Yay, GUNS!

[Moontanman]

I think we need to look at this problem from another perspective, stop thinking guns and think alcohol.

 

If a society allows the use of alcohol they also must allow for people getting drunk. Being intoxicated can lead to the death of innocents. In fact there is no doubt alcohol kills far more people than guns. If a drunk had intentionally plowed into a group of school kids would be debating whether or not alcohol should be legal? No, we making driving cars while intoxicated illegal and prosecute the individual.

 

In fact a car can and sometimes is used as a deadly weapon with intent by deranged people, do we debate the legality of owning a car?

 

What I am trying to say is that if we as a society are going to allow guns then we must logically assume at some point some individuals are going to commit crimes with those weapons.

 

I think all we can do is closely regulate who has a gun and require at least the amount of training we require for driving a car... all though the equivalent of an airplane license would be a bit more to the point i think...

 

I really don't see any way to remove guns from our society at this time or the foreseeable future...

 

I would like to add that IMHO home defense and hunting are legitimate uses for guns but putting a gun into the hands of some one who doesn't know how to use it safely or the hands of a crazy is... crazy...

 

 

Ben Stein, for the record, is not a legitimate source for anything but stupidity...

Edited December 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[A Tripolation]

 

I really don't see any way to remove guns from our society at this time or the foreseeable future...

 

No, see, we outlaw guns and force people to give them up. That will stop people intent on killing others with a gun and might force them to reconsider. Because a guy who was contemplating murdering people will be paralyzed at the thought of seeking guns on some sort of illegal market. Use your brains, man.

 

 

 

I would like to add that IMHO home defense and hunting are legitimate uses for guns but putting a gun into the hands of some one who doesn't know how to use it safely or the hands of a crazy is... crazy... .

 

No, see, clearly guns are only meant to commit mass murders. Just look at the news which isn't sensationalized at all.

A year ago, we had a problem with a pack of coyotes that was actively killing our calves. Well, we went to court and got a restraining order. That didn't work, so we called the cops when we saw them attacking again. The cops got there in about 10 minutes and only two calves were dead and they tased them and settled everything.

[John Cuthber]

The comparison between guns and cars is deeply flawed because cars are designed and built to move people an stuff around whereas guns are designed to kill people.

 

Banning cars would gravely inconvenience a large number of people. It would make some people's lives near impossible.

 

Banning guns would spoil a relatively small number of people's fun.

 

As I see it, one of those is a valid price to pay for not killing a couple of dozen school kids from time to time.

[A Tripolation]

Banning guns would spoil a relatively small number of people's fun.

 

Yeah! The guns we have on our farm are for target practice and entertainment. Any time we see a dangerous, wild animal that might hurt our livestock, we call the cops and let them handle it. Sometimes they only kill one animal before the cops get there! It truly is a great system.

[iNow]

Banning guns will never happen, nor do I think we should try anyway, but surely there's something we can do to help improve matters. This is the 7th mass shooting this year alone. Come on... Why does it always have to be all or nothing instead of a smart somewhere in between?

Edited December 16, 2012 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

"nor do I think we should try anyway, but surely there's something we can do to help improve matters. This is the 7th mass shooting this year alone"

 

How many does it take before you do think someone should try?

 

It's not going to be easy, but surely it's worth trying before you give up.

[Moontanman]

 

No, see, we outlaw guns and force people to give them up. That will stop people intent on killing others with a gun and might force them to reconsider. Because a guy who was contemplating murdering people will be paralyzed at the thought of seeking guns on some sort of illegal market. Use your brains, man.

 

Sarcasm Trip?

 

 

 

 

No, see, clearly guns are only meant to commit mass murders. Just look at the news which isn't sensationalized at all.

A year ago, we had a problem with a pack of coyotes that was actively killing our calves. Well, we went to court and got a restraining order. That didn't work, so we called the cops when we saw them attacking again. The cops got there in about 10 minutes and only two calves were dead and they tased them and settled everything.

