Gun Control in the USA

[Drew]

Actually I would consider you stark raving mad at this point.

I very much doubt you have any case for this, but we'll see.

So let me get this straight - you press the point of using reasonable logic prior to this latest rant,and now that facts and statistic leaves your argument eviscerated,...

An untrue statement - it is most certainly not well-established that "the facts" leave my argument eviscerated. I suggest that an objective, neutral reader would conclude that neither "side" has really made a "facts-based" case.

you seize the last opportunity available and the one least reasonable..that of resorting to personal insults when your argument fails.How mature.

I am sorry if you are offended. However, my honest belief is that a kind of group behaviour is indeed at work whereby proponents of certain pro-gun positions belief that an otherwise absurd position is not, in fact, absurd simply because other people hold the same belief.

The fact that you and a group of co-workers happen to agree with gun confiscation does not make your "logic" any more sound than it was before.

Please point out specific flaws in the logic of any of my posts.

Nothing will be accomplished by disarming legally armed and law abiding citizens.

This is a statement - can you support it?

I think the notion of stripping away a means of self defense for the average working family is,quite frankly,absurd.

How can it be absurd, given that it is, I suggest, an incontrovertable fact that, in many advanced nations, the "average working family" has no gun at all, and is yet demonstrably safer than the typical American? This is the inconvenient truth that so many gun proponents have to ignore - that it is quite clear that, the "self-defence" argument notwithstanding, people are indeed quite safe indeed in many advanced. And all without having guns to deter anybody.

 

[Drew]

Most the same crowd that wants gun control kills over 3000 a day here in the US. It is not the right to life they want it is the control.

I do not understand your point. Are you referring to abortion? If so, your argument does not really work: The fact that person X may be wrong on the abortion issue (by supporting its legalization) does not make them wrong on the gun issue (if they happen to support gun control).

Any given person will, no doubt, be mistaken on some things and correct on others.

 

[Drew]

You almost sound as though you hope it happens so the ATF can swoop in and take everyone's guns.

It would perhaps be good if there was someone on the pro-gun side that is willing to engage in responsible, fair discussion. Any more remarks like this and you and I are done for good on this issue.

 

[Mike S]

It would perhaps be good if there was someone on the pro-gun side that is willing to engage in responsible, fair discussion. Any more remarks like this and you and I are done for good on this issue.

We've had more than 200 years of discussion on this, and none of it coming from the left has been responsible or fair. It's all done with the goal of eliminating the right to bear arms. I won't speak for TND, but if you directed such a comment as "Any more remarks like this and you and I are done for good on this issue" I'd tell you thank you, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

 

[Drew]

There should be common sense regulations regarding guns. Some weapons in the modern world are simply too destructive for individual citizens to own.

Well, obviously I agree with the "common sense" line. And therefore, I certainly agree that assault weapons should be banned. When challenged to explain why
a general member of the public needs such a gun, the response of the pro-gun advocate usually takes one of two forms:

1. They ignore the question, and invoke the 2nd amendment (how is that an answer to the "why do you need this kind of gun" question?);
2. They provide one of two answers: 1. self-defence; 2. deterrence to government tyranny.

Here is where "common sense" is really not something the pro-gun person will want to deal with. Is it theoretically possible that there might be a self-defence scenario where an AR-15 saves the day where a handgun would not. Of course there is. But 'common sense' strongly suggests that such scenarios are surpassingly uncommon. And the relevant question is this: Compared to such a self-defence scenario, how likely is it that the owner of such a gun will develop a mental illness, or get enraged, and use the weapon for something other than legitimate self-defence? I suggest it is self-evident that the downside of such weapons in the hands of regular citizens outweight the upside of legitimate self-defence. Can I "prove" this? Probably not. And the only way I could make a case to anyone who insists on "hard data" would take more time and work than I am willing to invest, particularly when I am quite convinced that very few pro-gun people (in this forum) are even open to changing their minds.

As for the "deterrence of tyranny" argument: I suggest that it is self-evident that long-running democracies (USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe) are exceedingly unlikely to devolve into tyranny (When has this ever happened? How would such a thing happen?. And even if they did, the military has weapons and tactics and training that would make the AR-15's a mere annoyance.

In all candor, I believe that while it may take time, the fate of the "guns in the hands of citizens" position is doomed. And the reason is this: something really, really terrible will happen - a slaughter that will make Sandy Hook pale in comparison. There are too many crazies out there, seeing all the publicity - someone is going to try to take mass-slaughter to the next level of obscenity, and then revel in the publicity.

Hopefully it will not take such an eventuality, but I expect that it will.

