Various Stances on Gun Control Policy

[LibraLabRat]

I have some for self defense, some for hunting, some for target shooting, and some are just cool....like my Mosin Nagant with the cruciform bayonet.....

But as I said before, I dont have to justify why I want or need guns. And the sex drive is fine, as is the ability to maintain an erection....as it was when I didnt own any guns at all.

[Capellini]

Personally, I don't like guns. I see no reason for anyone to have a gun. When I think of people who want guns, I think of vigilante trigger-happy rednecks. Also I have never understood people who enjoy shooting things. I think gun rights are sort of outdated.

However, I understand that even though other people have different ideas than me, they have rights I should respect. Therefore, it should be legal to own guns as long as people have to get a permit and prove their responsibility.

Do you have to "prove your responsibility" to own a car? Not really, or there would not be about a hundred times more people getting killed from car accidents every year than from guns.

Gun crimes are committed by criminals. So the solution is better crime control, not more gun control.

It's called a road test. And a speeding ticket. And moving violations, insurance fees, points on your license, and the obligation to be re-tested if the DMV mandates it.

A BIG part of my problem with gun ownership is how many people who want to own a gun, but don't want to take responsibility for that ownership.

"Not only should I have the right to shoot someone who is trying to shoot me, I should have the right to shoot someone who I think is trying to shoot me, someone who my neighbor said might try and shoot me, someone I hallucinated tried to shoot me, someone who looked at me funny, someone who pointed a Bic pen menacingly in my direction, someone who sneezed on me . . . "

I don't think the right to own a gun should automatically confer the right to use it.

[dukes]

As for the statement that guns should be as hard to get as cars, I'm curious as to the number of people killed by guns vs. cars. I'd only be willing to agree with that if its much higher for guns.

That's a good question, but I'd like to ask it a bit differently.

What is the number of people killed by motorists who actually have a legitimate purpose for using a car, compared to the number of people killed by gun users who actually have a legitimate purpose for using a gun?

[Dr. Otis Lansa]

That's a good question, but I'd like to ask it a bit differently.

What is the number of people killed by motorists who actually have a legitimate purpose for using a car, compared to the number of people killed by gun users who actually have a legitimate purpose for using a gun?

Hmm... skip numbers, as the ubiquitiy of autos skews them too much.

Proportion of people killed by gun users with a legitimate purpose for using a gun? Probably astonishingly low for hunting weapons, and much higher for legitimate defensive/offensive users (police, security, military etc.)

Consider that most careful drivers will get in at least one minor accident in their lives, but most careful gun users probably won't have an accidental discharge. Intentional fatalities are probably lower with autos, but that's mainly because using a car as a weapon is a good way to kill yourself, unless you're running down a pedestrian (happened here on New Year's Eve).

[Capellini]

But the sole purpose of a car is not to kill someone. A car is a tool, a gun is a weapon.

[LibraLabRat]

But the sole purpose of a car is not to kill someone. A car is a tool, a gun is a weapon.

Emotional blather.

A gun is a tool. It is made of metal, and wood. It has a purpose. I can kill someone very easily with a claw hammer, or a brick, or a sharpened stick.....

A gun is a tool. It cannot kill a person without a person USING it for that purpose. Guns do not cause people to become evil killing machines.

Lets keep to the facts, please.

[Capellini]

Emotional blather my ass. A gun is designed to shoot someone. That is its job. I can kill someone with a hammer, but that is not what it's designed to do. Hammers are for driving nails, cars are for personal transportation, and guns are for shooting people. Anything that's SOLE PURPOSE is to HARM another HUMAN BEING should have a HIGHER DEGREE of regulation than something that's SOLE PURPOSE is something OTHER than HARMING another HUMAN BEING.

If that isn't obvious, we don't agree on the basic value of human life.

[LibraLabRat]

Emotional blather my ass. A gun is designed to shoot someone. That is its job. I can kill someone with a hammer, but that is not what it's designed to do. Hammers are for driving nails, cars are for personal transportation, and guns are for shooting people. Anything that's SOLE PURPOSE is to HARM another HUMAN BEING should have a HIGHER DEGREE of regulation than something that's SOLE PURPOSE is something OTHER than HARMING another HUMAN BEING.

If that isn't obvious, we don't agree on the basic value of human life.

We do not agree on the basic purpose of a firearm. So you are basically saying because I own several different firearms, I want several different ways to kill other human beings. Come on, I know you are more intelligent than that, and can come up with an argument that is based on a little more logic.

The DOJ itself shows that more people are killed by blunt objects than anything else. Guns are tools. Guns cannot do anything without a human being behind them. And for the record, more people die every single day from car accidents, and KILL MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE.

I am not going to insult your intelligence by listing all the perfectly legal uses guns have.

[The Meromorph]

we don't agree on the basic value of human life.

I believe it currently averages just a hair over $50,000 in the US.
It's a lot less in Haiti.

A human death costs about $1,000 in Louisville KY, however. I don't know the current minimum price in Nashville TN, but I've heard indications it's as much as $5,000 (Judges are more expensive here )

[Long Gone McGruff]

A gun is a tool. It is made of metal, and wood. It has a purpose. I can kill someone very easily with a claw hammer, or a brick, or a sharpened stick.....

But there is no comparison. Come at me with a hammer, brick etc, at least I've got a chance to fight back. I might be quicker than you. I've got next to none if you come at me with a gun unless I have one too. That sort of arms race is not something I'd want to have to contemplate.

