Harrison in 20 years?

[Gidan]

I do think that reducing the number of irresponsible people who own firearms will reduce the number of deaths by those firearms. I am not under the illusion that this number will have an effect on the national avgs for violent deaths but how many lives does it take to be worth it? How many times have we read a news story about little billy who shot his brother/sister/friend/himself with the loaded firearm he found in his home? Those types of deaths are completely the fault of irresponsible gun owners. How many people have died during a break in solely because they became the aggressor behind the protection of their gun? I don't have exact numbers but I gaurantee you that its happened many times. This would be the result of very poor decision making by the individual who had their false sense of power the gun provided.

With added regulations in regard to who can own a firearm, you can then have higher punishments for those who mishandle their firearm. If little billy shoots himself or someone else with that loaded firearm the parents kept in their nightstand, then the parents who took the required classes and past the required tests in regard to responsible ownership can be charged with the wrongful death of the individual. Someone who has taken steps to actually learn how to defend themselves tought by an instructor worth anything will be able to better understand a situation and know when to stand and fight vs when to run. There are many situations where one should simply run rather then attempt to make a stand and fight which results in unnecessary danger and possibly death. A normal person confronted with a possible life threatening situation does not stand and fight, they run. You add a gun to the situation and that same person is much more likely to think they have all the power and stay to fight. The end result all to often is that someone ends up dead. As before, breaking and entering is not a capital offense and while I fully believe the individual should be arrested and punished for doing so, they do not deserve to die for their crime, nor does the home owner or their family deserve to die because a non violent robbery situation became life threatening to one or both parties and resulted in lethal on the parts of one or both parties involved.

[Lueyen]

You may disagree but I do beleive that limiting the people who can legally obtain firearms will lower the number of deaths by firearms.

That is probably the core of the difference between those who lean toward more gun control and those who don't. The question is Gidan, why do you believe this?

For those of you who answered this question while there were some differences in reasons given for the conclusion, nearly all of them relied on logical deduction. The problem is that in study after study by enlarge indicate that gun control laws either have no effect on either criminal use or accidental death and injury due to firearms, or a negative one. I'm talking about un-biased studies that cite the parameters and methods used, not figures thrown out for argument. For instance citing a countries murder rate as being positively affected by gun bans when the actual murder rate increased just means that yes the logical implication of less guns, less gun murders worked.. but ignores what I would think many would agree to be the actual goal of reducing the murder rate. The real world evidence just does not support the logically deduced conclusion, that doesn't necessarily mean flawed logic, it just means there are other factors that are not taken into account, or that you are applying a "fix" to a symptom of a problem not the core problem its self.

As far as specifics:

Arlos - you take a very dim view of the vast majority of society, granted I'm sure not without cause, I have my days where I wonder about the future of the human race. Day by day however we allow these same people to drive motor vehicles, operate power tools, and electrical appliances. Granted operating a motor vehicle requires a license, however last I took a driving test you weren't required to demonstrate proficiency in abnormal or non-optimal conditions. If the masses of people in this country are truly to such a great degree mentally deficient drooling neanderthals then the danger they pose to society makes their possible possession of firearms the least of our worries.

ClakarEQ- Why don't I think that reducing the number of firearms won't reduce firearm deaths? Two reasons depending on how much you reduce firearms. With only a minimal reduction, say anything less then 3/4 or more there is a somewhat inversely proportional factor on the other side of the equation and that is how many lives are saved by firearms, or more correctly the perceived chance of their presence. Now if you take a hypothetical 100 percent reduction, if by magic tomorrow every single firearm on earth disappeared, then yes you would reduce the number of firearm deaths, yet I'm sure we would still have murder and other violent crimes, we would also still have accidental deaths even among children. The other shift I'd see happening in that imaginary scenario would be that you would see a shift in the number of violent crimes to include a greater number of women. For the most part guns are the great equalizer. A woman brandishing a firearm assuming adequate experience is just as deadly as a man despite any physical differences in strength. Before any of you ladies out there go GI Jane on me, I'm not saying this as a blanket statement, just as a general one (I've known plenty of women who could hands down beat my ass in a physical confrontation even assuming I put aside any reservations about a physical confrontation with a woman, and fyi it's sexy as hell, just not the norm). While I might not go as far as Spazz suggested with firearm education in school, I would submit to you that at least educating kids on what to do if they come across a firearm is something we should seriously consider. I think vague pictures (maybe nothing but black silhouettes of generic handguns and rifles would be enough) would be perfectly fine.

