• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Akiyama

Awake me if Ash wins
The answer to that is, we are going to have to go down the path of forced institutionlization. Sometimes locking people up and throwing away the key, that is really the only way you could control them.

Actually, it's not even confirmed if Adam had Aspergers. (That's new to me.) That's good news for those with aspergers or autism, hopefully no stereotypes of them being violent surface. Raises questions over what mental illness he really had though, and that lack of info would hurt any panel discussing what illness is needed to lock a person up.

Who among the mentally ill are actually violent and aggressive and suicidal enough to do these killings? I don't know, and I don't know how they got to that point. Maybe there was abuse in their childhoods, hate from the community, and other things making their mind adapt to violence which warps their thinking as well to favor these mass killings. At the moment, it's not convincing to me that forcing mentally ill people to be in jail would actually work. If it does work, maybe it expands the government budget too much, or it can be used as a tool of politically connected to lock away his enemies by claiming someone is ill. Still, I would expect some to slip through and continue the killings.
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
I don't see why people need those fast cars that zoom down city streets either. V-8 engines? It's a monster! And those cars costing over $30,000? Stupid! Everyone needs only a Honda Civic. But you know what? Whatever my opinion, why should I stop people from owning these dangerously fast cars? So why should I take assault rifles away from good people? I mean, there is a value the owners attach to this rifle just as is attached to a great car.

So no, I don't approve of seeing goods taken off market because they are "unneeded." That makes life less fun by doing that. I have wants, people have wants. You may not understand the desire for an assault rifle just as I don't understand the want for a fast car, but I am not going to have the government ban fast cars.

That's quite the terrible comparison you've made there. A fast car, regardless of how pointless the highest speeds are, still serves a practical everyday purpose. It can still, y'know, function as a regular car to get you from Point A to Point B. Cars are also not made with the express purpose of killing. Do accidents happen? Of course they do, but they're not made to kill. Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose. I realize they're used for sport sometimes, but that doesn't change that the basic purpose of a gun is to be used as a killing machine. It is dangerous and serves no practical purpose outside of hunting and possibly protection (the latter is still up for debate).

Also, I'd like to point out that I honestly don't care about anyone's "fun." Statements like that just show why so many people shouldn't have guns. These weapons are not designed for "fun." They are not toys. They are weapons. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. I don't care if you want it. You don't always get what you want, especially when what you want is designed to kill. Don't talk to me about "making life less fun." You know what makes life less fun? Dying.
 
Last edited:

Akiyama

Awake me if Ash wins
That's quite the terrible comparison you've made there. A fast car, regardless of how pointless the highest speeds are, still serves a practical everyday purpose. It can still, y'know, function as a regular car to get you from Point A to Point B. Cars are also not made with the express purpose of killing. Do accidents happen? Of course they do, but they're not made to kill. Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose. I realize they're used for sport sometimes, but that doesn't change that the basic purpose of a gun is to be used as a killing machine. It is dangerous and serves no practical purpose outside of hunting and possibly protection (the latter is still up for debate).

Also, I'd like to point out that I honestly don't care about anyone's "fun." Statements like that just show why so many people shouldn't have guns. These weapons are not designed for "fun." They are not toys. They are weapons. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. I don't care if you want it. You don't always get what you want, especially when what you want is designed to kill. Don't talk to me about "making life less fun." You know what makes life less fun? Dying.

Designed for one purpose? They are not. Military, law enforcement, home defense, competition, hunting, and recreation. Bushmaster made these six categories as a sort of ad. Their minds aren't focused on only the killing purpose, and neither is my mind. So no, I don't see these rifles as just being for killing, nor do I think the makers had that in mind all the time. "Basic purpose," "no practical purpose," are troubling phrases to use. Who defines what this purpose is? It's subjective because a person judges what the purpose is of a tool or thing. You may think it's a killing machine, but those on the rifle range may say it's for collection (show offs).

Since the judged purpose is subjective, I cannot state the extent of the purposes the rifle may have. Fun, sure, people tell me that (though I prefer target practice). No, statements said by riflemen that shooting is fun doesn't mean they're careless or crazy killers. The penalty for even accidently shooting someone (plus the grief) is a real incentive to prevent that.

The statement not caring about anyone's wants is disturbing though. I am limited in what I may do because of limited means (lack of money), or because the means or ends steal, murder, lie, or violate another's physical property. A ban on assault rifles does however threaten to steal or violate another's property if they try selling such a rifle, and may also threaten assault rifle owners' lives if confiscation (stealing) is enforced. Morally, this is awkward, the government being able to steal and kill if needed to enforce such a law, but I can't do such a thing (because I would an aggressor, not defending like with self defense against theft).
 
Last edited:

BurningWhiteKyurem

Well-Known Member
It is true it is not absolute, however I think we could both agree that a criminal would choose the unarmed house over the armed house the vast, and I mean VAST majority of the time.

Fair enough.

Calling for backup and then going in and trying to hunt down the two gunmen gives the kids much more of a chance to survive than to allow the gunmen to continue to go through the school unmolested. I mean that is just common logic.