Comparing gun and road deaths is interesting for me since I'm a cyclist and every so often get caught up in a road rage incident. I have to deal with bad driving and real, rip-your-head-off aggression on a regular basis. I've been rammed by vehicles and punched and wrestled by the drivers (all this in busy city-centre streets where everybody stops to gawp but nobody wants to help..). Thankfully I've never been shot at or, worse, felt the need to go out and buy a gun to protect myself. I would have used it. I'd have had to. It's much better for all concerned that the worst possible consequences of a communication breakdown are blood or broken bones not funerals and life sentences.

Obviously personal experience makes for a rather narrow argument but really I'm trying to make a wider point. Homo Sapiens is not renowned for its great patience, compassion and understanding. Putting lethal, point-and-press weapons into the mix just seems insane. Bona fide hunting/agricultural firearms OK but nothing else. We're not to be trusted with that kind of power.

[MusMusculus]

And in the country, I'd rather see the goverment spend money to stop the criminals from getting them, then stopping regular people.

I agree. What is the major way that these guns are getting to the streets?

Though I think that ultimately any gun that is designed to kill a person should be illegal (i'm not a gun expert, but i'm assuming that all guns for sale in the US aren't designed for just hunting deer), I do think that most guns bought legally lead to a minimal amount of deaths (compared to many other things bought legally)*. The problem is that without having a way to keep track of where the guns are going, it might be difficult to track how these guns are getting to the streets.

*although the Wisconsin Assembly just passed a law that will allow 8 year-olds to hunt without any training required... I suddenly see the death rate from accidental shootings rising in my state. (how can our elected officials be so stupid?)

[anon1mat0]

Beyond liking or not firearms, isn't the purpose of the amendment to have a way to succesfully defend the population from tyranny be it internal or external?

Even in guerrilla warfare, and as an example, aren't IEDs in Irak the more successful weapon of the insurgency? If I want to do something about an Abrahams tank isn't a AK-47 as useful as spit? Or against an armored chopper (if I had to face an UH chopper I might try something like throwing an steel mesh to the tail rottor, for example)? Does this means that people should have large amount of explosives or heat seeking rockets for such an event?

IMO, conventional weapons are relatively easy to counteract, the improvised ones OTOH seem to be far more effective for that purpose.

In the end all those techniques are useful if the enemy has some respect for civilian populations if not there is no use against cluster bombs.

I guess what I want to say is that you may keep your guns if that makes you happy but in the event of the kind of war the amendment was written for, training and communications are waaaaay more important.

And luck, lots of it.

[Capellini]

Anyone who wants to shoot a wild boar with a handgun is an idiot.

Please, treat me like an idiot, and tell me what other rational purpose a gun has other than shooting something? And, keep in mind, I already said anyone who wants to shoot a wild boar (or a deer, a wolf, a pheasant, a quail) with a handgun is an idiot. Handguns are for shooting people.




*Praying someone mentions pistol whipping. Oh pretty please.

[Capellini]

Beyond liking or not firearms, isn't the purpose of the amendment to have a way to succesfully defend the population from tyranny be it internal or external?

Even in guerrilla warfare, and as an example, aren't IEDs in Irak the more successful weapon of the insurgency? If I want to do something about an Abrahams tank isn't a AK-47 as useful as spit? Or against an armored chopper (if I had to face an UH chopper I might try something like throwing an steel mesh to the tail rottor, for example)? Does this means that people should have large amount of explosives or heat seeking rockets for such an event?

IMO, conventional weapons are relatively easy to counteract, the improvised ones OTOH seem to be far more effective for that purpose.

In the end all those techniques are useful if the enemy has some respect for civilian populations if not there is no use against cluster bombs.

I guess what I want to say is that you may keep your guns if that makes you happy but in the event of the kind of war the amendment was written for, training and communications are waaaaay more important.

And luck, lots of it.

I believe it is the government's JOB to protect its citizens from each other. I don't see ANYTHING in the second ammendment that even remotely SUGGESTS its got the idea of using firearms for personal protection in mind. Furthermore, I feel the ubiquitous dissemination of firearms for that purpose just lets the government off the hook for its number one purpose, which is protecting my rights from those who would infringe on them. Firearms are for protecting yourself from the government, not from your neighbor. The implications of the idea that you need a gun to protect yourself from your neighbor are sooooooo insanely far-reaching, its another thread unto itself.

Point being, few if any of the people I know who own a gun or want to give a flying fig about protecting themselves or anyone else from the government. Its not their concern, it isn't why they want the firearm in the first place, and it isn't even something that comes to mind when asked why they have one or want one. Its an unbelieavably important symbol that's been almost completely obliterated by a horribly managed gun culture that, like everything else, is ultimately concerned with profits above all else.

[LibraLabRat]

Anyone who wants to shoot a wild boar with a handgun is an idiot.

Please, treat me like an idiot, and tell me what other rational purpose a gun has other than shooting something? And, keep in mind, I already said anyone who wants to shoot a wild boar (or a deer, a wolf, a pheasant, a quail) with a handgun is an idiot. Handguns are for shooting people.




*Praying someone mentions pistol whipping. Oh pretty please.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Handguns can and have been used for hunting. I have killed a deer and more than a few wild pigs with my pistol I have for hunting. Educate yourself on the subject before you go off half cocked.

I do have a handgun for personal defense, it is a small, compact 9mm and its purpose IS to kill people. So far, it hasnt killed anything more than paper targets.

And as far as your backpedalling to claim that guns are for shooting "something" you said shooting PEOPLE.

Handgun hunting is on the same par as black powder and archery. It is a matter of skill. And if you have something BIG like the Casull .454 or the 500 Nitro Express, you can take down a grizzly bear.