with a knife, it's so much mroe burdensome, that it can signficantly reduce deaths. citing an example where a bunch of people were injured and not killed... is actually in the pro control side of arguments. maybe he didn't know what he was doing with his knife, maybe he was going to fast to do it right... who knows, but we could easily say that it'd be the case for many or most others in that situation if it was for him, and that it's easier to stop someoen with a knife, that it's significcantly more burdensome to teh extent of significantly less death etc etc.

 

i'm not sure how assault rifles work, the legality of them etc. i know there's automatics, some that firea few with with trigger pull, some that you have to pull each shot etc. automatics or ones that shoot many should be banned. (might be the case already, don't know) if it's geared the same as a pistol, perhaps it's not such a big deal to allow them to exist as well.

i had always balked at the proposal of having fewer bullets per magazine... as it's not that hard to just switch magazines, i had said we should just do away with the ARifles. but if they are in fact no worse than pistols, i guess all we can really do is cut down the magazines and hope that that burden will help in some situations. no need for an effectively never ending gun. 

 

if it's too easy to switch manual ARs to automatic etc it could be worth banning them, or if it's to easy to make long magazines. far as i can tell, it's not like that with pistols.

 

at the end of the day if we allowed ARs etc, we should still require more background checks, maybe have more licensing, inventories etc... more like how we treat having a car. (we can have databases of the info not public, sure)

Edited January 14, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

It is only inherently immoral for mere citizens to carry self-opening blades, or blades over the sacred length of ______ inches (the sacredness is subject to change, so we will just leave it blank).

 

Blade length laws are honestly some of the stupidest rules on the books.

In degree though, not in kind. 

 

Luckily we have no such length laws in Canada. :proud: They can take my Manix 2 XL out of my cold dead hands. ;)

 

[4588686]

That is besides the point.  It would have been extremely easy for all of these to be fatalities.  It is not hard to kill someone with a knife and they are easy to get a hold of.  You do not need guns to kill people.  You don't even need a weapon.

 

As somebody who has been attacked by somebody with a knife I would say that I would much rather be attacked with a knife than a gun.  

[PhuturePriest]

Blade length laws are honestly some of the stupidest rules on the books.

In degree though, not in kind. 

 

Luckily we have no such length laws in Canada. :proud: They can take my Manix 2 XL out of my cold dead hands. ;)

 

 

It's illegal for me to carry around a knife longer than six inches in Kansas.