Gidian - How many child deaths are to many? More children are victims of accidental deaths due to a myriad of other reasons (not cumulative but individually) than with firearms. Besides motor vehicle related accidents the highest accidental death rate among children is cause by drowning... yet we don't seek to stop swimming, hell I've yet to see a nation wide story questioning how we can make swimming safer for children after a child drowns. Keeping that in mind however I have absolutely no problem with more stringent penalties for the owners of firearms who's carelessness results in their childs death, nor do I have an issue with efforts to educate people about firearms and the care that should be taken. Frankly regardless of education and testing I'd hold individuals to the same standards within reason, regardless of your firearms training or lack their off, if

billy shoots himself or someone else with that loaded firearm the parents kept in their nightstand

then the parents should be facing charges of involuntary man slaughter. If however billy breaks into the neighbors house, steals a gun with which he shoots himself or someone else I would not hold that gun owner accountable.

As a side note on home invasion, and I haven't ever looked at the data to back this up, but I suspicion that most home invasion that occurs when someone is home is not attempted robbery, but attempted assault in one form or another. I would think most people attempting to rob a house would rather wait until no one was home rather then try and not wake anyone. Again it's just speculation, but I believe it likely that you would find more likely then not home invasions where the occupants are home are perpetrated by someone with intent to do some physical harm to the occupants. While I don't think this should solicit a response of shoot first ask questions later, if nothing else for safety concerns and positively identifying an assailant, I do believe that it would dictate more caution due to a presumption that someone is more likely to inflict harm on you or your family.

[Nusk]

actually most thieves want the owner home... bigger chance that the jewelry is available for stealin

[vonkaar]

actually most thieves want the owner home... bigger chance that the jewelry is available for stealin

Source of this "psychology of the American thief" info?

[Nusk]

one of my dads friends is a repentant thief who told me a real burgler will make sure the family jewels are at home. the guys who dont get caught dont mess with tvs and computers they want to be in and out as fast as possible

there are also some statistic at fbi website

[ClakarEQ]

Lue, that is sort of my point, to reach the unrealistic number of 100% zero civilian firearms, you have to start somewhere. There will never be a magic wand to wave and make it go away overnight. That shouldn't be the reason to not start though. I also don't think anyone here, pro- or anti-gun is suggesting that all violent crime will disappear or that even gun death will go away 100%. However both violent crime and gun death would go down and IMO drastically.

I'm not aware of any country in recent times (100 years) that mimics anything even close to the USA regarding freedom and access to firearms. So any stats you claim show that firearms reduction does not curtail firearm death frankly is fiction when compared to us, today.

Honestly, I'm not certain that I would want 100% unarmed civilian populace however there aren't many options. We've got many laws in place today that either aren't enforced, can't be enforced, etc. We've got incredibly lax methods to acquire firearms with no recertification's, no training, etc. I look at it this way, one bad apple can ruin the bunch. If the NRA, law enforcement, etc can't find some way to stop the bad apples, IMO you all should lose the right. That form of "punishment" works, it is proven, in all walks of life.

If you suggest that with that logic I'm using we should take away folks cars, well we do, it happens all the time. But when would anyone's firearm EVER be taken away? O yeah, you have to kill someone. Owning a gun is a right, you can't get that taken away unless you commit a felony, a major crime.

You make the analogy of someone driving a car, there are more controls on that then firearms. I have to take my 15 question auto-exam every 3-5 years. Sure it is a BS exam but you know what, if I don't take it, I lose my license. You can't say that when it comes to the purchase, use, etc of a firearm. You have nearly ZERO requirements. I bet there are more strict requirements on getting you license than getting a firearm. I also don't think it is proper to compare a "right" to a privilege.

[Harrison]

If the NRA, law enforcement, etc can't find some way to stop the bad apples, IMO you all should lose the right. That form of "punishment" works, it is proven, in all walks of life.