When they reentered the building to kill more people, did a magical force field come up? If not then what was preventing the cop from pursuing the suspects inside to try and stop them from taking more innocent lives?

Not when you're outgunned, the officers had handguns, what could they possibly do to the neutralize suspects that had superior arsenal (assault rifles/semi-automatics) against them? That's why it's essentially fighting a losing battle. I understand where you're coming from since it IS common logic, but the cop calling for back-up ate a lot of time. Time that some Columbine Students trapped in the school didn't have.

In terms of thinking adding armed forces to the school is going to help, this is exactly why I am not a fan of the idea: 1) it's not even close to cost-effective considering the cost of armed guards in 100,000 schools amounts to an estimation of 400+ million dollars from taxpayers. Additionally you set a precedent: Schools only account for 1/4 of the mass shootings in America. What about the other 3/4 that takes place in public spaces? Sounds more common to me, yet no there is no dire need to add security there compared to schools?

2) It's not a guarantee that lives are going to be saved. Common-sense, if you're going to spend a boatload of money on guards, the payoff should be beneficial in that you're saving some lives. The pure fact that it's not guaranteed as shown in Columbine and Virginia Tech only serves to show the ineffectiveness of the policy.

3) Escalation - What happens when the gunmen overpowers the armed officials in terms of wielding arsenal?

I see no reason why we cannot do both

Because in a place like America, they are mutually exclusive. It has become common now to want to kill a criminal rather than to stay objective and understand the conditions that created the criminal in the first place. We as humans have begun to confuse justice with revenge. That's why so much of taxpayers money is focused on imprisonment, and less to maybe no resources are invested in reformation and rehabilitation. If we tried to understand, conservative policy-makers would accuse us of being "soft."

Okay I am sorry but this is utterly wrong, having a officer shoot down a crazed criminal is not going to have another person step up and take his place. Such criminal's are their own creature and it takes a mixture of circumstances to push them this far. I just cannot see where you came up with this idea. I mean if we had shot the Sandy Hook shooter dead, would his other wise sane brother step up to avenge the death of his psychotic brother? No of course not.

Then why do we have some copycat criminals trying to live down the same "legacy" that Adam Lanza and James Holmes and countless other killers went through in their crimes? The simplest answer so far is because they feel immortalized since our media is so used to sensationalizing every damn event that happens rather than report and move on to the next topic. Of course as you stated, not all themes are spoken in absolutes since criminals do function differently. However, it does speak to a rather interesting policy trend: Americans are the most punitive from a policy-making/imprisonment standpoint yet there has been 33 mass killings since Columbine. One has to wonder why are mass killings continually happening one after another then?

The answer to that is, we are going to have to go down the path of forced institutionlization. Sometimes locking people up and throwing away the key, that is really the only way you could control them.

Forced Institutionalization is going to drain a lot of money, especially considering that USA already spends upwards of 50-60 billion dollars a year on keeping criminals in prisons. On top of all of that, it contributes nothing from a social control standpoint. And the return on the investment is that the recidivism rate is still quite high at 40% as documented from the PEW study. Therefore suggesting that tough-on-crime approaches contribute nothing to reforming the criminal and is extremely cost-ineffective. Additionally, criminals that have been released and out of trouble are also lacking in resources necessary to reintegrate back into society (criminal records limit job opportunities etc.). It's a perpetual state of inertia that gives the criminal no choice but to commit crime.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Not when you're outgunned, the officers had handguns, what could they possibly do to the neutralize suspects that had superior arsenal (assault rifles/semi-automatics) against them? That's why it's essentially fighting a losing battle. I understand where you're coming from since it IS common logic, but the cop calling for back-up ate a lot of time. Time that some Columbine Students trapped in the school didn't have.

Typically Cops have radios on them which connect them to dispatch as such the time it to press the radio and say that there are gunmen at Columbine Highschool. Also many time Cops find themselves in situations in which they are outgunned, they go in anyway, that is part of the job.

In terms of thinking adding armed forces to the school is going to help, this is exactly why I am not a fan of the idea: 1) it's not even close to cost-effective considering the cost of armed guards in 100,000 schools amounts to an estimation of 400+ million dollars from taxpayers. Additionally you set a precedent: Schools only account for 1/4 of the mass shootings in America. What about the other 3/4 that takes place in public spaces? Sounds more common to me, yet no there is no dire need to add security there compared to schools?

Well first $400 Million dollars is a drop in the bucket in terms of taxpayer money, it amounts to one or two pork barrel projects that Washington is so fond of. And if it ends up saving 10 or even 20 or even 100 lives, of little five year old children, is it not worth it? Or is the price of safety for children in America just not too much? As for the other 3/4th percent I would assume they happen in privately held areas like movie theaters and malls, as such it is up to those companies to hire off duty officers for the place. In the aftermath of the Dark Knight shooting, I can say movie theaters atleast have stepped up security, I have seen multiple cops at multiple theaters, including two just last week. But again it is a privately held company and they do as they wish.

2) It's not a guarantee that lives are going to be saved. Common-sense, if you're going to spend a boatload of money on guards, the payoff should be beneficial in that you're saving some lives. The pure fact that it's not guaranteed as shown in Columbine and Virginia Tech only serves to show the ineffectiveness of the policy.

