Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[superblue]

You don't need a bullet to bash someone's head in with a blunt object. But your blunt object won't be much help against a person with a semi or automatic gun.

Guns are too expensive, so are bullets... I am a horrible shot now; and for some reason I just do not enjoy guns any more nor would I want to own one. Though, if I was in a horrible area, prone to gang violence I would want a semi automatic rifle or a shotgun, I  do not enjoy pistols at all nor are they good for jack.   I am though going to invest in some good zombie weapons, cross bows, knifes , already have a short sword but I dunno if it is of good quality. The only thing I would be okay with is rules governing Gun Shows, I don't think a gun show should be a place where any shmuck can walk in an buy a gun like it is a bloody Walmart .  There really doesn't need to be any more than that considering all one has to do is change the laws regarding back ground checks to purchasing guns. But all these statics is nothing but smoke and mirrors, each side trying to out prove the other.  The problem with creating new regulations and testing it, is who decides to say okay it has been long enough to say this didn't work we need to change it, because if we are going by that logic, we have a lot of government programs in place, that started with good intent, and have flat lined a long time ago and are still running.  I use to be very fearful of losing the second amendment, and increasing gun laws, but  I am finding some truths about myself, first I am more inclined to not want or use a gun if I absolutely do not need to or have too. An if things hit the fan, I can always find a way to acquire a gun if I absolutely had too legal or not. That and the world is flooded with guns, people can find one if it comes down to it.

Though this topic at this point in time is the same magic trick that happens time and time again, smoke and mirrors, distract peoples attention while moving who knows what past the publics nose in the middle of the night.  I am politically more interested in seeing North Korea freed ,  stopping human trafficking ,  and limiting presidential executive action powers.  An I would add if anything needs to be removed from the market immediately ,   how about all pellet guns of any kind... even toy guns...Those pellet guns even with a colored tip constantly look like their lethal counter part, they get kids killed all the time by police and the police get blamed for not being able to tell the difference.   Toy guns would be near impossible to do away with , But it is probably a good idea to consider the cowboy toy gun a nostalgic item, and let it become a collectors item for people to get rich off down the road. All toy guns  and pellet guns do is emphasis to children this idea of fun with what is a weapon.  Guns should always be shown as a weapon and as a lethal object to be treated seriously. Every gun safety advocate should get on board with that to no end and as a society we should demand better.  The gaming industry has also become too violent in all aspects, I use to be a fan of GTA; not any more.  Society no longer demands quality, quality tv programs or anything. The gaming industry is just as lazy to not come up with quality story lines and instead relies on war games, and etc.

 I would rather see an end to toy and pellet guns first, before emphasizing anything else.

 

 

[Anomaly]

12 hours ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

it's an outlier because when you compare jursidicitions you see a trend. just look at all the links i provided that show that link between guns and murders. if the USA doesn't follow the correlation itself, it's an outlier to everyone else and to the bigger picture. 

" Lets discuss responsible gun ownership instead of attempting to pursue reducing the hundreds of millions of guns.   That is what facts indicate.   "

what do the facts indicate? that we should focus on responsible gun ownership which i assume means restrictions on guns instead of confiscation? the facts support both restrictions and confiscation. there's no reason both can't be discussed 

here is an example of your lack of reason. "i say people eat fruit. you say bob doesnt eat fruit and hasn't for decades. therefore people don't eat fruit because bob doesn't, and bob isn't an outlier to everyone else because he hasnt been eating fruit for decades?"

that's how you sound. 

Dairy, 

You are a special thinker.   Your example is more confused, irrelevant, and meaningless than usual   But you are enthusiastic!

Your logic is similar to proposing Prohibition again to address drunk drivers.   You aren't going to confiscate 310,000,000 guns and eliminate guns ownership in the US to eliminate the vastly small percentage that commit violent acts with guns.  

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

my example was right on point. you say bob doesn't eat fruit and hasn't for decades. you say america doesn't follow the gun murder correlation. you say america isn't an outlier cause it hasn't for decades followed that trend. you misunderstand that the outlier is the fact that the usa doesn't follow the trend of other countries and states, what its done for decades is just as irrelvant here as it is with bob not eating fruit. 

maybe gun bans are like prohibition? if we banned and confiscated alcohol, we might surmise that drinking and drinking and driving would go down. of course there would be a black market in both scenarios. i dont know about alcohol, but it's not so far fetched to think we could get our homicide levels down to something like the european union for example.  a lot of even ardent gun supporters say they would consider changing their view if it meant eighty percent of murders would go down. almost every single one of them believes though that it's mistaken to think we can get down to that level. i too have reservations about confiscation and the reduction amount, but i dont see how we can't be open to the idea. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by dairygirl4u2c

[KnightofChrist]

What about Bob?

[Ice_nine]

I'm undecided. I used to lean more libertarian. I still hate the federal government and everything they stand for, and still believe they are woefully incompetent, but if they could actually create and enforce laws that limited violence, I would be ok with that, even if it meant restricting individual liberties. I just seriously doubt their ability to do so.