 

[Drew]

We've had more than 200 years of discussion on this, and none of it coming from the left has been responsible or fair. It's all done with the goal of eliminating the right to bear arms. I won't speak for TND, but if you directed such a comment as "Any more remarks like this and you and I are done for good on this issue" I'd tell you thank you, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Fair enough. I am happy to keep posting for the "lurkers".

And you make a patently false statement: It is, of course, inconceivable that no person "on the left" has engaged in "fair and responsible" discussion on this matter.

This is the kind of generalization that cannot be taken seriously.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Very few people (in comparison to the population) have actually used guns to hurt anyone else without a legitimate reason (self defense). I'd say the possibility of someone turning crazy and going murdering is very low.

Citizens certainly don't have any need for weapons designed to kill dozens at once, true. I don't want something like that. I just want to be able to effectively defend myself if someone breaks into my house or something. In such a case, a simple handgun would do.



But if you're looking for debate, when it comes to this subject I am not your person. I try to only debate on topics I know well. Otherwise, I'm a mostly just a spectator who may speak up here and there.

 

[Vanguard]

People keep forgetting a few things that I have already mentioned early on:

1. Less than .5% of registered gun owners commit a violent crime involving a gun. You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver.
2. AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. The military does not use them.
3. There is no such thing as a high capacity clip. Magazines, yes. Clips, no. Members of the anti-gun Congress still use the term clip because they are clueless.
4. A gun by itself is a paperweight. If someone is going to kill someone, they will use whatever TOOL is available to them.
5. Registered gun owners are responsible for keeping their guns locked up and secure.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It would perhaps be good if there was someone on the pro-gun side that is willing to engage in responsible, fair discussion.

Yes, it would be good. Let me know if you find anyone.

It would perhaps be good if there was someone on the pro-gun side that is willing to engage in responsible, fair discussion. Any more remarks like this and you and I are done for good on this issue.

And, as Mark said, I concur. Suits me just fine.

 

[Mike S]

Fair enough. I am happy to keep posting for the "lurkers".

And you make a patently false statement: It is, of course, inconceivable that no person "on the left" has engaged in "fair and responsible" discussion on this matter.

This is the kind of generalization that cannot be taken seriously.

I have never spoken to any leftist, who when asked "If all the gun restrictions you advocate turn out to not end the violence, are you then prepared to resort to total prohibiliton and confiscation of guns?" who didn't answer "Yes!"

We already have very strict gun laws in Connecticut, and it has not prevented such crimes as occurred in Newtown. There is not a single restriction being talked about that would have prevented that crime. I live in a very liberal state, and have mostly liberal friends, and every single one has told me they think the answer is confiscation of guns. An,, you know why? My right to bear arms is of no importance whatever to them! And, if it isn't important to them, it obviously doesn't matter that it's important to someone else.

 

[P31Woman]

Well, obviously I agree with the "common sense" line. And therefore, I certainly agree that assault weapons should be banned. When challenged to explain why
a general member of the public needs such a gun, the response of the pro-gun advocate usually takes one of two forms:

1. They ignore the question, and invoke the 2nd amendment (how is that an answer to the "why do you need this kind of gun" question?);
2. They provide one of two answers: 1. self-defence; 2. deterrence to government tyranny.

Here is where "common sense" is really not something the pro-gun person will want to deal with. Is it theoretically possible that there might be a self-defence scenario where an AR-15 saves the day where a handgun would not. Of course there is. But 'common sense' strongly suggests that such scenarios are surpassingly uncommon. And the relevant question is this: Compared to such a self-defence scenario, how likely is it that the owner of such a gun will develop a mental illness, or get enraged, and use the weapon for something other than legitimate self-defence? I suggest it is self-evident that the downside of such weapons in the hands of regular citizens outweight the upside of legitimate self-defence. Can I "prove" this? Probably not. And the only way I could make a case to anyone who insists on "hard data" would take more time and work than I am willing to invest, particularly when I am quite convinced that very few pro-gun people (in this forum) are even open to changing their minds.

As for the "deterrence of tyranny" argument: I suggest that it is self-evident that long-running democracies (USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe) are exceedingly unlikely to devolve into tyranny (When has this ever happened? How would such a thing happen?. And even if they did, the military has weapons and tactics and training that would make the AR-15's a mere annoyance.

In all candor, I believe that while it may take time, the fate of the "guns in the hands of citizens" position is doomed. And the reason is this: something really, really terrible will happen - a slaughter that will make Sandy Hook pale in comparison. There are too many crazies out there, seeing all the publicity - someone is going to try to take mass-slaughter to the next level of obscenity, and then revel in the publicity.

Hopefully it will not take such an eventuality, but I expect that it will.