We can single out why Columbine failed, and we can learn from it. As for Virginia Tech, a college campus is alot more spread out with multiple buildings, unlike a high school that consists of one building, as such I cannot see it as comparable to putting guards in a high school.

3) Escalation - What happens when the gunmen overpowers the armed officials in terms of wielding arsenal?

In which case I would suggest also training a select group of staff at the school on how to fire a weapon, and have a few locked up in the main office.

Because in a place like America, they are mutually exclusive. It has become common now to want to kill a criminal rather than to stay objective and understand the conditions that created the criminal in the first place. We as humans have begun to confuse justice with revenge. That's why so much of taxpayers money is focused on imprisonment, and less to maybe no resources are invested in reformation and rehabilitation. If we tried to understand, conservative policy-makers would accuse us of being "soft."

I don't think so, the recent debate on Video Games shows that there is a want to understand how these people get this way, and while it may not be the right path it is a start.

Then why do we have some copycat criminals trying to live down the same "legacy" that Adam Lanza and James Holmes and countless other killers went through in their crimes? The simplest answer so far is because they feel immortalized since our media is so used to sensationalizing every damn event that happens rather than report and move on to the next topic. Of course as you stated, not all themes are spoken in absolutes since criminals do function differently. However, it does speak to a rather interesting policy trend: Americans are the most punitive from a policy-making/imprisonment standpoint yet there has been 33 mass killings since Columbine. One has to wonder why are mass killings continually happening one after another then?

One could say mass killings happen largely because people wish to kill as many people in as short amount of time, why they wish to do that no one can really understand, their brain does not work on logic. As for why we have copycat criminals, the most logical answer is they wish to get the same type of media attention for the crime, they are not trying to avenge the death of Adam Lanza, there is absolutely NO evidence pointing to that for copy cat killers, they are merely trying to get the same amount of attention. So to say that killing the person continues the cycle of violence is incorrect, as Adam Lanza and the rest through their actions garner the attention, it does not matter if they kill themselves or if they are shot by someone, the copy cat killer is still going to act, not to avenge, but to get the attention.

Forced Institutionalization is going to drain a lot of money, especially considering that USA already spends upwards of 50-60 billion dollars a year on keeping criminals in prisons. On top of all of that, it contributes nothing from a social control standpoint. And the return on the investment is that the recidivism rate is still quite high at 40% as documented from the PEW study. Therefore suggesting that tough-on-crime approaches contribute nothing to reforming the criminal and is extremely cost-ineffective. Additionally, criminals that have been released and out of trouble are also lacking in resources necessary to reintegrate back into society (criminal records limit job opportunities etc.). It's a perpetual state of inertia that gives the criminal no choice but to commit crime.

I am not saying doing so as being tough on crime, I am saying so because there are people so screwed up in the head that they do not deserve to be on the streets. Forced Institutionalization is practically the only way to make sure they get their medicine and do not have a psychotic episode that results in the killings of others. To put it simply, there is just some people who are so messed up they cannot live in this world, for one example I point you to this blog post from a mother who deals with one such person.

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
Designed for one purpose? They are not. Military, law enforcement, home defense, competition, hunting, and recreation. Bushmaster made these six categories as a sort of ad. Their minds aren't focused on only the killing purpose, and neither is my mind. So no, I don't see these rifles as just being for killing, nor do I think the makers had that in mind all the time. "Basic purpose," "no practical purpose," are troubling phrases to use. Who defines what this purpose is? It's subjective because a person judges what the purpose is of a tool or thing. You may think it's a killing machine, but those on the rifle range may say it's for collection (show offs).

Since the judged purpose is subjective, I cannot state the extent of the purposes the rifle may have. Fun, sure, people tell me that (though I prefer target practice). No, statements said by riflemen that shooting is fun doesn't mean they're careless or crazy killers. The penalty for even accidently shooting someone (plus the grief) is a real incentive to prevent that.

The statement not caring about anyone's wants is disturbing though. I am limited in what I may do because of limited means (lack of money), or because the means or ends steal, murder, lie, or violate another's physical property. A ban on assault rifles does however threaten to steal or violate another's property if they try selling such a rifle, and may also threaten assault rifle owners' lives if confiscation (stealing) is enforced. Morally, this is awkward, the government being able to steal and kill if needed to enforce such a law, but I can't do such a thing (because I would an aggressor, not defending like with self defense against theft).

You can make categories of killing (which encompasses all but "competition" and "recreation" to some extent) but they're still designed to harm and kill. That's what guns are made for. And honestly, why is it surprising that a gun manufacturer tries to make their product sound cooler by giving them all different categories? It's a sales tactic and nothing more. You can give something a new purpose to you personally (That's kind of the whole idea behind the "found art" idea, for example) but it doesn't change the fact that object was designed for something specific. Someone might think their gun collection is cool but that doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous to have those weapons.

And I think saying that having tighter gun control (which is what I stated in my post) "takes the fun out of life" does show that many people in this country don't realize the gravity of owning a gun. It is not a toy designed for fun. It is dangerous, especially if not used properly. I never said anything about the statements of riflemen. I was responding to your post, your statement alone.