But we're deluding ourselves thinking we have any sway with the lawmakers, so it essentially does not matter what we think the gun laws should be. It only matters how willing we are to follow the laws they hand down to us.

[KnightofChrist]

I think we can all be assured of one thing, the rich, the powerful and the politicians will never give up their firearms, and they will never do so because they will not leave themselves unprotected.

The struggle for the Right to Bear Arms has a long and rich history, a very Catholic history by the way, it took many of years, wars and deaths of not-so-rich men to force governments to recognized the right. David B. Kopel wrote an very detail historical and Catholic centered paper on this subject entitled "The Catholic Second Amendment." Everyone here should read it, and not just the hickville NRA roobs lol.

[Nihil Obstat]

Thank you for that link.

[Not A Real Name]

I think the gun death toll data itself needs to distinguish between which deaths are caused by legal gun owners and their registered firearms vs. deaths caused by wepons which were obtained illegally.  Are there any statistics which show this?  I must admit I haven't read through every post, so if someone has listed a source like this then just point me to the page.

As one SWAT officer from Florida told me, "Strict gun laws take away firearms from responsible gun owners, and gives more power to criminals who neither care about the law or the rights of others."  

Frankly until I see data showing that legal guns owners kill more people than those who obtained their guns illegally, then I will never be open to the possibility of strict gun laws or a ban on guns.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Not A Real Name

[PhuturePriest]

I think the application of gun control laws would be a uniquely difficult endeavor. It worked in Australia and Britain, but America literally has half the world's guns. The large majority of citizens have them, and they have them in abundance. Even though I am for gun control legislation, I'm just not sure how it would be effectively applied in America. 

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

I think the application of gun control laws would be a uniquely difficult endeavor. It worked in Australia and Britain, but America literally has half the world's guns. The large majority of citizens have them, and they have them in abundance. Even though I am for gun control legislation, I'm just not sure how it would be effectively applied in America. 

It could be done in America, it would just require stronger and greater use of targeted authoritarianism than in Australia and Britain; and it is indeed a form of authoritarianism (using force to strip individual liberties) we are talking about if we use Australia and Britain as the examples the US should follow. For many in the Untied States it would require the police to kick in the doors of American citizens homes and strip them of their property. Because they are not going to surrender their liberties. And the way the police are so high strung today and the number of shooting deaths by police it would also likely result in a high number of deaths of citizens.

So yes, it can indeed be done and probably rather effectively, it would just require the state to put its boot on the necks of gun owners and a fair amount bloodshed. We can't strip people of rights and liberties without getting our hands dirty. Well probably not the advocates of gun control like that of Australia and Britain, they can hide safely behind a state appointed official with a gun as he forces others to give up their guns.

Edited January 7, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[PhuturePriest]

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

It could be done in America, it would just require stronger and greater use of targeted authoritarianism than in Australia and Britain; and it is indeed a form of authoritarianism (using force to strip individual liberties) we are talking about if we use Australia and Britain as the examples the US should follow. For many in the Untied States it would require the police to kick in the doors of American citizens homes and strip them of their property. Because they are not going to surrender their liberties. And the way the police are so high strung today and the number of shooting deaths by police it would also likely result in a high number of deaths of citizens.

So yes, it can indeed be done and probably rather effectively, it would just require the state to put its boot on the necks of gun owners and a fair amount bloodshed. We can't strip people of rights and liberties without getting our hands dirty. Well probably not the advocates of gun control like that of Australia and Britain, they can hide safely behind a state appointed official with a gun as he forces others to give up their guns.

I'm afraid you're showing a bit of ignorance here. At least in Australia, they got rid of guns primarily by two means: 1) buying them from citizens, which was the regular means, and 2) the citizens themselves overwhelmingly wanted the guns gone, and they gave them to local authorities themselves. If you Google it you will find pictures of citizens throwing their guns on huge mounds of firearms, all willingly given. I have not heard of policeman forcibly taking any guns away in Australia. I'm sure Britain was much the same, but I can't speak as confidently on it. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Maximilianus]

I don't get this post... Maybe my Spanglish is off.

KOC said that unlike Oz and GB it would take potentially violent measures from the State to disarm the Yanks, because Yanks would scream "Malon Labe" and not willingly give up their arms. And you just kind of supported that.

 

[PhuturePriest]

3 minutes ago, Maximilianus said:

I don't get this post... Maybe my Spanglish is off.

KOC said that unlike Oz and GB it would take potentially violent measures from the State to disarm the Yanks, because Yanks would scream "Malon Labe" and not willingly give up their arms. And you just kind of supported that.

 

I think there's communication confusion. KOC's first paragraph seems to imply in Australia and Britain gun control was no big deal, but in his second paragraph he implies otherwise. 

"We can't strip people of rights and liberties without getting our hands dirty. Well probably not the advocates of gun control like that of Australia and Britain, they can hide safely behind a state appointed official with a gun as he forces others to give up their guns."