Non Americans probably does not care as much about our country and our constitution as we do. Skin in the game matters.

 

[P31Woman]

People keep forgetting a few things that I have already mentioned early on:

1. Less than .5% of registered gun owners commit a violent crime involving a gun. You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver.
2. AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. The military does not use them.
3. There is no such thing as a high capacity clip. Magazines, yes. Clips, no. Members of the anti-gun Congress still use the term clip because they are clueless.
4. A gun by itself is a paperweight. If someone is going to kill someone, they will use whatever TOOL is available to them.
5. Registered gun owners are responsible for keeping their guns locked up and secure.

When are they going to demand we outlaw beer?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

When are they going to demand we outlaw beer?

They won't. It is a legal drug, long subject to state and federal legislation. We have cut the number of deaths due to drunk driving to 20% of what it was 25 years ago, through the use of tougher drunk-driving laws, more serious consequences, and protection of the public from chronic offenders after they've served jail time and done treatment, such as forcing them to put a breathalyzer interlock on their ignition to if they're drunk, the car won't start.

The principle holds true with guns. We will never stop the violence by getting rid of guns. But with tougher laws and tougher enforcement on the use of a gun to commit a crime, we can bring the stats down just like with drunk driving. We don't need to ban anything.

 

[Mike S]

When are they going to demand we outlaw beer?

They already did demand it, and we already did outlaw it, in 1920. That was just about as effective as outlawing guns would be.

 

[P31Woman]

They won't. It is a legal drug, long subject to state and federal legislation. We have cut the number of deaths due to drunk driving to 20% of what it was 25 years ago, through the use of tougher drunk-driving laws, more serious consequences, and protection of the public from chronic offenders after they've served jail time and done treatment, such as forcing them to put a breathalyzer interlock on their ignition to if they're drunk, the car won't start.

The principle holds true with guns. We will never stop the violence by getting rid of guns. But with tougher laws and tougher enforcement on the use of a gun to commit a crime, we can bring the stats down just like with drunk driving. We don't need to ban anything.

You are correct. They won't ban what they want. They want to drink even if that means all those school children are abused and some murdered by drunk fathers and mothers at home each night. The 'protect the children' cry is bogus among liberals.

 

[P31Woman]

They already did demand it, and we already did outlaw it, in 1920. That was just about as effective as outlawing guns would be.

I have the ole family moonshine mash recipe around here somewhere.

 

[phantom309]

When are they going to demand we outlaw beer?

Good question.Alcohol statistics have it related to more deaths than will ever be attributed to criminal firearm usage,yet strangely there is zero public outcry when a drunk driver kills someone on the road,an alcoholic beats his wife in a drunken rage or abuses a child while under the influence.Ive seen no emotional outbursts or political demand for another prohibition.Oddly enough while most americans will freely admit that the prohibition was ineffective,some of us have somehow concocted the notion that a ban on firearms will shut down criminal activity.

 

[Drew]

Very few people (in comparison to the population) have actually used guns to hurt anyone else without a legitimate reason (self defense). I'd say the possibility of someone turning crazy and going murdering is very low.

This is true, but the fact that very, very few people go into public places and slaughter people with a gun is not really an argument against keeping guns out of the hands of the general public. Besides, I am highly skeptical of your implication that guns are more often used "legitimately" than otherwise. This is almost certainly not the case. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Even if very few people go on murderous rampages, the relevant question is this: Do the legitimate uses of guns outweigh their illegitimate uses?

Citizens certainly don't have any need for weapons designed to kill dozens at once, true. I don't want something like that. I just want to be able to effectively defend myself if someone breaks into my house or something. In such a case, a simple handgun would do.

I understand the distinction you draw. However, I suggest you will be safer with no gun at all, given that the society in which you live adopts serious gun control. Again, I suggest the data on this, notwithstanding all the legitimate caveats is quite suggestive: people in nations as advanced as the USA are safer in their homes without guns than an American is with a gun in their home.

I have some data on this that I hope to post later.

Otherwise, I'm a mostly just a spectator who may speak up here and there.

My biggest motivation to post is the belief that there are "unseen spectators" out there. If you are willing to read and at least consider my posts, I am very grateful.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... yet strangely there is zero public outcry when a drunk driver kills someone on the road,an alcoholic beats his wife in a drunken rage or abuses a child while under the influence.

Really? What hole have you been living in?

 

[phantom309]

Really? What hole have you been living in?

The statement was intended to be read comparatively..do I need to spell everything out for you,son? Lose the attitude.

Of course there are upset people at having lost family due to such but compare that to the media storm and politicians seeking to use it for more leverage on gun control and it doesnt even register on the radar.