 

yeah, ten minutes is a eternity when you are tied up being abused by a home invader...

 

The comparison between guns and cars is deeply flawed because cars are designed and built to move people an stuff around whereas guns are designed to kill people.

 

Guns are designed to kill, not necessarily kill people and i kinda hope that home invaders might surrender before I have to kill them when i confront them with my 12 gauge...

 

Banning cars would gravely inconvenience a large number of people. It would make some people's lives near impossible.

 

Not at all, public transportation could be used to eliminate all need for personal vehicles if we really wanted to...

 

Banning guns would spoil a relatively small number of people's fun.

 

Yes but it would leave others vulnerable to those who had guns and criminal intent...

 

As I see it, one of those is a valid price to pay for not killing a couple of dozen school kids from time to time.

 

Again, not a fair comparison, you have to know that banning guns would not remove them from the population. It is quite true that banning guns would mostly affect honest people not criminals...

 

Banning guns will never happen, nor do I think we should try anyway, but surely there's something we can do to help improve matters. This is the 7th mass shooting this year alone. Come on... Why does it always have to be all or nothing instead of a smart somewhere in between?

 

I agree, has to be a middle ground in there some place, I would not willingly give up my guns, but then again I wouldn't go out and shoot people for no apparent reason either...

 

 

"nor do I think we should try anyway, but surely there's something we can do to help improve matters. This is the 7th mass shooting this year alone"

 

How many does it take before you do think someone should try?

 

It's not going to be easy, but surely it's worth trying before you give up.

 

 

 

 

You are wrong John... there were 16 mass shootings in the US in 2012...

 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#

 

I still say that a licensing procedure like we use for driving a car would go a long way toward minimizing this problem, every few years a comprehensive test to make sure you haven't gone nuts and can still use your gun safely. The amount of training necessary and the depth of the test should not be up to individual states like driving is but I think this would be better than an out right ban...

Edited December 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[rigney]

Man! I'm sure glad there aren't any guns in England or Wales today except for policemen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

[iNow]

"nor do I think we should try anyway, but surely there's something we can do to help improve matters. This is the 7th mass shooting this year alone"

 

How many does it take before you do think someone should try?

 

John - We might be talking past one another a little, which is easy to do on this topic. I think the problem is mostly that they can't be banned. You can stop sales of new guns, but there are still more than 300 million already in circulation. There are some guns that I also support, especially for hunters who feed their family through the winters and for ranchers or farmers who protect their herds.

 

Banning guns doesn't mean they magically vanish. I'm struggling to find the right mix or solution here, but I'm pretty confident that prohibition would be no more effective with guns than it was with alcohol.

[swansont]

Man! I'm sure glad there aren't any guns in England or Wales today except for policemen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

 

Can you point out the gun statistics in that article?

[Moontanman]

 

John - We might be talking past one another a little, which is easy to do on this topic. I think the problem is mostly that they can't be banned. You can stop sales of new guns, but there are still more than 300 million already in circulation. There are some guns that I also support, especially for hunters who feed their family through the winters and for ranchers or farmers who protect their herds.

 

Banning guns doesn't mean they magically vanish. I'm struggling to find the right mix or solution here, but I'm pretty confident that prohibition would be no more effective with guns than it was with alcohol.

 

 

Agreed, banning guns would only lead to a black market totally unsupervised. I was once asked why i supported legalizing drugs, not really the way it was asked, I was asked why i support using drugs, but despite the subtle insult, it is a legitimate question and I answered thusly.

 

If I could snap my fingers and make all illegal drugs vanish I would do so, but the black market, desires of individuals to use them and their availability make sure that drugs will be available and I don't think that locking up otherwise honest citizens who use drugs is a fair way to eliminate drugs...

 

Same with guns, if I could eliminate all guns I would do so but creating a black market and turning other wise honest citizens into criminals is hardly the way to do it.

[rigney]

Not even to mention legal and illegal narcotics?

[John Cuthber]

Guns have been substantially banned in the UK.

It's possible.

It's obviously a whole lot more difficult when there are more of them to start with, but just because something is difficult, doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

 

The stats still show that if you buy a gun it is more likely to kill one of your family than an intruder / burglar/ whatever.

All you buy is the illusion of security.

If that message were widely accepted then a whole lot of guns would be recognised as a threat and disposed of.

Most of the 3E8 guns are not owned by "bad guys". They are owned by people who don't realise that, when things go wrong, owning a gun doesn't generally help.

[rigney]

Can you point out the gun statistics in that article?

Well, hand guns are illegal in England and Wales, aren't they?

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2011/08/gun-ownership-up-in-england-wales.html

Edited December 16, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Guns have been substantially banned in the UK.

It's possible.

It's obviously a whole lot more difficult when there are more of them to start with, but just because something is difficult, doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

 

Has this ban taken guns from criminals? Has it caused the gun crime rate to drop? has the black market in guns increased?

 

The stats still show that if you buy a gun it is more likely to kill one of your family than an intruder / burglar/ whatever.

All you buy is the illusion of security.

 

John you do know that is only for hand guns don't you?

 

If that message were widely accepted then a whole lot of guns would be recognised as a threat and disposed of.

Most of the 3E8 guns are not owned by "bad guys". They are owned by people who don't realise that, when things go wrong, owning a gun doesn't generally help.

 

Tell that to the guy who was killed recently in a home invasion because he couldn't just sit and wait it out while his wife was being abused by home invaders.

 

 

Not even to mention legal and illegal narcotics?

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that rigney, please elaborate...

Edited December 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[rigney]

John Cuthber, on 16 Dec 2012 - 13:39, said:

The stats still show that if you buy a gun it is more likely to kill one of your family than an intruder / burglar/ whatever.

All you buy is the illusion of security.

I suppose you're right John. And yes, this latest nutcase up in New Town, Conn. did kill his mother before turning his demented mind to the 26 others he slaughtered. What might have happened had those 6 teachers been packing heat? I seriously doubt they would have shot each other or the kids.

Edited December 16, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Again, people... It's not 'ban guns' versus 'do nothing.' There are in between options, and data shows that smart regulations do have an impact. Some facts:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

 

One guy on one flight tries to blow up a plane using a shoe bomb, and now we all have to take off our shoes at the airport, but more than 60 school shootings in the last few years and hundreds dead, yet nothing.

 

This too:

 

[John Cuthber]

I'm waiting for the pro-gun lobby to suggest that the schoolchildren should have had guns so they could shoot back.

 

Rigney, do you understand that massacres like that are rare?

 

That means they don't affect the stats much

 

So, you don't actually have a point.

Nor did you have one about narcotics, nor did you have one about that Telegraph article. (BTW, you may not realise this bu tthe Telegraph is considered rather right wing so their point of view on law an order may be a bit biased)

 

For the record, there are very few guns in the UK. The only ones I have seen in my 47 years have been owned by the police or army.

 

Most of the guns that are here are used by criminals (obviously) but their targets are other criminals.

Every now and then some poor soul gets caught in the crossfire.

The police generally manage to track down the shooter and they end up in jail.

 

That Washington post article is remarkable.

It tells me that about 10% of your population thinks that felons and the mentally ill should have guns too.

 

It looks like any sort of regulation would be a good start.

Edited December 16, 2012 by John Cuthber

[rigney]

Fortunately for us John that we all don't think like you.

[A Tripolation]

Gun regulation should be increased. But there should be no ban on guns aside from idiotic hardware like Apaches or Stinger missiles. Things of that sort. I see no legitimate reason for a civilian to own an assault rifle, but I support their right to do so.

 

To me, one of the biggest, and more far-fetched, benefits of the 2nd amendment is the ability for citizens to combat the rise of a police state. It would be much harder to subdue a civilian population that had a lot of guns than one where almost no one has a gun, nor have any experience using a firearm.

