What!! Guy goes on a rampage with a gun and no gun control thread yet?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by drake
Oh jesus christ, here we go again. I talk about common sense and people jump on the "i have rights" wagon.

We're talking about the right to own a friggin gun, gimme a break.

We're talking about the right to protect oneself.

Ok, someone please help me out here. WIthout playing the constitution card, someone please give me 10 good reasons what benefit guns bring to society. Real legitimate reasons, not "because they're cool" david.

I'm not sure about ten, but I can give you at least one: because the right to own a gun helps insure that our way of life (meaning, our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, right to liberty, etc.) is not threatened. I'm not sure if quantity of reasons outweights quality in this case, and I'd call this a pretty damn good reason.

[drake]

No, actually we're not talking about the right to protect ones self here technofriend, we're talking about guns and gun control. Gun control IS about protecting people. And since when did one need a gun to protect themselves?

I'm not sure about ten, but I can give you at least one: because the right to own a gun helps insure that our way of life (meaning, our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, right to liberty, etc.) is not threatened. I'm not sure if quantity of reasons outweights quality in this case, and I'd call this a pretty damn good reason.

The right to own a gun does none of that. A private citizen doesnt need a gun to retain all of that. That is what local and federal agencies like police and military are for. People get paid to "protect and serve" both your community and your country. This line you give might have worked at the time of the revolutionary war, but this is a different time. The red coats ain't coming!!!

[Gibsie]

DD - a) If there are 1000's of gun laws on the books and they don't cover having loaded guns in a school, then more laws are quite clearly needed.

b) If someone clearly breaks a just law, they should go to trial at least. In England, most of the country thought Tony Martin shooting unarmed burglars in the back and bum was a-ok, but a Jury, with all the facts was able to reach a more informed conclusion. If you're for greater enforcement, you should be for doing everything you can to get people who break gun-laws put in jail, which means sending people to trial even if you're unsure they'll get convicted.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gibsie
DD - a) If there are 1000's of gun laws on the books and they don't cover having loaded guns in a school, then more laws are quite clearly needed.

It is illegal for students to bring guns to school in the state of Mississippi. The question of weather that same law applies to responsible adults is a question for someone with far more time on thier hands than I. What with finals coming up in a few day and all.

b) If someone clearly breaks a just law, they should go to trial at least.

Ideally, I would agree with you. However, in this case there were other factors in play here. Namely politics. I don't think that the DA wanted to tick off the voters by putting the local hero on trial over a case where no one was hurt. and having it bite him when the next election came around.

drake: People get paid to "protect and serve" both your community and your country. This line you give might have worked at the time of the revolutionary war, but this is a different time. The red coats ain't coming!!!

I'm sure this line really comforted the Japanese Americans who were thrown into concentration camps.

[orange]

Originally posted by Wraith
See, the thing is, defensive gun usages are rarely ratings-worthy. They're ususally not really flashy, since most of the time all you have to do is show the gun to get left alone. This means they're usually not even reported to the police. When they are flashy (like the clerk who killed a guy trying to take several customers hostage at gunpoint) they never seem to make the national media for some reason. Go figure.

Yeah, the media despises those human interest hero stories.

Anyway, several studies have been done on this. The numbers range from 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun usages in the US every year.

I'd like to see a source on that one.

And in Japan the suicide rate is several times what it is in the US, but they have far fewer guns. By your logic, lack of guns causes suicide.

No. Easily refuted by showing European suicide rates in comparison to Japan's. That case isn't about Guns, it's about their rigorous education system and their constant stress from a young age. That's been proven. That's the difference between Japan and the Euro-US west.

Sorry, but two samples and your belief does not a causation make. You haven't even shown a correlation yet. If you don't like guns, fine, say so, but please make actual arguments.

We're doing just that. You're just making up things to show why we can't possibly be right, but it's not so. They're feeble attempts too, I can think of better.

Yeah, our law enforcement officials are too busy pushing officers to arrest marijuana smokers to bother with gun dealers and convicted criminals attempting to buy weapons.

I'm personally against the war on drugs, so, what is your point?

There are a large number of reasons for it. The US and the EU have quite dis-similar societies, so any direct comparison of the sort you guys want is difficult.

And gun control/lack of gun control is a major reason for that societal difference.

Oh bull****. Surveys conducted with inmates at state and federal prisons shows that over 80% say they can get a gun within a week of getting out of jail. Note, these are convicted criminals, and it's already illegal for them to buy guns. You think criminals are going to obey the laws in regards to buying guns?

This is because guns are legal. If they weren't, it would not be so easy. I assure you.

Look, drugs are shipped into this country in ton lots.