That's where my confusion is stemming from. Perhaps KOC can clarify. I probably misunderstood what he meant. 

Regardless, I think he has a valid point. I do think taking away guns in America would be incredibly difficult, as many people have been drenched in the gun culture since they were a babe. Quite literally. There are pictures like this:

And who can forget other gems like this:

(Seriously. Why isn't there more outcry about stuff like this from the NRA and others? I know you all probably find this as sickening as I do.)

But I digress.

People cling to their guns like they're a fugitive stranded in Iraq. I honestly don't understand this. Then again, I'm sure you can ascertain from my avatar that I'm not exactly a person who thinks Mel Gibson's The Patriot is the most inspiring and important film of all time. I don't like the gun culture, and quite honestly I find it incredibly unhealthy. But I can't get rid of it, and I also think the gun culture means it's pretty much impossible to take away firearms without bloodshed. 

But that's also why I have never advocated for taking away guns. We have half the guns in the world. It would be a bit difficult to do that even if I wanted to. I have only ever advocated for common sense gun regulation. When we have regular massacres every year, I think it's time to rethink our gun regulation in light of the changing times and modern culture. Stiff legislation does not fair well with fluid and evolving cultures. It is unfortunately no longer 1780, and the musket is no longer the newest in gun technology. 

[KnightofChrist]

15 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

I'm afraid you're showing a bit of ignorance here. At least in Australia, they got rid of guns primarily by two means: 1) buying them from citizens, which was the regular means, and 2) the citizens themselves overwhelmingly wanted the guns gone, and they gave them to local authorities themselves. If you Google it you will find pictures of citizens throwing their guns on huge mounds of firearms, all willingly given. I have not heard of policeman forcibly taking any guns away in Australia. I'm sure Britain was much the same, but I can't speak as confidently on it. 

Yeah, and I'm sure they showered the authorities with flowers and danced in the streets too. Nice sounding sunshine happiness propaganda. But the reality is darker than that, and I'm not the one who's shown his ignorance. The Australian the buyback program was compulsory, that means by force, with threats of fines and imprisonment. The only reason there was a buyback was because the Australia constitution requires that the government payback its citizens for property it takes from them. Australia's Firearms Act also gives police the power to enter and search, without a warrant, any property that they suspect of containing firearms which can then be seized. Also according to Australian ABC news organization who's source is the Australian Crime Commission most guns seized by police, note seized not given in, were registered and/or not surrendered.

[KnightofChrist]

16 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

I think there's communication confusion. KOC's first paragraph seems to imply in Australia and Britain gun control was no big deal, but in his second paragraph he implies otherwise. 

"We can't strip people of rights and liberties without getting our hands dirty. Well probably not the advocates of gun control like that of Australia and Britain, they can hide safely behind a state appointed official with a gun as he forces others to give up their guns."

That's where my confusion is stemming from. Perhaps KOC can clarify. I probably misunderstood what he meant. 

Regardless, I think he has a valid point. I do think taking away guns in America would be incredibly difficult, as many people have been drenched in the gun culture since they were a babe. Quite literally. There are pictures like this:

And who can forget other gems like this:

(Seriously. Why isn't there more outcry about stuff like this from the NRA and others? I know you all probably find this as sickening as I do.)

But I digress.

People cling to their guns like they're a fugitive stranded in Iraq. I honestly don't understand this. Then again, I'm sure you can ascertain from my avatar that I'm not exactly a person who thinks Mel Gibson's The Patriot is the most inspiring and important film of all time. I don't like the gun culture, and quite honestly I find it incredibly unhealthy. But I can't get rid of it, and I also think the gun culture means it's pretty much impossible to take away firearms without bloodshed. 

But that's also why I have never advocated for taking away guns. We have half the guns in the world. It would be a bit difficult to do that even if I wanted to. I have only ever advocated for common sense gun regulation. When we have regular massacres every year, I think it's time to rethink our gun regulation in light of the changing times and modern culture. Stiff legislation does not fair well with fluid and evolving cultures. It is unfortunately no longer 1780, and the musket is no longer the newest in gun technology. 

Should we also in effect ban or severely curtailing the First Amendment due to religious extremism/terrorism? I could also make the same argument in favor of banning or severely curtailing the First Amendment that you have made in favor of banning or severely curtailing the Second Amendment. Because I could also argue as you do that the thousands and tens of thousands of deaths each year due to religious extremism/terrorism is unacceptable. I could also find numerous images of children holding weapons as well as wearing military attire taken by religious extremists/terrorism. In effect I could just swap out some of your words and phrases against the Right to Bear Arms and use it for an argument against the right to Freedom of Religion. If we can severely restrict or even ban the rights of gun owners because a small number (in comparison) of evil men do evil things with guns, then logically we can also severely restrict or even ban the rights of religious persons because a small number (in comparison) of evil men do evil things with religion. I could make this argument but I won't, not in a serious manner, because I unlike you do not support authoritarianism.