Various Stances on Gun Control Policy

Posts that are locked but open for perusal.

Moderator: phpBB2 - Administrators

How much control of privately owned firearms should we havein the USA?

None at all ( Bring on the Rocket Launcher!)
6
21%
Handgun licenses
1
3%
Licenses for ALL guns
13
45%
Nothing except hunting guns
6
21%
Spitball shooters make me nervous
3
10%
 
Total votes : 29

Postby The Meromorph on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:44 pm

Dr. Otis Lansa wrote:(seriously.... what is up with wearing shoes in the house?)


It's so you won't hurt your feet on the loose rounds the kiddies have left on the floor! Get with the program, eh! :mrgreen:

For the record, I have never fired a firearm, dislike them, own one gun and possess two more, usually carry at least two knives, never lock my doors, my youngest son and my brother both are military (one US, the other UK), more of my friends are gay than straight, I admire LLR, and I was trained by lesbians. I also have dogs. And I drive a large SUV.
Laughing in the rain.
Dancing in the desert sand,
Somersaults through life.
User avatar
The Meromorph
Sweet Moderation
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Sailing away to Vindravan, eating my tears with laughter.

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:18 pm

Oy.

In an attempt to not turn this into a screaming match, I will extend this.

While not directly called a redneck, or paranoid, it was strongly implied on more than one post that gun owners are paranoid, and militias should not be composed of "drunk rednecks."

Sorry if I happen to feel that these were directed at me.

However, certain burning questions I have remained unanswered:

WHere is the precedent that a person does not have the right to self defense, armed or otherwise?

Where is the data that shows more guns = more crime? Since I have tried to post data that shows more guns as one of the reasons for less crime....

And finally, I dont lie. Not intentionally anyway. Now, if I have misunderstood things or tried to paraphrase, then I whole heartedly appologize.

Finally, what makes New Yorkers morally superior and more intelligent that they can decide for everyone else that their particular model of gun control works.

Cuz from where I sit, it doesnt look like it works.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Apache, OK

Postby boghog on Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:48 pm

LibraLabRat wrote:WHere is the precedent that a person does not have the right to self defense, armed or otherwise?

If you mean legal precedent, this articleexplains some situations under English law where the mere fact that a person was carrying a weapon had to be justified and found proportional to an imminent threat.

Or do you mean only under US law?

Where is the data that shows more guns = more crime? Since I have tried to post data that shows more guns as one of the reasons for less crime....

And I've posted data that I think shows the opposite.

To me, it seems logical that fewer guns would imply fewer gun crimes; as the old wisdom goes, for a crime to be committed, you need motive, means and opportunity. Having fewer guns in general is one method of trying to reduce the likelihood that someone has the means to commit a crime that has very serious consequences.

I acknowledge that it seems your argument comes at things from a different perspective: that arming potential victims reduces the likelihook of the opportunity for a crime.

Personally, I think the negative impact to society of an armed populace outweighs any benefits.

And I still think, whether it be "pollyannaism" or not, that the best way to get to the root of the problem is to remove motive. Fewer people driven to violent acts would mean fewer violent acts.
Now Hypercaffeinated! Share and Enjoy!

Keep Saturn in Saturnalia!

You catch more flies with BS than you do with honey.
User avatar
boghog
Lord of Linguini
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:04 am
Location: Off yonder

Postby Spatula on Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:03 pm

Lost interest in this discussion a while back, but thought I would pop in to say this:
Image
User avatar
Spatula
Tortellini Third Mate
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:19 am
Location: Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Postby Dr. Otis Lansa on Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:06 pm

boghog wrote:To me, it seems logical that fewer guns would imply fewer gun crimes; as the old wisdom goes, for a crime to be committed, you need motive, means and opportunity. Having fewer guns in general is one method of trying to reduce the likelihood that someone has the means to commit a crime that has very serious consequences.

I acknowledge that it seems your argument comes at things from a different perspective: that arming potential victims reduces the likelihook of the opportunity for a crime.

Personally, I think the negative impact to society of an armed populace outweighs any benefits.

And I still think, whether it be "pollyannaism" or not, that the best way to get to the root of the problem is to remove motive. Fewer people driven to violent acts would mean fewer violent acts.