Drug laws are really not that heavily enforced anyway. People get away with drug charges quite easily. It's also a lot harder to conceal a gun than it is to conceal drugs (I've seen some interesting ways of doing so...)

Cars make them easy too. Right before one of the big media frenzies over a school shooting, one guy ran his car into a group of students in front of a school. He did admit to doing it on purpose, trying to kill people, but for some reason this story didn't really hit the national scene.

It's much easier to purposely kill with a gun than to purposely kill with a car. As far as drunk drivers, yeah, we should prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Which is a comment about stupid parents, not how evil guns are.

Take away the guns, no accidental shootings in the household.

Nope. Supreme Court rulings say they only have to try to figure out who did them. They don't have any duty to try to stop them from happening.

Does that go for local and state as well?

Individual rights are more important than anything.

No life, no ability to enjoy those rights. I think you need to reprioritize.

If you start allowing exceptions to individual rights you aren't going to have the most fundamental one, the right to life, much longer either.

Tell it to Europeans.

[Chris 62]

Ah, gun control.

In what other topic can you find Rogan, spinky, MarkL, Drake and Chris all on the same side?

Gun control.

Weapons kill.

Most of you yahoos are too stupid/and or irresponcible to handle weapons.

Many people blow their fool heads off, or some other poor shmo's.

Guns make it so easy to kill, to feel like a big shot, like your somebody.

In fact, disire to own a weapon=Loser

Just proves you can't handle yourself.

That's why you see so many gangs making a cult of gun violence, because they don't have what it takes to really make it, guts.

Children being killed by guns.

People trying to work being killed by losers with guns.

Death, death, and more death.

People can argue it's their right, but than, so was owning a black man at one time. Kind of makes that argument silly, doesn't it?

OK, you can go back to the ranting again, later.

[drake]

I'm sure this line really comforted the Japanese Americans who were thrown into concentration camps.

I fail to see any relation between the need for a gun at the time of the revolutionary war and the need for a gun today.

What was the point???

-------

800000- 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year? Yeah, I would also like to see where you got that un-countable stat
from

And when and where did I declare guns evil I specifically noted that it wasn't guns themselves that were the problem. They're just a peice of metal. The whole point is, people that have them dont need them. And people that need them are in a very very small minority.

[RUFFHAUS 8]

Originally posted by Mark L


The US Constitution has been changed quite often in the past. Why not change it again? Especcially since it causes so many deaths.

And a homicide rate 7 times higher than in Europe is rather appaling for a western nation.

Because whe don't give a $hit what EUROPEANS think of our laws. That's reason enough right there. And if you want to continue to be statboy, please feel free to include all the miliions of HOMICIDES committed in Europe in the 1930's and 1940's in countries WITH gun control where private citizens were forbidden to own firearms. Then come back to us about homicide rates. Feel free to live in fantasyland until then.

And while we're talking about what's what for western nations, many in the US would suggest that European's rate of bathing, dental hygine, and taxation is appalling.

[drake]

ruffhaus...back in the 30's and 40's, even if the average family in europe wanted a gun, they probably couldnt. They weren't produced on even close to the same scale as today and were more expensive I'm sure comparitively.

Now today, you can get a saturday night special for 20-25 bucks if you knew where to look. The problem is that they're too accessible to anyone and everyone. And there is no need for it. With all these guns we're just increasing our odds for deaths. Its very simple math.

[orange]

Originally posted by RUFFHAUS 8
Because whe don't give a $hit what EUROPEANS think of our laws.

Maybe it's not what Euros think of our laws, maybe it's what we think of theirs that's the problem.

And if you want to continue to be statboy, please feel free to include all the miliions of HOMICIDES committed in Europe in the 1930's and 1940's in countries WITH gun control where private citizens were forbidden to own firearms.

Hmmm...during a time of Fascism? I think that negates your argument

Then come back to us about homicide rates. Feel free to live in fantasyland until then.

Last I checked, Europe and America are both democratic places. Don't you think it's time we do away with stuff that we no longer need, and that only harms us?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by drake
I fail to see any relation between the need for a gun at the time of the revolutionary war and the need for a gun today.

I gave you a recent example of the government not protecting the rights of its citizens. I'm sure I can give a more recent example than that if you wish.

800000- 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year? Yeah, I would also like to see where you got that un-countable stat

Right here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html


BTW, I found a site that has news articles about defensive uses of guns: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...e.asp?CatID=43

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by drake
800000- 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year? Yeah, I would also like to see where you got that un-countable stat
from

From the research link on the NRA's website...

Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck showed at least 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S. "(T)he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes" (Kleck, Targeting Guns, 1997).

Might be at your local library...

The whole point is, people that have them dont need them. And people that need them are in a very very small minority.

Thanks so much for your concern in attempting to determine what's good for the rest of the human race. Mind if we don't pay the slightest attention to your free advice?

- Scipio

[loinburger]

Originally posted by drake
No, actually we're not talking about the right to protect ones self here technofriend, we're talking about guns and gun control.

Yup. Increased gun control would probably decrease the murder rate (although not necessarily to the same low levels as in Europe or Japan), no argument there. It would also give citizens a reduced ability to protect themselves in times of instability, as in Berserker's example of the LA riots, and it would reduce their ability to stand up to tyranny. So, unless you are willing to argue that the police and military are always absolutely capable of maintaining order, and unless you are willing to argue that tyranny is an absolute impossibility in the US, then please admit that gun control will both increase and decrease our safety.

Gun control IS about protecting people. And since when did one need a gun to protect themselves?

Again, see Berserker's example about the LA riots, as well as other examples given in this thread.

The right to own a gun does none of that. A private citizen doesnt need a gun to retain all of that. That is what local and federal agencies like police and military are for. People get paid to "protect and serve" both your community and your country.

Agreed. But, they are not always able to maintain order.

This line you give might have worked at the time of the revolutionary war, but this is a different time. The red coats ain't coming!!!

No, but the black helicoptors are.

Seriously, though, I currently have no inkling of a desire to join an armed uprising against the US government. However, so long as we are not governed by angels, I'll support the 2nd amendment.


I ought to clarify my position on gun control: I support the 2nd amendment, but see no problem with mandatory background checks so long as they are justly applied. I do have a problem with ineffectual gun control bills like the Brady Bill; 3% of all crimes were committed with assault weapons, but in the event of civil breakdown or tyranny assault weapons are the very weapons that you'd want the most, so outlawing the sale of assault weapons increases repression while failing to decrease the crime rate.

[David Floyd]

Look, I think the argument comes down to this. From a legal standpoint, "a lot of people dying" really is NOT relevant.

The only relevant facts are the following:
1)The right to bear arms and to own guns are protected in multiple places by the US Constitution.
2)The Constitution can be amended to ban gun ownership.
3)Such a Constitutional amendment will NOT happen in the United States. Period. Even if there was Congressional support - which there isn't - there is not enough support in the States.

So all of these arguments are really moot points. Guns of any and all kinds - including everything from BB guns to heavy machine guns - are Constitionally legal in the US, regardless of federal law, and any attempt to amend the Constitution to ban guns would be a complete and utter failure.

That's all there is to it.

[Scipio Centaurus]

drake

Guns are for pussies. Just another tool for small men to feel compotent and compensate for their small jimmies.

source please.

...all I ever hear about guns is who they kill, not who they save.

It requires exhaustive research to dig up the news that the mainstream media chooses not to provide. Start here... Take a break every few minutes or your mouse click finger will begin to get very tired.

...I could go to the local sporting goods store, pick up a hunting rifle, a few cases of shells, walk to the local mall and smoke a few dozen people without breaking a sweat.

All the more reason to ensure that ordinary citizens to be able to pack... As you imply, there is no chance in hell that the lone mall security guard can do anything to stop this massacre. We'll have to rely on well armed citizens.

Many parents in a pathetic attempt to "protect" their kids, have killed their kids by leaving weapons accessable to them. Many people have good intentions in buying guns, but between accidents and unforseen situations, they often do much more bad than they could ever do good.

Cherrypicking the data AND mixing in a bit of hot button BS, eh? Sorry. You'll have to do much better. The independent thinkers in your audience are not buying into the sob story. Come back with the risk benefit analysis for ALL defensive handgun uses vs accidental discharge deaths, and you'll see how pathetic you argument really is.

Deaths don't matter as long as your rights to bear arms are protected by the constitution?

Our founding fathers and all those patriots who risked their lives to achieve independence for this country, salute you!

Its this aggressive society. The society is ripe for violence. The abundance of guns just makes it too easy for anyone with the right mind, to become a very real danger to society.

source please.

I talk about common sense and people jump on the "i have rights" wagon.

You idea of common sense is quite different than my own... I'll take mine!

WIthout playing the constitution card, someone please give me 10 good reasons what benefit guns bring to society.

Sorry. It's not up to us to prove that we deserve to own guns. It is up to gun control advocates [that would be you] to prove that we shouldn't own guns. Hope to see some proof before too long.

A private citizen doesnt need a gun to retain >freedoms<. That is what local and federal agencies like police and military are for. People get paid to "protect and serve" both your community and your country.

Law enforcement authorities cannot ordinarily protect citizens. They can only investigate crime and make arrests.

A lot of rhetoric from you, but now let's see those sources, shall we?

- Scipio