Gun Laws- Positive or Negative?

[randomspot555]

I wonder where the black market gets their guns from. Could it be from countries where there is no gun control?

So let me ask you this: How come the countries surrounding Switzerland aren't just flooding with blood, which arguably has the highest percentage of gun ownership in the civilized world?

It frankly doesn't matter where they come from. There's 200 million guns in the US. There's a few million up in Canada as well, and in Mexico. They won't magically disappear.

As much as some far-left liberals would like, drawing a line in the sand and declaring "NO MORE!!!!!!" doesn't work. It never has and it never will.

So rather than wishing for the impossible, you should deal with reality. Make those who choose to use guns for whatever reason able to get them in a reasonable manner. Let community centers or local colleges offer non-credit classes on gun ownership. Encourage education rather than banishment. A smart populous will use firearms properly and won't be riddled with fear when seeing one.

Give law abidiing citizens the tools and legality to defend themselves if they choose to, should the need arise. Create a culture where people want to defend themselves and won't fear being hit with a criminal charge or being fired from their job for defending themselves. Prosecute criminals more harshly for using an illegally obtained gun in a violent crime. Do preventitive investigation to track down cartels that hoard illegally obtained weapons.

EDIT: I find it kind of ironic that in areas where I agree with liberals, such as drug policy, prostitution, and safe sex, we agree. Banning drugs doesn't stop people from doing them, or stop people from hiring prostitutes, or stop kids from having sex. So keep it legal, tax it, and make it safe so we don't end up with dirty prostitutes, teenagers knocking eachother up, and unregulated drugs. But in the area of guns, liberals advocate bans? Nah, they're wrong. They just are.

 

[Blaziken10285]

Rules won't keep the people wanting to do harm from getting a gun, so it's neutral. #Endofdiscussion

 

[chuboy]

I find it kind of ironic that in areas where I agree with liberals, such as drug policy, prostitution, and safe sex, we agree. Banning drugs doesn't stop people from doing them, or stop people from hiring prostitutes, or stop kids from having sex. So keep it legal, tax it, and make it safe so we don't end up with dirty prostitutes, teenagers knocking eachother up, and unregulated drugs. But in the area of guns, liberals advocate bans? Nah, they're wrong. They just are.

How exactly are guns safer to use just because they are legal to obtain?

'Liberals' do not take issue with people defending themselves - only with using self-defence as an excuse to obtain what is ostensibly an offensive weapon. I have yet to be convinced that guns were designed to defend one's self.

 

[randomspot555]

How exactly are guns safer to use just because they are legal to obtain?

Because manufacturers who employ professionals make the guns in a legal market; rather than black markets, where typically the quality of products can vary greatly, there's no regulation, no taxes, and corners are cut at every turn.

'Liberals' do not take issue with people defending themselves - only with using self-defence as an excuse to obtain what is ostensibly an offensive weapon. I have yet to be convinced that guns were designed to defend one's self.

Most tools aren't designed for one, specific purpose, or their uses evolve over time. Would you feel better if John E Smith of the 1400s, Inventor of the Gun, wrote in his diary "I hearby invented this doohickey to defend one's self".

 

[Ununoctium]

It is a fallacy to assume you can only defend yourself with a gun, plain and simple.

Guns are called the great equalizer for a reason. A 90 year old woman can defend herself every bit as much as a 25 year old MMA fighter can.

 

[Snipehsheep]

If I made gun laws:

Pistols may be carried by you, but they may only have one round of bullets in them.

Rifles and Shotguns may only be used for hunting and must be removed of all ammo and locked away upon returning home.

Automatic weapons and such may be kept by collectors, but you must not own ANY ammo compatible with the weapon.

No explosive weapons, armour-piercing rounds, ect.

 

[darkjigglypuff]

If I made gun laws:

Pistols may be carried by you, but they may only have one round of bullets in them.

Rifles and Shotguns may only be used for hunting and must be removed of all ammo and locked away upon returning home.