Fewer gun would mean fewer gun crimes where the criminal is an opportunist who would commit the crime with whatever weapon is most effective and available. Expect to see a spike in stabbings and blunt-object homicides to compensate, especially in domestic violence cases. Criminalizing guns would not prevent well-planned gun crimes (i.e. planned heists or murders), or gun use in criminal organizations.

You're right about removing the motive though, which I suspect where the heart of the US/Canada difference lays. Addressing poverty is another issue in itself.

Anti-trespassing type shootings (like the kid who got shot for crossing his neighbour's lawn, not the break-in-and-cause-harm scenario) and especially gun threats occur out here in Alberta (often landowner/oil company conflicts - my boss has witnessed a murder). These are the kind of homicides that banning guns might help prevent, but they're rare, and often committed with long rifles or shotguns.
Image
User avatar
Dr. Otis Lansa
Mystic of Meatball
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby Capellini on Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:21 pm

But, just because stronger gun control won't end ALL crime, does that mean it isn't worth it for what crime it WOULD prevent?

Just because keeping guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them won't change how many men beat there wives to death doesn't mean I still don't think that guns should be given to people who shouldn't have them.
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby Dr. Otis Lansa on Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:54 pm

While we're at it, can we ban cocaine (including crack), heroin, and methamphetamine, too?

It would cut the crime rate if they weren't available because they were illegal.

:mrgreen:

Seriously, Cap, it's a cost/benefit analysis here... how many deaths would be prevented if (not sure what your actual plan for gun control is) was implemented, and how much would it cost?

Canada brought in rifle/shotgun registration, at a cost of $2 billion, and it did nothing except convince the shadier gun owners to NOT register their guns.

(I know y'all spend that on the military every day before lunch down there, but that's big money up here).

To go back to the ever handy automobile industry, how many deaths are caused every year due to poor vehicle design and inadequate quality control? LOTS. Let's see government regulation on those items first. There'd be a bigger return in terms of death reduction there. Or in the Canadian example, we don't need more policing to prevent murders, we need more resources for councilling the suicidal.

In a society where violent assault is a real possibility (for both you as a NY'er, and LLR as proven by past events), this split in opinion seems to come from what end of the gun you see yourself being on. To shoot straight from the hip, in terms of random muggings in a city environment, it's my opinion that a well-trained gun owner has a higher chance of preventing a mugging, but probably also a greater chance of being shot by a twitchy mugger with a gun. Unless you're Clint Eastwood.
Image
User avatar
Dr. Otis Lansa
Mystic of Meatball
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:04 pm

Which is one of my main points. The anti gun lobby has made this stupid crusade seem like it is going to save millions of innocent lives. More people die in MVAs every day than die in accidental and intentional shootings every month, and that includes the police shooting people.

More people die in a month from medical mistakes than from gun shots all YEAR.

But as I said, gun control makes the people in the urban centers and the burbs feel good, cuz most of them dont own guns, and it doesnt pose them any risk or hardship to ban guns. Making cars safer and more fuel efficient might cost them some of their precious comfort. And any of the other myriad social evils they could spend their time on.

It isnt the crack dealers fault that they are killing each other. Lets blame the guns.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Apache, OK

Postby Dr. Otis Lansa on Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:44 pm

That's my point... if we ban crack, there won't be any drug problems, right?
I don't know why they haven't made hard drugs illegal.


Oh, wait. They ARE illegal. Why are there still drug problems?
Image
User avatar
Dr. Otis Lansa
Mystic of Meatball
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:07 pm

Dr. Otis Lansa wrote:That's my point... if we ban crack, there won't be any drug problems, right?
I don't know why they haven't made hard drugs illegal.


Oh, wait. They ARE illegal. Why are there still drug problems?

They work just as good as the prohibition on Alcohol did....which shot the crime rate through the roof, brought organized crime to America, and caused people to go blind and insane and die from adulterated back woods hooch.

Let me see: COmpletely ban guns, start an illegal arms trade, and numb nuts blowing themselves up trying to create zip guns.

Yeah. :x
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Apache, OK

Postby Moonman on Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:37 pm

Gun safety starts at home, my son has shot his 22 single shot bolt action with me. He has respect for the rifle and I keep it in a safe place. He knows not to play with it. I think this combined with teaching him not to kill people should just about cover it. What worries me are kids that have not been taught gun safety and are being raised as sociopaths. I got rid of my pistol last year when I realized I had no use for it. This summer my son and I are going to take a father/son gun safety class together so he can get his hunting license.