People like you don't deserve the rights you are given with that mindset. It makes me sick to even hear that bullshit.

[Lueyen]

Sorry ClakarEQ I meant to respond to this stuff earlier this week got side tracked.

Lue, that is sort of my point, to reach the unrealistic number of 100% zero civilian firearms, you have to start somewhere. There will never be a magic wand to wave and make it go away overnight. That shouldn't be the reason to not start though. I also don't think anyone here, pro- or anti-gun is suggesting that all violent crime will disappear or that even gun death will go away 100%. However both violent crime and gun death would go down and IMO drastically.

I'm not aware of any country in recent times (100 years) that mimics anything even close to the USA regarding freedom and access to firearms. So any stats you claim show that firearms reduction does not curtail firearm death frankly is fiction when compared to us, today.

Is your argument for gun control based on it's effect? The reason I ask is you seem to want to categorically disregard all information about the effects of gun control in preference for your opinion and what you believe would happen. There are countries who's laws regarding guns are relatively close to our own, such as Israel and even countries who's gun laws are arguably even more open then our own, such as Switzerland. Both of these countries I've mentioned have a lower violent crime rate per capita than the US. We need not really even go outside our borders to see the effects, we've already had a gun ban in DC, we know that violent crime increase from the onset of the gun ban forward, and that this increase did not parallel the violent crime rate levels in the rest of the nation. No we don't have any data on modern day complete gun removal from the civilian populace of the United states, but we don't need to do so to find out the results, just like you don't have to burn your hand on a stove to verify it's hot.

Seriously it looks like you have a solution in search of a problem. Lets take another hypothetical situation, if it were proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that gun bans had either no effect on violent crime or contributed to a rise in violent crime would you still support gun bans? I'm suspicious that the answer may be yes, and if that is the case, why?

Honestly, I'm not certain that I would want 100% unarmed civilian populace however there aren't many options. We've got many laws in place today that either aren't enforced, can't be enforced, etc. We've got incredibly lax methods to acquire firearms with no recertification's, no training, etc. I look at it this way, one bad apple can ruin the bunch. If the NRA, law enforcement, etc can't find some way to stop the bad apples, IMO you all should lose the right. That form of "punishment" works, it is proven, in all walks of life.

Talk about circular logic. It is not the responsibility nor a function of the NRA to enforce the law, and it would be unreasonable to lay at it's feet the responsibility of enforcing the law. It is the responsibility of law enforcement to enforce the law, and what you are saying is that if law enforcement can't do it's job, we should punish the people by putting them at a disadvantage in protecting themselves when law enforcement does not. Again you are "punishing" the wrong people, you are prescribing a solution that will make an already bad problem worse, a solution that's balance in fairness is so lopsided it's very rarely accepted by anyone beyond children subject to the demands of their parents, soldiers subject to the demands of those in command, and individuals who live under oppressive dictatorial governments.

But when would anyone's firearm EVER be taken away? O yeah, you have to kill someone. Owning a gun is a right, you can't get that taken away unless you commit a felony, a major crime.

That is completely incorrect. Federal laws cover a much broader base of people who's right to posses firearms is revoked, including some types of misdemeanors, or even certain individuals who have broken no laws at all.

You make the analogy of someone driving a car, there are more controls on that then firearms. I have to take my 15 question auto-exam every 3-5 years. Sure it is a BS exam but you know what, if I don't take it, I lose my license. You can't say that when it comes to the purchase, use, etc of a firearm. You have nearly ZERO requirements. I bet there are more strict requirements on getting you license than getting a firearm. I also don't think it is proper to compare a "right" to a privilege.

Lots of apples and oranges in the comparison, and I agree the two are not the same and for the most part are a bad general comparison.

[Tikker]

If the NRA, law enforcement, etc can't find some way to stop the bad apples, IMO you all should lose the right. That form of "punishment" works, it is proven, in all walks of life.

People like you don't deserve the rights you are given with that mindset. It makes me sick to even hear that bullshit.

i can't wait until you step on a landmine

[Harrison]

There's an appropriate response.

I hope you fall off a telephone pole and land face first on a 12-inch black dildo?