Why is not caring about others' desires to be greedy (possibly at the expense of another's life) disturbing? I see people die all the time. I see the devastation it brings to their families firsthand. I'm not desensitized to it and I probably never will be. The idea of owning something that was designed to kill so efficiently disturbs me. I've shot a gun before and it was emotionally disturbing to me. I'm not asking for a ban on anything (I said I wouldn't mind a ban on certain guns, not that I'm asking for a ban). If you think I am, you misread my post. I'm asking for stricter gun laws and gun control. And as far as theft goes: Is the $60 in your wallet worth another human's life? Is your flat-screen TV worth another's life? Rhetorical questions but important things to consider. What's disturbing to me is reading in the NRA's official magazine about some guy who is praised as a hero for shooting and killing an unarmed teenager for breaking and entering his home. There's protecting what's yours and there's taking things too far, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Akiyama

Awake me if Ash wins
Why yes owning a gun can be fun. It does however carry its responsibilities as would a fast car require good driving. Gun ownership carries big punishments for misuse though. Ranges with the least safety gear are in the middle of nowhere many miles from houses because liability for bullets hitting houses and people is just about impossible (thus no lawsuits). The ranges close to houses are indoors or designed with rules, berms, and overhead metal blockers to avoid having this happen. Not the mention the security cameras put up at my local pistol range to catch who was shooting the structure's pillars. Keep the laws against manslaughter up as well, that's a great incentive as well. For misuse against one's self, I've even seen a guy in school with a shot foot he did to himself. That's painful and just about everyone in my gym class heard about it.

Still, to reply to your questions. I do refuse to be robbed of the TV or the $60. Will he attempt to kill me? Maybe, especially if he is already armed. I don't have to shoot back right away, I could run, disarm him, throw heavy things at him, or tell him to run because I threaten him with lethal self-defense. Others may not view getting their lives in the way of their property wise all the time, but it is their own value scale to defend property and self. I would be mad at a shopkeeper for shooting a child stealing a toy out of a store (assuming no one in the store was threatened by this boy) because no one's body was even threatened with even a stab. I mean, taking out the boy's life may be a huge unseen cost that is unjustified since he threatened no one.

Now getting in the way of a theft may result in a murder attempt, but being serious for self-defense may also result in no crime. That's a gamble for the gunowner or knifeowner or the strong armed. Thus, the question may be "is $60 worth your life and body to defend?" And honestly, self-defense trainers suggest you do give the $60 because of this danger. For an LCD TV in the house? Maybe he pulls a gun or knife when told to drop the TV, or maybe he runs. End results may mean an escaped thief, the homeowner killed, or the thief who attempted to hurt the homeowner is killed, or the TV is out of the house.

So stricter gun laws and control then? Telling people what rifle they can no longer sell is backed up by government force. Two consenting parties, both legal to buy and sell a gun in the present system, can no longer do the same. Maybe you meant the mentally ill shouldn't get them, but these people may not have killed or aren't aggressive. ADHD, aspergers, autism, depression come to mind as common illnesses, yet are they actually violent or have been violent?

Oh, but now I reached a topic I am on the fence about, still thinking of: Should felons and all of the mentally ill be able to legally buy and sell firearms? I'll think about it. Maybe there should be liability on gun shops for selling weapons to known bad guys and aggressive mentally ill instead. Which brings forward vouchers (people who can say "I trust this felon enough that I will pay massive damages if he screws up") and pretty much the same ban against felons. Ah who knows what better system there is for this gun buying and selling, maybe they really should just be allowed to sell as they wish because it is only the felon who's the bad guy for aggressive violence.

And finally with your judgement for the rifle's design or purpose or danger. It's still a subjective thing. Humans judge what is to fulfilled by making a tool (its designed to do...), and another human may judge that tool's purpose according to his wants. How dangerous something is depends on a person's judgement and evaluation of risk-vs-reward and how he feels about the risk (injury) or reward (some purpose). I see people not wear seatbelts, and I know they might go through the windshield in a crash, but they may see the risk as being so small that it's worth the comfort of being without the belt. Dangerous to have these weapons? It depends because the gun is inactive, its safety depends on its use and how the user follows safe gun handling. Telling others about a gun collection may also be dangerous by increasing the risk for home invasion (or it may decrease the risk! Unknown effect).

But really, if you meant that the rifle is dangerous against victims (or an aggressor) then of course it is. Same with two or more thugs ambushing a person with or without any weapons. Same with chemistry making a truck bomb for killing (somehow, the Mid-East still has these occur despite what the army tries). The assault rifle may be viewed as an improvement over a normal hunting rifle for its looks, target shooting, or hunting, and that is like how a faster car may be viewed as an improvement for its looks, speed, and bragging. Both can be viewed as an improved way to carry out a purpose a human desires. Both can also be seen as more dangerous, though I do not support banning either. The violence of taking away another's property (rifles) for the purpose of a gun ban or law or control instead of a real violent crime is offensive to me.