One guy on one flight tries to blow up a plane using a shoe bomb, and now we all have to take off our shoes at the airport, but more than 60 school shootings in the last few years and hundreds dead, yet nothing.

 

Good point.

[John Cuthber]

Fortunately for us John that we all don't think like you.

Could you try that again please or have you got your grammar checker set to "Yoda" again?

What are you trying to say? are you saying that it's fortunate that some people don't understand stats?

Is it unfortunate that some people think that all these dead children is a fair price to pay for the right to have the illusion of protection?

Perhaps you think it's unfortunate that I haven't seen many guns.

[swansont]

Well, hand guns are illegal in England and Wales, aren't they?

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2011/08/gun-ownership-up-in-england-wales.html

 

My point was that you linked to an article that does not mention guns or firearms. The subtitle says "England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies" but there is absolutely no connection made to guns. Further, they ranked much better for intentional homicide and major assault, crimes one might associate more with guns.

 

So your link has no bearing on the discussion and doesn't support your point. Yet again.

[Moontanman]

 

Is it unfortunate that some people think that all these dead children is a fair price to pay for the right to have the illusion of protection?

 

 

 

The illusion of protection? That illusion would quickly become a nightmare for someone who broke into my house but then again i don't have hand guns or automatic weapons in my house nor is it likely I'll go down to a local school and kill someone either.

 

I honestly have to wonder about the mental health of someone who wants the most dangerous weapon they can afford to buy but the desire for automatic military assault type weapons is crazy. There is a need for closer regulation for sure. There is a cottage industry in providing the parts necessary to turn semi auto weapons into full automatic weapons, this needs to stop now.

 

I waver a little on whether or not the military style but semi auto weapons should be allowed but as long as the parts can be bought to make them full auto you have to wonder if they should be sold at all.

 

Trip, I can't get behind the idea of allowing any and all weapons. All things must be limited in some way and if you think the US military would have a problem rounding up it's citizens just because they are armed then you are not aware of the reality. It would probably just give them reason to use over whelming force, we citizens are no match for the military no matter how you look at it.

 

I think regulation is the answer, much like I favor regulation of drugs. Every time some kid OD's on drugs you get this wave of patriotism in the War On Drugs but ultimately drugs are more dangerous when driven under ground than they are if allowed to actually be controlled.

 

Tighter controls on who has guns would do the same thing as eliminating them and in a shorter time frame with less resistance ..

[swansont]

One guy on one flight tries to blow up a plane using a shoe bomb, and now we all have to take off our shoes at the airport, but more than 60 school shootings in the last few years and hundreds dead, yet nothing.

 

Also, for those who propose arming more people is the answer, the problem is that while there have been >60 mass killings in the last 30 years, and, despite having some areas with liberal carry permit laws, not once has a citizen with a gun ever stopped one of these sprees. In a couple of cases, such citizens were shot.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

[Moontanman]

England has had mass shootings as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

 

Not as many but Great Britain is not as populous a country either..

 

Then you have the rest of the world...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

 

USA isn't quite as dangerous as you might think due to our guns but if anyone really wants to seriously limit the number of guns in the USA they would have to work it out over generations, slowly limiting gun ownership as time goes on...

 

When I was 11 years old I went to the hardware store next to the grocery store by my self while my mom shopped and bought my own gun, a 410 gauge single shot shotgun and a box of shells. Cost me $20, money I earned putting up hay. my youngest son now owns that gun. But he couldn't buy a gun himself until he was 18 and had to have a back ground check.... yes it is happening but it is slow...

 

Also, for those who propose arming more people is the answer, the problem is that while there have been >60 mass killings in the last 30 years, and, despite having some areas with liberal carry permit laws, not once has a citizen with a gun ever stopped one of these sprees. In a couple of cases, such citizens were shot.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

 

 

Obviously you are correct but then my assertion is geared more toward home defense than concealed carry. This shows that there is many different angles on this. Concealed carry is a different issue than home defense.

 

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html