Automatic weapons and such may be kept by collectors, but you must not own ANY ammo compatible with the weapon.

No explosive weapons, armour-piercing rounds, ect.

That's rather useless, however, for revolting against governments, which is what the 2nd Amendment is actually for. So I, naturally, think that civilians should have legal access to military-grade hardware, since should the need to rise up and start a revolution ever be necessitated, the people would have a better chance of success in violent overthrow of the government.

 

[Snipehsheep]

That's rather useless, however, for revolting against governments, which is what the 2nd Amendment is actually for. So I, naturally, think that civilians should have legal access to military-grade hardware, since should the need to rise up and start a revolution ever be necessitated, the people would have a better chance of success in violent overthrow of the government.

I'm pretty sure that if you were starting a revolution you would not care about the government's laws anyway

 

[chuboy]

Because manufacturers who employ professionals make the guns in a legal market; rather than black markets, where typically the quality of products can vary greatly, there's no regulation, no taxes, and corners are cut at every turn.

A regulated, professionally produced gun will kill someone just as quickly when used for its intended purpose as one made by amateurs or 'skimped' for the black market...

It's not safer at all.

Most tools aren't designed for one, specific purpose, or their uses evolve over time. Would you feel better if John E Smith of the 1400s, Inventor of the Gun, wrote in his diary "I hearby invented this doohickey to defend one's self".

I would think the man deluded, but no more.

As for Switzerland - totally different kettle of fish in that the army is composed almost entirely of militia, who are thus required by law to keep their weapon at home. This is why on the statistics alone it appears that the Swiss have unusually high gun ownership rates. Nevertheless, gun control in the country is still strict: you are still required to have a permit to appear in public with a firearm (e.g. you can prove you work in the security industry, so you can have a gun while on duty), and for the militia who keep their guns at home - they are not allowed ammo for the guns any more (they used to be given sealed packs which were regularly inspected to ensure they were only opened under authorisation). In addition, all gun owners have mandatory annual gun training to ensure their proficiency and the sale of automatic weapons is strictly prohibited.

Compare this to the soccer mom who buys and hides a loaded pistol under her bed for the safety of her family, only for her toddler child to find it and kill or injure themselves by accident.

I can accept the argument that gun control might work better in Australia as it is an island - however, gun possession shouldn't be legal just because your country has shitty border control. You should recognise that the existence of a black market doesn't appear automatically when guns ownership is restricted - there still needs to be a supply of guns in the first place, which, all else being 'ideal', wouldn't exist.

I know the real world isn't 'ideal', but what it shows is that gun control as a concept is not 'bad' - it is other entities (i.e. border control and customs) that are failing their duty and allowing a black market to develop.

 

[darkjigglypuff]

Compare this to the soccer mom who buys and hides a loaded pistol under her bed for the safety of her family, only for her toddler child to find it and kill or injure themselves by accident.

Some children fall into pools when left unattended and drown, so we should ban pools.

Sometimes children walk out into the street and get hit by cars, so car should be made illegal.

And sometimes a chile will cut themselves with sharp objects, heaven forbid those things get into the hand of civilians.


Listen, just because some idiots leave their guns where kids can get them doesn't mean everybody who owns guns is an irresponsible hick with a ticking time bomb in their house, and you're ignorant if you think so. Just because SOME are irresponsible does NOT mean that the entire population should be made to suffer in return. You know what you do with idiots like the mom in your post? Take away their license charge them with manslaughter, be done with it.

I'm all for permits and gun safety, but taking away power from the people at large and making the government STRONGER is a TERRIBAD idea.

 

[randomspot555]

Pistols may be carried by you, but they may only have one round of bullets in them.

Rifles and Shotguns may only be used for hunting and must be removed of all ammo and locked away upon returning home.

Automatic weapons and such may be kept by collectors, but you must not own ANY ammo compatible with the weapon.

No explosive weapons, armour-piercing rounds, ect.

Fortunately, you don't make gun laws.

A regulated, professionally produced gun will kill someone just as quickly when used for its intended purpose as one made by amateurs or 'skimped' for the black market...

It's not safer at all.

You missed the point of my post, or are intentionally being obtuse.

I would think the man deluded, but no more.

So in other words, you don't care what the purpose of a gun is, you've already decided that guns are eeeevvvviiiillllll.

Nevertheless, gun control in the country is still strict: you are still required to have a permit to appear in public with a firearm

Compared to the US where we just are able to go to Wal-Mart and walk out with a gun, 300 rounds of ammo, and a bunch of beer and liquor.

Oh wait, that doesn't happen.

Swing and a miss. Most states require permits or licenses to carry in public. Some have separate permits for concealed and open carrying. There's a process, there's a wait, there's fees to pay. It's fair to say that criminals don't go through these processes.

Compare this to the soccer mom who buys and hides a loaded pistol under her bed for the safety of her family, only for her toddler child to find it and kill or injure themselves by accident.

Welcome to the real world. Sometimes bad stuff happens. Get over it.

These are largely isolated incidents. There is no national epidemic of legal gun owners either killing themselves or others by accident.

however, gun possession shouldn't be legal just because your country has shitty border control.

You're right. It should be legal because it is a human instinct to act in your own self-defense. And we shouldn't confine someone by limiting how one defends themselves in a life-or-death situation.

You should recognise that the existence of a black market doesn't appear automatically when guns ownership is restricted - there still needs to be a supply of guns in the first place, which, all else being 'ideal', wouldn't exist.

This isn't the "ideal" world. Yes, if we lived in a Far-Left Liberal Fantasy land, we'd fart rainbows and that criminal who wants to take your wallet and stab you would be taken down with a snappy one-liner.

This isn't the "ideal" world. This county I'm in has 200 million guns in it alone, 30+million in the country north of us, and who knows how many on a totally unregulated market south of us. You can draw lines in the sand and say "NO MORE GUNS!!!!!" all you want and it won't make a lick of difference. History has proven that in previous attempts at prohibition.

I know the real world isn't 'ideal', but what it shows is that gun control as a concept is not 'bad' - it is other entities (i.e. border control and customs) that are failing their duty and allowing a black market to develop.

As with other attempts at prohibiton, the problem isn't so much the rest of the world importing it. Americans make their own prohibited items as well.

 

[The Director]

So in other words, you don't care what the purpose of a gun is, you've already decided that guns are eeeevvvviiiillllll.

Guns are a tool. A tool that makes DOING acts like murder easier. It makes heat of the moment arguments that much easier to do ACTUAL damage.

Compared to the US where we just are able to go to Wal-Mart and walk out with a gun, 300 rounds of ammo, and a bunch of beer and liquor.

Oh wait, that doesn't happen.

Swing and a miss. Most states require permits or licenses to carry in public. Some have separate permits for concealed and open carrying. There's a process, there's a wait, there's fees to pay. It's fair to say that criminals don't go through these processes.

Why not?

Criminals use lawful businesses as fronts and the most successful criminals use the lawful ways to get weapons. They then have specialists make them untraceable. Heres a few ways of doing so, customising a gun from various sources, removing makers signatures (if you are an expert you'll know where they are) using weapons common as mud (only works in a gun environment). Any heavier weaponry if caught on possession just makes the person look more suspicious, better to use normal weapons that anyone could've got from any gun shop, and then be clever about how you use your men.

You're right. It should be legal because it is a human instinct to act in your own self-defense. And we shouldn't confine someone by limiting how one defends themselves in a life-or-death situation.

Disagreed, it is "Human Instinct" to be SCARED. A scared person can do stupid things. So is it smart to give a scared person a gun?

This isn't the "ideal" world. Yes, if we lived in a Far-Left Liberal Fantasy land, we'd fart rainbows and that criminal who wants to take your wallet and stab you would be taken down with a snappy one-liner.

A knife kills much quicker than a gun if the knife is the person who moves first. And most muggings don't consist of murder. Muggers are just people desperate for money, murder isn't on their mind if you cooperate. If you pull a gun, you are dead. Heck just having a gun on you would. Because a gun scares muggers. And what do they then do? Something stupid. They kill you, before you can use the gun against them. So what is more important, your life or your belongings? Because if you die, you don't own your belongings, your belongings own you.

This isn't the "ideal" world. This county I'm in has 200 million guns in it alone, 30+million in the country north of us, and who knows how many on a totally unregulated market south of us. You can draw lines in the sand and say "NO MORE GUNS!!!!!" all you want and it won't make a lick of difference. History has proven that in previous attempts at prohibition.

The difference is that idiots with guns get caught and won't be able to get them again. Stopping idiotic gun crime. But professional criminals keep there guns becuase they are smart enough to dodge the police. If you are that smart are you going to waste using the gun on the "small" people who don't have guns. No you use it against the bigger prizes. The ones worth the risk of using a gun.

As with other attempts at prohibiton, the problem isn't so much the rest of the world importing it. Americans make their own prohibited items as well.

It'll take hundreds if not thousands of years before America, gives up their guns. Its in the history, it is a vital core of the country and until America matures socially and politically out of the past, will it be able to even think of banning guns.

 

[chuboy]

You missed the point of my post, or are intentionally being obtuse.

No. I was very clear. If you aren't apt to refute my logic, then concede the point.

So in other words, you don't care what the purpose of a gun is, you've already decided that guns are eeeevvvviiiillllll.

I don't know how else to say this. A gun is capable of injuring or killing a person at a great distance. Shooting someone who is 50m away does not constitute self-defence. It simply does not fit the description of self-defence.

It is not logical to allow guns to people under the guise of self-defence when there are plenty of alternatives available that do not give said people the ability to kill people well out of their reach.

Swing and a miss. Most states require permits or licenses to carry in public. Some have separate permits for concealed and open carrying.

And I suppose you have a problem with this infringement of your rights as well?

Welcome to the real world. Sometimes bad stuff happens. Get over it.

In that case, why have guns at all?

These are largely isolated incidents. There is no national epidemic of legal gun owners either killing themselves or others by accident.

The annual cost of unintentional firearm injuries and deaths in children aged 5-14 alone is over US$1B. Certainly not pocket change.
http://www.preventinjury.org/PDFs/UNINTENTIONAL_FIREARM_INJURY.pdf

You're right. It should be legal because it is a human instinct to act in your own self-defense. And we shouldn't confine someone by limiting how one defends themselves in a life-or-death situation.

That's the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard. You cannot justify every action as being in self-defence. Apply some reasoning to what is acceptable self-defence, please! If I am threatened by a feral cat, am I entitled to stomp her kittens to death and say I was acting in self-defence? If a drunk yells profanity at me in a bar, can I jump the counter, grab an unopened bottle of 80-year-old port, smash it on the bench and cut the offender and his companions' necks in 'self-defence'?

For the record, if you could manufacture a magic gun that could only harm a person who was about to harm you, I would be all for it.

This isn't the "ideal" world. Yes, if we lived in a Far-Left Liberal Fantasy land, we'd fart rainbows and that criminal who wants to take your wallet and stab you would be taken down with a snappy one-liner.

It seems that in your rush to come up with a 'snappy' ad-hominem attack, you failed to recognise the usefulness of considering an 'ideal' situation in evaluating an idea, notion or mechanism.

This isn't the "ideal" world.

I already acknowledged that in my post, or did you not read it?

Either way, see above.

As with other attempts at prohibiton, the problem isn't so much the rest of the world importing it. Americans make their own prohibited items as well.

Oh. But didn't you just say that the border with Mexico was where the significant proportion of your black market guns came from? So which is it? Are there underworld gun factories on every street corner? Or are they coming in from neighbouring countries?

Your claim is intriguing because I certainly don't hear of people using homemade guns here in Australia, which is not bordered by any countries and where the sale of firearms is strictly regulated.

 

[randomspot555]

No. I was very clear. If you aren't apt to refute my logic, then concede the point.

And your point is what? That guns are evil? That gun owners are just people looking for an excuse to go postal?

I don't know how else to say this. A gun is capable of injuring or killing a person at a great distance. Shooting someone who is 50m away does not constitute self-defence. It simply does not fit the description of self-defence.

They're capable of killing at closer ranges too. Your point?

It is not logical to allow guns to people under the guise of self-defence when there are plenty of alternatives available that do not give said people the ability to kill people well out of their reach.

Yes. I know. You've said "You can run." It's great that you're some boy wonder Olympian athlete. Not everyone else.

And I suppose you have a problem with this infringement of your rights as well?

Assumptions make an *** out of you and me...or just you, take your pick.

In that case, why have guns at all?

Or...instead of banning them, you make sure the people who can't handle gun ownership don't get them.

The annual cost of unintentional firearm injuries and deaths in children aged 5-14 alone is over US$1B. Certainly not pocket change.
http://www.preventinjury.org/PDFs/UNINTENTIONAL_FIREARM_INJURY.pdf

If you actually bothered to read that report, it backs up my claim.

About 3.6 million homes with children have at least one firearm. Of those 3.6 million (or more) firearms, there were 8,500, or 23% of households, with BB and pellet gun injuries. The likely stat is lower because I doubt each injury is from a unique household. Also, considering that BB guns kill four people a year, I doubt these injuries were all that big of a deal.

0.02% of the firearm injuries (800) out of 3.6+ million households (again, probably a bit lower because I doubt each injury is from a unique hosehold) and well..the firearm deaths for children is even more miniscule

So yes, my initial premise is backed up. There is no epidemic of people being killed by responsible gun owners. Irresponsible gun owners are the vast minority.

That's the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard. You cannot justify every action as being in self-defence.

That would be ludicruous argument. Except it's not what I said.

What I said is that the act of self-defense is an inherent instinct, an instinct for survival. And in those hopefully rare situations, we shouldn't restrict law abiding citizens from how they may protect themselves and their loved ones.

Please don't misconstrue this as "lol! killing a mugger" because this isn't what I'm saying.

Apply some reasoning to what is acceptable self-defence, please!

I think a Supreme Court justice said it best, when speaking of pornography: I don't know if I can strictly define it, but I know it when I see it. It's a case-by-case bases, and that's why, in the US, we have a system of laws where in many states we let people defend themselves, their family and their property. Once the threat is off their proerty and no longer threatening them, it's beyond any individual's control, but a man's home is his castle and he should be able to protect it if need be.

If I am threatened by a feral cat, am I entitled to stomp her kittens to death and say I was acting in self-defence? If a drunk yells profanity at me in a bar, can I jump the counter, grab an unopened bottle of 80-year-old port, smash it on the bench and cut the offender and his companions' necks in 'self-defence'?

No, but it'd probably be best for the local ecoyststem if the feral cat was neutered, or killed if not neutered. Unneutered feral cats can cause problems otherwise.

It seems that in your rush to come up with a 'snappy' ad-hominem attack, you failed to recognise the usefulness of considering an 'ideal' situation in evaluating an idea, notion or mechanism.

I suppose it's because we don't live in an ideal world so why consider it?

Oh. But didn't you just say that the border with Mexico was where the significant proportion of your black market guns came from? So which is it? Are there underworld gun factories on every street corner? Or are they coming in from neighbouring countries?

Very first post of the top of the page. I already addressed this.

 

[Ununoctium]

Assumptions make an *** out of you and me...or just you, take your pick.

So wait you don't like freedom?

 

[randomspot555]

So wait you don't like freedom?

I've addressed my thoughts on gun licensing and registration, permitting, etc... several times in this thread, as early as page 13.

 

[Ununoctium]

I've addressed my thoughts on gun licensing and registration, permitting, etc... several times in this thread, as early as page 13.

You just said that you support taking away people's rights though?

 

[Silvershark]

Guns are a tool. A tool that makes DOING acts like murder easier. It makes heat of the moment arguments that much easier to do ACTUAL damage.

So? Common household cleaners can also be used to make poisons and explosives, making acts like murder easier too. As is the case with knives, hammers, or every other tool in existence.

Why not?

Criminals use lawful businesses as fronts and the most successful criminals use the lawful ways to get weapons. They then have specialists make them untraceable. Heres a few ways of doing so, customising a gun from various sources, removing makers signatures (if you are an expert you'll know where they are) using weapons common as mud (only works in a gun environment). Any heavier weaponry if caught on possession just makes the person look more suspicious, better to use normal weapons that anyone could've got from any gun shop, and then be clever about how you use your men.

The difference is that idiots with guns get caught and won't be able to get them again. Stopping idiotic gun crime. But professional criminals keep there guns becuase they are smart enough to dodge the police. If you are that smart are you going to waste using the gun on the "small" people who don't have guns. No you use it against the bigger prizes. The ones worth the risk of using a gun.

As you said, smart professional criminals know how to dodge law enforcement and work around gun laws as needed. More gun laws wouldn't really deter them. As for the idiots, well they do idiotic things. Even if they can't get a firearm they'll just move on down the line to what they can get, whether it's a knife, crossbow, or some crudely fashioned weapon made from fireworks or those household cleaners I mentioned.

Disagreed, it is "Human Instinct" to be SCARED. A scared person can do stupid things. So is it smart to give a scared person a gun?

Many states require permits and licenses to carry a gun in public, as well as applications, registration, and background checks to purchase a handgun; they're hardly just given out.

A knife kills much quicker than a gun if the knife is the person who moves first. And most muggings don't consist of murder. Muggers are just people desperate for money, murder isn't on their mind if you cooperate. If you pull a gun, you are dead. Heck just having a gun on you would. Because a gun scares muggers. And what do they then do? Something stupid. They kill you, before you can use the gun against them. So what is more important, your life or your belongings? Because if you die, you don't own your belongings, your belongings own you.

So you roll over and give in to the mugger, what's to stop him from going further now that you've submitted that your completely under his power? What if it doesn't stop at a simple mugging, and turns into either kidnapping, rape, or murder? The safest option in a mugging is still to give up your wallet and run, but not everyone can simply run away. Sometimes you have to fight, and a gun allows people who would otherwise be easily over-powered a way to defend themselves. And while I agree the sight of an armed potential victim would scare a mugger, I think it would be more likely to scare them into running than drive them to murder.

It'll take hundreds if not thousands of years before America, gives up their guns. Its in the history, it is a vital core of the country and until America matures socially and politically out of the past, will it be able to even think of banning guns.

I do agree that the U.S. needs to mature more socially and politically, but I think ensuring it's citizens the right to bear arms is one of it's more mature decisions.

 

[randomspot555]

You just said that you support taking away people's rights though?

Please quote the specific post where I advocate "taking away people's rights" and explain why it's an infringement of rights.

As for the idiots, well they do idiotic things. Even if they can't get a firearm they'll just move on down the line to what they can get, whether it's a knife, crossbow, or some crudely fashioned weapon made from fireworks or those household cleaners I mentioned.

And as I mentioned in my response to chuboy, the idiots who own legal guns and their accidental injury rate are very, very low. Of 3.6 million homes w/ children that own guns, only 800 reported injuries. That is 0.02% assuming all injuries are form unique households.

 

[chuboy]

The right to bear arms at its heart involves being able to rise against the government. So why should be people be able to walk around town during peacetime with a gun strapped to their belt?

Is it an infringement of your rights to be prohibited from carrying a gun unless you are using it for the purpose of revolting against a corrupt government?