That's about enough from me though, I think my practice at debating is enough. I have now thought up quite the question over if felon should have a gun bought (do we really know his future?), and it interests me enough to investigate it.

Edit: Akiyama holds it as a truth that design and purpose is in fact subjective. I am bored of restating that. Also, one may state seatbelt laws are around to prevent this "dangerous" activity of not wearing one while driving. Frankly, I am only interested in persuading people to use a seatbelt for their own safety, but you might get yelled at for pointing a rifle at others on a rifle range since that concerns others' safety (and you could be reported for it).
 
Last edited:

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
To a point it's not subjective at all. Just because you can use something in a different way, doesn't mean we refer to those uses as equal. Guns are specifically manufactured to blow holes in things. You can display them, but this is obviously a secondary thing to do with them. Guns aren't made to be displayed, they are displayed because people are impressed with their potential to do damage, the primary purpose for them. People created guns to be weapons - for war, defense, hunting, whatever.

There are people that make homes out of airplanes and school buses. Yet nobody would say that airplanes and school buses are made to transport people or provide homes for people. The overwhelmingly common purpose for airplanes and school buses is to transport people. It's only in the absense of fufilling that use that people decide to use them for makeshift homes.

You can buy a whole bunch of video game cartridges and display them, but there would be no reason to display them if you didn't value them for what they are primarily used for, playing the video game on them. It's the same thing with guns. People don't display guns just for the sake of displaying guns - they display guns because they value them for their capability to shoot. So collecting guns isn't really a separate, distinct use of them - it's obviously connected to using them to shoot things.

Target practice is not really a distinct use from shooting a living thing either. The guns were still not manufactured to do target practice in particular; target practice emerged as a way to train people how to use guns in order to shoot a living target in either hunting or war. In target practice, paintball and water guns fufill the same purpose of projecting something over a distance and seeing them collide. There's no motivation to use lethal force on an inanimate target unless you're honing your skills to potentially use the gun to inflict that lethal force on something living. It's not that people don't need to or have no purpose in using lethal force; just that doing so specificaly points to the fact that the point is not the target practice itself, but the use of the lethal force.

Even if you believe that using guns for target practice meaningfully changes what guns are meant to be used for, that target practice is not related to hunting an animal or shooting a person, the gun remains just as dangerous regardless of what you decide to do with it. Even if you just display inactive guns, they can be loaded again and adopt the ideal realization of what the manuafacters made them for. Pretty sure this is all Pesky Persian is trying to say with that point.
 
Last edited:

SBaby

Dungeon Master
You can make categories of killing (which encompasses all but "competition" and "recreation" to some extent) but they're still designed to harm and kill. That's what guns are made for. And honestly, why is it surprising that a gun manufacturer tries to make their product sound cooler by giving them all different categories? It's a sales tactic and nothing more. You can give something a new purpose to you personally (That's kind of the whole idea behind the "found art" idea, for example) but it doesn't change the fact that object was designed for something specific. Someone might think their gun collection is cool but that doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous to have those weapons.

And I think saying that having tighter gun control (which is what I stated in my post) "takes the fun out of life" does show that many people in this country don't realize the gravity of owning a gun. It is not a toy designed for fun. It is dangerous, especially if not used properly. I never said anything about the statements of riflemen. I was responding to your post, your statement alone.

Why is not caring about others' desires to be greedy (possibly at the expense of another's life) disturbing? I see people die all the time. I see the devastation it brings to their families firsthand. I'm not desensitized to it and I probably never will be. The idea of owning something that was designed to kill so efficiently disturbs me. I've shot a gun before and it was emotionally disturbing to me. I'm not asking for a ban on anything (I said I wouldn't mind a ban on certain guns, not that I'm asking for a ban). If you think I am, you misread my post. I'm asking for stricter gun laws and gun control. And as far as theft goes: Is the $60 in your wallet worth another human's life? Is your flat-screen TV worth another's life? Rhetorical questions but important things to consider. What's disturbing to me is reading in the NRA's official magazine about some guy who is praised as a hero for shooting and killing an unarmed teenager for breaking and entering his home. There's protecting what's yours and there's taking things too far, in my opinion.

Where would you draw the line though? Automatic weapons? Semi-automatic? Where ould it end? And would that make all the violence and killing go away?
 

BigLutz

Banned
Thought I would post a few things since there has been some news in the Gun Debate since the last post in this topic.

WSBTV said:
The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

“The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

Without a gun in the house, things could have gone ALOT worse.

Meanwhile a local newspaper decided to use Google Earth and the Freedom of Information Act to engage in pure stupidity and post the names of all gun permit holders. The reaction? Quite predictable.

Fox News said:
Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News’ decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger.

“They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That’s not acceptable to me,” Falco said, according to Newsday.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/0...cs-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/

Fox News said:
That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?

“What they did was insanity,” added Shaw, author of “License to Steal,” a book about his criminal career.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/0...papers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/

In the end they have made crimes much easier, criminals now know the safer places to burglarize.
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
Where would you draw the line though? Automatic weapons? Semi-automatic? Where ould it end? And would that make all the violence and killing go away?

I'm too tired and too busy to keep up with this thread, but I just have to point out two things:
1. I've already stated that I'm not asking for a ban, simply stricter gun laws. Laws on all guns. I don't know why I need to place a line anywhere because I'm not saying anything about a ban.
2. I never said it would make the violence and killing go away. Not completely. However, even in Cipher's OP we can see that other countries with stricter gun laws have less lethal crime. I don't honestly think it's simply a coincidence that we have some of the loosest gun control laws and more massacres than the rest of the world combined.
 

BigLutz

Banned
2. I never said it would make the violence and killing go away. Not completely. However, even in Cipher's OP we can see that other countries with stricter gun laws have less lethal crime. I don't honestly think it's simply a coincidence that we have some of the loosest gun control laws and more massacres than the rest of the world combined.

As I pointed out before, even in the UK with their strict gun laws they have merely switched over to stabbings as the new form of killing. And unlike us they do not have to deal with a flood of weapons across their border. Infact it got so bad, there was talk in 2005 of a ban on kitchen knives!
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
As I pointed out before, even in the UK with their strict gun laws they have merely switched over to stabbings as the new form of killing. And unlike us they do not have to deal with a flood of weapons across their border. Infact it got so bad, there was talk in 2005 of a ban on kitchen knives!

I don't honestly think most average, everyday people (which is what most of these people who have done these mass killings as of late have been) are going to be buying a bunch of guns off the black market if they were illegal. As it is now, they're a convenient, lethal weapon. I think it would be a bit not worth the effort for people doing petty crimes and/or having a psychotic break. The people I can see buying things from a black market would be more like gang members or drug cartels, which are generally more focused on shooting each other than they are shooting up schools. Also, as Cipher has already pointed out, knives aren't as lethal for mass-killings as guns are. They're much too slow and require the victim to be in close range. It's much easier to defend yourself against a knife than a gun.

Edit: Also, as I've said before (and maybe I'm not being totally clear on this) I am not talking about banning guns outright. I don't think people are going to be going the black market route just because it's more difficult to get a gun.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I don't honestly think most average, everyday people (which is what most of these people who have done these mass killings as of late have been) are going to be buying a bunch of guns off the black market if they were illegal. As it is now, they're a convenient, lethal weapon. I think it would be a bit not worth the effort for people doing petty crimes and/or having a psychotic break. The people I can see buying things from a black market would be more like gang members or drug cartels, which are generally more focused on shooting each other than they are shooting up schools.

One could say it is fairly easy now for most average, everyday people, to buy drugs off the black market, if not the large drug base would not exist, what is the difference from transporting drugs to transporting illegal firearms Hell if we were to merely ban guns, wouldn't these mass murderers move on to something else? Possibly bomb making? Something you can devise from chemicals found at nearly any store.

Also, as Cipher has already pointed out, knives aren't as lethal for mass-killings as guns are. They're much too slow and require the victim to be in close range. It's much easier to defend yourself against a knife than a gun.

It is much easier to defend, which is also a problem. Gun's usually serve to calm down a situation, as people know they cannot defend against them, and thus people back off when a gun is pulled. Knives on the other hand, people know they have a chance against it, and are more willing to act, thus escalating the situation and increasing the chances of a fatal stabbing.

Pesky Persian said:
Edit: Also, as I've said before (and maybe I'm not being totally clear on this) I am not talking about banning guns outright. I don't think people are going to be going the black market route just because it's more difficult to get a gun.

Nor am I saying you are, but I do want to point out that the man in the Sandy Hook shooting tried to get a gun and failed, he then stole them from his mother and killed her. If he was willing to engage in illegal means to get a weapon after trying to get one legally, how far do you honestly think he was from seeking out a Black Market route?
 
Last edited:

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
One could say it is fairly easy now for most average, everyday people, to buy drugs off the black market, if not the large drug base would not exist, what is the difference from transporting drugs to transporting illegal firearms Hell if we were to merely ban guns, wouldn't these mass murderers move on to something else? Possibly bomb making? Something you can devise from chemicals found at nearly any store.

Guns are not drugs. Honestly, have you learned nothing from previous discussions or is your tactic to never have any other argument?

Your reading comprehension skills must be very poor. I've said it at least twice on this page: I am not talking about banning guns. Jesus tapdancing Christ, is every pro-gun person in this thread illiterate or can you all just not understand that stricter laws do not equal a ban?

It is much easier to defend, which is also a problem. Gun's usually serve to calm down a situation, as people know they cannot defend against them, and thus people back off when a gun is pulled. Knives on the other hand, people know they have a chance against it, and are more willing to act, thus escalating the situation and increasing the chances of a fatal stabbing.

I don't actually see guns ever calming a situation down unless they're in the hands of a law enforcement official.
Your fatal stabbing scenario is confusing. I can't tell if you're talking about the attacker or the victim holding the knife. If you're talking about the attacker, if you're going to go after someone wielding a knife instead of just running away, you're pretty stupid and that's your own fault.

Edit:
Nor am I saying you are, but I do want to point out that the man in the Sandy Hook shooting tried to get a gun and failed, he then stole them from his mother and killed her. If he was willing to engage in illegal means to get a weapon after trying to get one legally, how far do you honestly think he was from seeking out a Black Market route?

Stealing from your own mother is not the same as obtaining a weapon from the black market. Also, if guns weren't so easy to get, his mother probably wouldn't be collecting them and thus he wouldn't have such easy access.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
Guns are not drugs. Honestly, have you learned nothing from previous discussions or is your tactic to never have any other argument?

Of which I have brought up in previous discussions and no one has been able to dispute that the Mexican Drug Cartels are just as easily able to move guns across the border as they are drugs as long as there is a open market for them.

Your reading comprehension skills must be very poor. I've said it at least twice on this page: I am not talking about banning guns. Jesus tapdancing Christ, is every pro-gun person in this thread illiterate or can you all just not understand that stricter laws do not equal a ban?

I believe I have already addressed that in a edit of my post, but it should be noted you have refered back to the OP for your argument, which carries many links to outright bans of guns in countries. If you wish to avoid confusion I would suggest you avoid doing that.

I don't actually see guns ever calming a situation down unless they're in the hands of a law enforcement official.

It does not matter if the person holding a gun is a law enforcement officer or not, they immediately have the power in the situation because they have a weapon that could immediately kill anyone else. As such in a heated argument it calms the situation down.

Your fatal stabbing scenario is confusing. I can't tell if you're talking about the attacker or the victim holding the knife. If you're talking about the attacker, if you're going to go after someone wielding a knife instead of just running away, you're pretty stupid and that's your own fault.

Don't see what is confusing about it, lets say there are two guys arguing in a bar, one pulls out a gun, the second immediately freezes and apologizes and tries to calm the gun wielder down. Now lets replace the gun with a knife, instead of trying to calm the knife wielder down, the knife-less man believes he can take him, because as you have admitted people know they have a chance with a knife as opposed to a gun. In the ensuing struggle one or both are fatally stabbed trying to wrestle over the knife.

Pesky Persian said:
Stealing from your own mother is not the same as obtaining a weapon from the black market. Also, if guns weren't so easy to get, his mother probably wouldn't be collecting them and thus he wouldn't have such easy access.

Last time I checked his mother was pretty nutty in and of herself, and was a survivalist believing the world was at the edge of economic ruin, do you honestly think some one with that kind of mindset would not skirt the law to protect her children? It is also worth noting that the state that the shooting took place has some of the strictest gun laws in the entire nation. The next thing one could do would be to ban actual guns.
 
Last edited:

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
Of which I have brought up in previous discussions and no one has been able to dispute that the Mexican Drug Cartels are just as easily able to move guns across the border as they are drugs as long as there is a open market for them.

And as has already been brought up in previous discussion, drugs are consumables. That has a huge impact in why they're in such high demand. You constantly need to buy more if you want them to last. Guns are not consumables. Also, drugs are much more portable and not as easily traceable.

I believe I have already addressed that in a edit of my post, but it should be noted you have refered back to the OP for your argument, which carries many links to outright bans of guns in countries. If you wish to avoid confusion I would suggest you avoid doing that.

You said you weren't saying I was banning guns... Yet in that same post you argue against a ban on guns. All of Cipher's links are simply informational. The only one that outright talks about gun bans is the one about Japan. There is a distinct correlation between gun availability to the general public and a trend toward gun violence.


It does not matter if the person holding a gun is a law enforcement officer or not, they immediately have the power in the situation because they have a weapon that could immediately kill anyone else. As such in a heated argument it calms the situation down.

So you approve of threatening lethal force in a heated argument?

Don't see what is confusing about it, lets say there are two guys arguing in a bar, one pulls out a gun, the second immediately freezes and apologizes and tries to calm the gun wielder down. Now lets replace the gun with a knife, instead of trying to calm the knife wielder down, the knife-less man believes he can take him, because as you have admitted people know they have a chance with a knife as opposed to a gun. In the ensuing struggle one or both are fatally stabbed trying to wrestle over the knife.

Then that person is an idiot and was asking to be stabbed. Also, I think you're looking at guns through rose-tinted glasses. A situation where an aggressive person pulls a lethal weapon that can cause horrendous injuries even at a long range is not better.



Last time I checked his mother was pretty nutty in and of herself, and was a survivalist believing the world was at the edge of economic ruin, do you honestly think some one with that kind of mindset would not skirt the law to protect her children? It is also worth noting that the state that the shooting took place has some of the strictest gun laws in the entire nation. The next thing one could do would be to ban actual guns.

I haven't actually researched his mother, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Do we even know she bought the guns in that state? I mean, it's not exactly difficult to transport guns across state lines. There isn't any kind of border patrol like on a national level.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
And as has already been brought up in previous discussion, drugs are consumables. That has a huge impact in why they're in such high demand. You constantly need to buy more if you want them to last. Guns are not consumables. Also, drugs are much more portable and not as easily traceable.

A: You will always need to buy bullets, not to mention guns do break down or get stolen, and of course when gun crime goes up people in the surrounding neighborhoods will feel the need to protect themselves, creating a self feeding cycle.

B: Mexican Drug Cartels have created a massive network of tunnels in which they can take truckloads of drugs across the border, they do not make a profit on transporting mere dime bags, but on massive quantities, as such the portable argument is null and void.

You said you weren't saying I was banning guns... Yet in that same post you argue against a ban on guns. All of Cipher's links are simply informational. The only one that outright talks about gun bans is the one about Japan. There is a distinct correlation between gun availability to the general public and a trend toward gun violence.

Of course there is, but then again one could look at Britain and say there is a distinct correlation between gun availability to the general public and knife violence

So you approve of threatening lethal force in a heated argument?

I do not have to approve of something to know it happens

Then that person is an idiot and was asking to be stabbed. Also, I think you're looking at guns through rose-tinted glasses. A situation where an aggressive person pulls a lethal weapon that can cause horrendous injuries even at a long range is not better.

It may not be better, and that guy may be a idiot, but as we have both agreed upon, a person can get a knife out of a person's hands much easier than a gun, thus creating a escalation

I haven't actually researched his mother, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Do we even know she bought the guns in that state? I mean, it's not exactly difficult to transport guns across state lines. There isn't any kind of border patrol like on a national level.

All the guns were legally registered, meaning even if she brought them across, the state knew about them and allowed them.
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
A: You will always need to buy bullets, not to mention guns do break down or get stolen, and of course when gun crime goes up people in the surrounding neighborhoods will feel the need to protect themselves, creating a self feeding cycle.

B: Mexican Drug Cartels have created a massive network of tunnels in which they can take truckloads of drugs across the border, they do not make a profit on transporting mere dime bags, but on massive quantities, as such the portable argument is null and void.

I'm not talking about a ban so I don't know why people would need to buy bullets from the black market. I don't really forecast people buying dimebags of shotgun shells off the streets just because it's more difficult to obtain a gun.
Yeah, and who are they selling those mass amounts of drugs to? Not the high schoolers, I can tell you that. Most people who buy drugs off the streets aren't buying them straight from the cartel. Big-time black marketers aren't going to be wasting their time with small-time people looking for guns.


Of course there is, but then again one could look at Britain and say there is a distinct correlation between gun availability to the general public and knife violence

Which isn't nearly as deadly. I'd rather someone get a flesh wound than be sent off to the morgue, but that's just me.

I do not have to approve of something to know it happens

I'd rather people have something less lethal at their disposal when it does.

It may not be better, and that guy may be a idiot, but as we have both agreed upon, a person can get a knife out of a person's hands much easier than a gun, thus creating a escalation

This is way too much of made-up scenario for me to really give it much credit. You're assuming that someone brings a weapon to a bar and assuming that the other person is always going to back down if a gun is pulled and so likely to fight back if it's a knife that it makes knives worse than guns. Just because something is more easy to defend yourself against doesn't mean you're going to escalate a situation just because there's a chance you can get out of unscathed. Maybe if you're drunk and/or a complete moron. That doesn't make the scenario any more credible by any means.

All the guns were legally registered, meaning even if she brought them across, the state knew about them and allowed them.

Which is probably why we need better gun laws. Why someone who has batshit crazy delusions is allowed a gun is completely beyond me.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I'm not talking about a ban so I don't know why people would need to buy bullets from the black market. I don't really forecast people buying dimebags of shotgun shells off the streets just because it's more difficult to obtain a gun.

Of course there is however a watershed moment, make something TOO hard to obtain is just as good as outright banning it. Infact it is worth pointing out that gun crime is actually down right now despite the increase in guns on the street.

Yeah, and who are they selling those mass amounts of drugs to? Not the high schoolers, I can tell you that. Most people who buy drugs off the streets aren't buying them straight from the cartel. Big-time black marketers aren't going to be wasting their time with small-time people looking for guns.

They will if there are enough of them, they will merely dispurse the large quantity to the movers, who will in turn work it across the country to the dealers in practically every city. Just the same way they do drugs.

Which isn't nearly as deadly. I'd rather someone get a flesh wound than be sent off to the morgue, but that's just me.

Really? Shall we ask Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman how much of a flesh wound a knife can give?

I'd rather people have something less lethal at their disposal when it does.

So you would prefer escalation?

This is way too much of made-up scenario for me to really give it much credit. You're assuming that someone brings a weapon to a bar and assuming that the other person is always going to back down if a gun is pulled and so likely to fight back if it's a knife that it makes knives worse than guns. Just because something is more easy to defend yourself against doesn't mean you're going to escalate a situation just because there's a chance you can get out of unscathed. Maybe if you're drunk and/or a complete moron. That doesn't make the scenario any more credible by any means.

You are right I am merely assuming, but that does not make this situation any less credible, hell even your own words on how knives can cause escalation give the situation credit.

Which is probably why we need better gun laws. Why someone who has batshit crazy delusions is allowed a gun is completely beyond me.

So how do you plan to do that? Mind readers? Complete mental check overs to own a weapon? And may I ask, what is stopping the kid who committed Sandy Hook from merely creating a suicide vest instead? Or loading his car up with explosives like the Oklahoma City bomber did? I will remind you the largest school massacre in the U.S. did not happen with a gun, but with a bomb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top