Why do you care anyways? You're out in the middle of nowhere. You're not even in our country. You don't have our rights. Though if you agree with him that a few bad apples should dictate the rights of an entire population, you're equally as dumb.

[Spazz]

Though if you agree with him that a few bad apples should dictate the rights of an entire population, you're equally as dumb

Do you still feel the same if we apply the same logic to something like drugs instead of guns ?

[ClakarEQ]

Lue, I don't recall honestly but all males in Switz have to go through nearly a year of military training and several weeks over the course of a decade, so that isn't in the same ball park as the US. That isn't to say you can't have a gun prior to going to training but training is no an option, it is a requirement. I don't know about Israel but I think it is very similar but for both sexes. How you could make this comparison I'm not really sure.

Are you saying lets force a required draft for every 18-19 year old male/female where they have to put in a year boot camp and then like the reservists, 3 weeks a year for 10 years (or whatever the facts are)? I think folks would sooner give up their right to bare arms if this was the option. I would be 100% ok if the law said to own a gun you have to go through 1 year of military service and enter the reserves for 10 years, that would be perfect, who here that owns or has a gun would do this?

Why don't you find a country that is at least remotely similar to ours to make this comparison, I think you'll have a hard time finding one.

As far as my support for gun bans, and as previously written, I'm not suggesting some 100% disarmament of all populace, however I would still support a ban. IMO guns are made for a purpose and that is killing, you will not be able to justify to me the need to own one and there are lots of things in the world we would like or want but you don't always get what you want.

A few bad apples always dictate the laws of the population (not the rights, they are in stone today). You can go from speeding laws to foreign pets brought into the country, they are put in place because of the few, to protect the majority. There will be a day where our populace will weigh gun laws against a perception (not reality) and when that day comes, gun laws will be drastically changed. I am not sure if that will happen in my lifetime but I'm 100% convinced it will happen eventually. That is my opinion.

If the NRA, law enforcement, etc can't find some way to stop the bad apples, IMO you all should lose the right. That form of "punishment" works, it is proven, in all walks of life.

People like you don't deserve the rights you are given with that mindset. It makes me sick to even hear that bullshit.

The irony in this make me laugh right in your face harri. You have chosen the very job that puts your life on the line for mine, boy that has got to just burn your ass man. The point of the sentence you quoted was to show, eventually, new laws are, not maybe, but will, be made regarding gun controls. Maybe not "soon" but eventually, it will be forced by the exceptions, the minority. This was to push the idea that pro-gun folks will need to get creative because the old songs are going to grow old, real old.

[Harrison]

By your reasoning no one should be able to drink. Afterall, some people drive while intoxicated and kill other innocent people. No one has been able to stop the few bad apples for some 50+ years, we all should lose our right to eat or drink what we want to. (Scheduled substances aside, that's an entirely different argument we agree on. No one should be able to tell me what I ingest of my own volition.)

Why should the indiscretions of the minority hold sway over the rights of the law-abiding majority?

No one should be able to smoke cigarettes.
No one should be able to own a car.
No one should be able to own a computer.


I could go on forever with your deluded line of "logic":

If the NRA, law enforcement, etc can't find some way to stop the bad apples, IMO you all should lose the right. That form of "punishment" works, it is proven, in all walks of life.

You only say it on this topic because it so easily fits your own beliefs while conveniently ignoring anyone else's. As soon as this is applied to anything you wish to keep I am sure you'd cry foul until your voice was hoarse.

[Harrison]

Missed a few points in my last post. I'm fucking off while packing up all of my belongings.

IMO guns are made for a purpose and that is killing, you will not be able to justify to me the need to own one and there are lots of things in the world we would like or want but you don't always get what you want.

Know anyone that lives in Alaska, or anywhere that a bear could maul you to death? You're telling me they don't have the right to own a firearm to leave their own house in safety because some people kill each other like they have been doing for thousands of years?

The irony in this make me laugh right in your face harri. You have chosen the very job that puts your life on the line for mine, boy that has got to just burn your ass man.

I've long ago come to terms that I've placed my life in danger for the sake of the defense and rights for an immeasurable amount of people that may not deserve it. It reflects more poorly upon them that there are people willing to do so whereas some in this country would like nothing more than to impugn upon their rights and ability to defend themselves.

Edit: fixed the quote...I cut it short by accident.

[araby]

so they're prejudiced against "little people"? God.

[Harrison]

I lol'd

[ClakarEQ]

Look this is just something that will happen over time, that is my opinion. My logic is sound and history confirms it. There were no drunk driving laws at first, then enough folks got killed so they made some, then the laws weren't enough so they made it more harsh, etc. The logic I'm employing here is essentially, someone does something that the GOV thinks is bad, a law is made, someone else does the same thing, more laws are made, again it happens, the punishment gets increased, etc etc.

Eventually there will be a tipping point. I've said numerous times I don't think 100% banning of all weapons is the right thing, I don't really know what the right thing is, but what we have today, is "not" the right thing. Be it our mentality, be it that it is in our constitution, etc, at the end of the day, it will not matter. All that matters is something must be done and if it is left alone, and the GOV or majority perceive the problem to be so great, a new law will be made to stop the minority, the exceptions. That's all, it is pretty simple IMO.

Your drinking example is actually false, year on year, drunk driving deaths have gone down. The laws have become more harsh, the levels of "drunk" reduced, etc. Now if a 180 pound man drinks 1 beer in MI and gets in his car to drive in under 1 hour, he'd probably fail a breathalyzer and get a DUI or whatever. So WTF are you talking about? You're proving my point re: my logic, not yours.

Re: my sentence you keep quoting. You're missing the point. You can drop out the NRA or whatever that part doesn't matter. The deal is if society, gov, majority feel there is reason to stop something, a law will be made, if that isn't enough and it does not stop, new laws will be created to stop it. It is an issue of how long it takes and if the perception remains unchanged.

[Harrison]

The point isn't if it will happen or not.

The question is do you agree with this erosion of rights as the result of the minority? Punishing those who have done no wrong for the actions of the criminal minority is pretty ridiculous.

[ClakarEQ]

As ridiculous as it is, that is exactly what happens today.

I don't agree with the erosion of rights, no, however this is one paticular right, I do have issue with.

Punishing those who have done no wrong is exactly what a lot of laws do already, yet no one seems to have problems with that until it effects them personally. That is always the case though.

[Gidan]

Many if not most laws are put into place because the actions of the minority are effecting the majority. To protect the majority and even the minority form that minority, laws are put into place. So no the majority didn't do anything, but the laws put in place to protect them do also limit them as well. The overall purpose of those laws is not to restrict or hurt the majority but are there to protect them.

[Tikker]

Why should the indiscretions of the minority hold sway over the rights of the law-abiding majority?

Only a small minority of people commit murder

should we legalize that now by your logic?

[Harrison]

That was a pretty sad attempt at an analogy-zinger lol

Try again. I'm bored today.

[ClakarEQ]

Well harri you did bring up bear mauling, smoking, owning a computer, etc. None of those examples make sense, I don't see how you could throw out tikkers post as a sad analogy, what would you call yours, stupidly outrageous?

While you think my logic is flawed, every law you abid by is because of the minorities setting the tone / reason for law, what part of that do you fail to get?

[Harrison]

Removing the right to bear arms because a very small percentage of the population commit murder with them is just as ridiculous as removing someone's right to own a computer based on the fact a very small percentage of the population design malicious programs, stalk children in chat rooms, hack banks, prey on the ignorant via phishing etc. with them.

The assumption that I am against a ban because it affects me is wrong. I do not own a firearm yet. I am against a ban because I don't believe in empowering criminals more than this country already does. Prohibition doesn't work. It never has and never will. (besides the numerous legitimate reasons for owning a gun)

Society will always have its minority of shitbags, murderers, addicts, etc. this doesn't mean we should be willing to give up our rights. Address the problem, not the inanimate objects behind them.

[Lueyen]

ClakarEQ in comparing the effects on crime rate vs availability of guns with Israel and Switzerland, tell me how military service and training affect anything? Training in how to use a fire arm or military service would not make anyone prone to doing so less likely to commit crime. The only thing training will have an effect on is accidents, but in the context of the relationship between gun bans and crime rate, and your belief that gun bans reduce violent crime rate, the examples I gave are completely valid indicators.