Perhaps teaching gun safety in areas of high gun violence might help some of the youth involved in crime learn respect for weapons and satisfy their couriosity regarding weapons. But I think it's people that kill, not just the weapons.
Everything you know is wrong... "the positivists" or the "Firesign Theater"
Moonman
Stele Second Mate
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:24 pm
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living

Postby The Meromorph on Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:20 am

In my case, It's my youngest son that takes responsibility for my 'gun safety'.
In his considered judgement that results in - Normal situation: Guns are locked away, ammo locked away separately - Rare situation where I reasonably consider a high and imminent probability of armed assault (travelling to work late at night in a bad area in the middle of 'the Bible Belt' in a place where I have heard 'fundies discussing the imminence of 'the End Time' [Night of Y2K] and the possibility of 'have to bring it on'): short barrelled pistol grip shotgun carried loaded (#4 Buck) and racked with safety on and trigger finger outside the guard (and f**ck the objections of the local police).
Laughing in the rain.
Dancing in the desert sand,
Somersaults through life.
User avatar
The Meromorph
Sweet Moderation
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Sailing away to Vindravan, eating my tears with laughter.

Postby Web Stailey on Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:19 am

Just my opinion on the matter, but hand-guns are made for killing humans. That's the only intended purpose of them. However, I don't see how outlawing them will produce any results. We can outlaw the guns all we want, there is no way to prevent people from actually getting the guns. We tried outlawing booze once, and people still drank alcohol. Ban guns and people will still buy them and use them to kill other humans. What we need to do is get the killers off the street. There are people better able to find ways to acomplish that than I, so I won't even begin to speculate how to do that.
Web Stailey
Fusilli Fuselier
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:48 am

Postby LibraLabRat on Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:40 am

Web Stailey wrote:Just my opinion on the matter, but hand-guns are made for killing humans. That's the only intended purpose of them. However, I don't see how outlawing them will produce any results. We can outlaw the guns all we want, there is no way to prevent people from actually getting the guns. We tried outlawing booze once, and people still drank alcohol. Ban guns and people will still buy them and use them to kill other humans. What we need to do is get the killers off the street. There are people better able to find ways to acomplish that than I, so I won't even begin to speculate how to do that.


Which is one of my biggest points. There was an anti gun group in New YOrk in the 1970s that posted signs on their doors that said "GUN FREE HOME". WIthin a few weeks, every one of them had been robbed.

Criminals inside of PRISONS get weapons. Not guns in most cases, but there have been some enterprising cons who have created single shot guns inside of prison.

Ban them, fine. I will just hide mine, along with damn near every other gun owner with a brain. I am not a psycho, but I am also not naive. Criminals like easy prey. I want them to wonder if my house is the one full of guns and an insomniac and keep right on moving.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Apache, OK

Postby Okapi on Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:11 am

I live in a society where guns are rampant and crime is all petty and mostly non-violent. I think that the reasons are two-fold. Most importantly, because in the immediate surroundings of a potential crime scene somebody has a gun and is/was part of a combat unit at some point in the past and therefore knows how to use it (often women, by the way). Second, and often overlooked is the middle eastern concept of shame. In the middle east if you are a criminal, you musn't let on. Crime must be committed with discretion, and is thus limited to the petty. This is because the society here is much more personal that the American/European egalitarian bureacratic model and because Jews and Arabs have very few degrees of separation amongst there own kind (people know people personally and nobody want to enter a feud). Of course there are political maniacs here that like to butcher children in the name of a better world, but that is more of a mental psychosis, not a gun problem.
I have to say, that here most kids grow up with guns in the streets and around the house (older brothers and sisters in the army) and learn early on not to fool around. Early exposure seems to me the best option. We are never going to have a gunless world, nor a gunless society (even if the guns are relegated to the military) so let's not tuck our heads away in the sand. Embracing imperfections in the system is the first step in healing them, like the driving issue. Let kids know that driving is the single most dangerous activity they will ever engage in, and make sure they take in seriously by showing them the consequences (a trip to the hospital is good for the soul). But teach them to drive nonetheless.
Google is God
User avatar
Okapi
Ziti Zealot
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:30 am
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

PreviousNext

Return to Locked Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron