6 people shot to death in AL. This would not happen with gun control

[David Floyd]

Yeah, the act of driving like a mad does not put you in danger. It's only if you're on the way that it does.

Actually that's correct (of course I'm not in danger unless I'm in the way), but again you're talking about a different situation.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
So, are you saying that the US has more violent criminals per capita than other nations? Why do you think that is?

Probably a legacy of the drug war.

To stay on topic... where do these violent criminals get their guns, if there are none in society?

Well, in Washington DC they got them from....

The police.

People don't use guns to defend themselves. It's a fallacy to assume that having a gun gives someone a better chance of surviving a violent confrontation. More likely, the hypothetical violent criminal takes the gun away from the victim, or shoots the victim first.

Bull. If you did a little bit of research you'd find out that was wrong.

It always amazes me that people can put their 'natural' right to own a gun above the right to survival.

Except that they don't. What's amazing is your willingness to cling to ignorance because it challenges your prejudices.

[Akka]

Actually that's correct (of course I'm not in danger unless I'm in the way), but again you're talking about a different situation.

The situation is different but the principle is the same. In both case it's acting in a way that endanger other people on the whole.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The act of me owning a gun DOESN'T put you in danger. The act of someone stealing my gun does. There's a big difference.

Yes it does. Your owning a gun, in conjunction with the criminal stealing it, puts me in danger.

To prevent the danger, we can do two things:

1) Ban the criminals.

(We're trying, but I think you'll agree, there are still criminals out there. Howver, once crime and criminals has been eliminated, 100%, I will fully support the right to own guns. 100%.)

and/or

2) Ban the guns.

(Also difficult - but a lot easier than eliminating criminals)

If we do either 1) or 2), my chance of being killed by a criminal with a gun drop to zero.

Again, I'm appalled that there are people who value their right to own a gun more than the lives of other people. Life is full of disappointments.

[David Floyd]

No, the principle is not the same. In one situation I am acting on property I own. In the other situation, I am not.

Fundamental difference.

Surely you wouldn't say that driving regulations can extend to my private ranch, for example, would you?

[David Floyd]

Yes it does. Your owning a gun, in conjunction with the criminal stealing it, puts me in danger.

No, the act of me owning a gun harms you not in the least.

My gun might eventually cause you harm, but only once another crime has already been committed - that of burglary. Probably several crimes, in fact - breaking and entering, burglary, assault and battery, etc.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sinapus

Well, in Washington DC they got them from....

The police.

The police wouldn't need guns if the populace wasn't armed.

Bull. If you did a little bit of research you'd find out that was wrong.

Try to do better next time.

Except that they don't. What's amazing is your willingness to cling to ignorance because it challenges your prejudices.

Your owning a gun puts me in danger because there is a possibility of that gun being used to kill. It's that simple. Simple can be a similie for ignorant, but not in this context.

Nobody attempted to answer my question about why they need a gun, I see

[David Floyd]

Nobody attempted to answer my question about why they need a gun, I see

That isn't your business

[Akka]

No, the act of me owning a gun harms you not in the least.

My gun might eventually cause you harm, but only once another crime has already been committed - that of burglary. Probably several crimes, in fact - breaking and entering, burglary, assault and battery, etc.

This reasoning is completely dumb, because it assumes that you will never use your gun in a criminal manner.
If we would know in advance who will be a criminal and who won't be, we would not need to ban anything - we would just put people in prison preventively.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, the act of me owning a gun harms you not in the least.

My gun might eventually cause you harm, but only once another crime has already been committed - that of burglary. Probably several crimes, in fact - breaking and entering, burglary, assault and battery, etc.

If you can't follow my logic... well... I can't help you there.

[David Floyd]

This reasoning is completely dumb, because it assumes that you will never use your gun in a criminal manner.
If we would know in advance who will be a criminal and who won't be, we would not need to ban anything - we would just put people in prison preventively.

Right, if you knew who was going to commit crimes, you would punish them in advance (Minority Report, anyone). But because you don't know, you punish everyone by banning or restricting guns.
However, people are legally innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, you are advocating punishing the innocent for something they have never done.

If you can't follow my logic... well... I can't help you there.

It isn't my logic that's the problem.

[Akka]

Right, if you knew who was going to commit crimes, you would punish them in advance (Minority Report, anyone). But because you don't know, you punish everyone by banning or restricting guns.
However, people are legally innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, you are advocating punishing the innocent for something they have never done.

It isn't my logic that's the problem.

You definitely have a weird sense of punishment. It's not punishing someone to say "this thing is too dangerous to be put in public's hand". That's the exact same reasonning that makes toxic gaz, nuclear weapons, flamethrower and mines to NOT be sold to the large public.

You've the right to own anything that does not represent too much of a danger for others. Why are you so fond of defending your obsessive right of possession while disregarding completely the right of others to not be endangered ?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
You've the right to own anything that does not represent too much of a danger for others. Why are you so fond of defending your obsessive right of possession while disregarding completely the right of others to not be endangered ?

Basically that's this thread in a nutshell... personal rights vs. group rights.

I tend to fall on the personal rights side, usually, but there's always a weighing of benefits to be made. IMO, the benefit to the individual of owning a gun isn't significant enough to outweigh the benefit to the group (fewer killings by guns)

[Dis]

hey it took a while, but this one got going.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm pro-gun and pro-gun control. I think honest, responsible, law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns.

I'm pro gun period.

I think what's necessary is to make getting guns harder for criminals. The first thing you can do is create a much more elaborate screening process required for gun licenses. It's easier to get a gun license than a credit card these days.

In Calif. there is a 15 day waiting period for regular people. For bad guys, they steal, buy on the street or any other means to aquired guns. The screening will not work for them, only you and I.

Second, I'm in favor of taxing guns heavily to make them more expensive. This would also make illegal weapons more expensive and harder to get.

No it won't. It will just raise the price nothing more.

Because human beings are evil, violent animals; you will never have a utopian society without gun violence. The only thing we can hope to do is decrease the proliferation of guns.

No body will turn in illegal guns.