NationStates Jolt Archive

Fodder for gun control advocates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050830/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting;_ylt=Aox1nUtHePSy0pjlL1OH.rZH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-) as some deranged bugger shoots 4 @ church, then offs himself.

Would these deaths have happened if guns weren't so readily avaialable?.


I'm not sure the body count would have been so high, were it not for the easy access this gentelman and anyone in the state of Texas has. But I don't have any usggestions for solutions which wouldn't infringe on peoples rights, especially in a rural area like the one this happened in. I really don't like guns, but they do have a real use and purpose in rural areas, IMO, especially up north here where we actually have natural/wild threats to our physical existence: ie: Bears


EDIT: My condolences to those who lost loved in this senseless violence.

Is there such a thing as a sensible middle ground on this issue? Cuz, I haven't found one....yet.

As Eddie Izzard said (sorry to nick this from whoever posted it before):

"I've heard that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun does have some part! I mean, it wouldn't be exactly the same if you pointed your finger at them and went >bang<, would it?"

As Eddie Izzard said (sorry to nick this from whoever posted it before):

"I've heard that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun does have some part! I mean, it wouldn't be exactly the same if you pointed your finger at them and went >bang<, would it?"


Yeah, I have to agree. That's the crux of my dilemma with gun control laws. Availabilty does indeed make it easier for such things to happen.

Then there's Archie Bunker who said, "Would it make you feel any better if they were thrown out of windows?"

As a crazy mofo, I object to this. I am at peace with my insanity. It's the ones that snap that are most dangerous. *nods*

Then there's Archie Bunker who said, "Would it make you feel any better if they were thrown out of windows?"

As a crazy mofo, I object to this. I am at peace with my insanity. It's the ones that snap that are most dangerous. *nods*

As fellow crazy mofo, I find myslef in agrreement, at least partially.

Fodder for gun control advocates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050830/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting;_ylt=Aox1nUtHePSy0pjlL1OH.rZH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-) as some deranged bugger shoots 4 @ church, then offs himself.

I think this is more an idictment of Violent Texan Religious fanatics. That's a worldwide problem now.

That IS another way of looking at it, but it's a problem outside of Texas and in situations having nothing to do with religion. But it's funny.....(though some would say offensive, they would be anti-humour fanatics)

would it be better if he used a car-bomb? (not difficult to make, mind...) or how about molotov cocktails?
Let's see... wanna kill people... bow and arrow works. Staff works. Ball-bat an' sixteen-penny-nails works... icepick (just stab your way from the back of the room to the front. Base of the neck works well and it's quiet.)
punch-awl...knife... for the express route, if you want it bad enough, Dynamite is still available (just hit the Res. before July 4th, you can buy quarter, half, and full-sticks) over the counter in states where fireworks are restricted... There are LOTS of ways to kill innocent people by the bushelfull. This jackass just picked a method that's commonly seen in movies and guaranteed to make a splash on the front-page (even though he's gone.)

Darn, I got beaten to the Eddie Izzard quote (although mine is from his Alcatraz gig and is worded slightly differently).

would it be better if he used a car-bomb? (not difficult to make, mind...) or how about molotov cocktails?
Let's see... wanna kill people... bow and arrow works. Staff works. Ball-bat an' sixteen-penny-nails works... icepick (just stab your way from the back of the room to the front. Base of the neck works well and it's quiet.)
punch-awl...knife... for the express route, if you want it bad enough, Dynamite is still available (just hit the Res. before July 4th, you can buy quarter, half, and full-sticks) over the counter in states where fireworks are restricted... There are LOTS of ways to kill innocent people by the bushelfull. This jackass just picked a method that's commonly seen in movies and guaranteed to make a splash on the front-page (even though he's gone.)


But it is much easier to pull the trigger of a gun you have laying around anyways than make car-bombs and molotovs.

While I'm not a big fan of the use of guns, I'm going to agree that guns being readily available isn't the problem. If someone really wanted to kill another someone, they'll get the job done no matter how they can. I guess guns are just easier. If he couldn't get a gun, he could have ran in there with a friggin' broadsword. So I guess I'm in agreeance with some of the other posters here.

Besides, carbombs and molotov cocktails are limited by how many you can carry and chuck/drive them. Guns make it easier to kill a fair number without having to resort to more elaborate means.

Using a knife requires a fair bit more skill than a firearm if unarmed people decide to fight back.

Is there such a thing as a sensible middle ground on this issue? Cuz, I haven't found one....yet.Encouraging the development and public sale of non-lethal projectile weaponry? That way you can be as trigger happy as you want (the worst you can do is render someone unconscious) but everyone around you will respond in like (by stunning you with their own weapons).

It's both the deterrant and the defence, and it keeps people alive in the process. How's that for a middle ground?

Through all the hassel I have to go through to get a gun around here the damn things are not readilly available. You have to fill out the form they do a background check and then a week later you can pick up your gun. THe only way you can get one that fast is through the illegal means which will always happen.

The way i look at it does the gun help? Yes.

But a person dosn't just look at a gun and say, "I could kill someone with that today". They usually already have killing somebody(or multiple people) on the brain.

Guns don't kill people...

Rappers Do

especially up north here where we actually have natural/wild threats to our physical existence: ie: Bears

We also have to protect ourselves should the Canadians decide to invade. I myself routinely patrol the shores of Lake Ontario for suspicious Canadian activity :sniper:

BTW Canada, you're beer sucks

We also have to protect ourselves should the Canadians decide to invade. I myself routinely patrol the shores of Lake Ontario for suspicious Canadian activity :sniper:

BTW Canada, you're beer sucks
And US beer is so good?
Never been to Europe then? Or have your taste buds been killed of drinking chemical crap?

And US beer is so good?
Never been to Europe then? Or have your taste buds been killed of drinking chemical crap?
You've obviously never seen Canadian Bacon

We'll take over the world dammit! Politlely of course.

At least Blue isn't like sex in a canoe.

Guns don't kill people...

Rappers Do

A shot the sherrif
a shot the deputy
and a shot yur wee'lil doggy too.

The problem with guns is, wide availability means that the chances of a nutcase killing you rise steeply, simply because of their efficiency.

Think about it...someone with existing violent tendencies gets into a tense situation, loses his cool, and beats the s--- out of someone. Maybe the victim gets beaten to death, it happens, but this is hard to do, the steam goes out of most people, even habitually violent ones pretty quick, and the victim will survive.

If a knife is within easy reach, the chances of the fight ending badly for someone can be expected to rise.

If a gun is involved, you know how efficient those things are. It only takes a momentary loss of control. You can step back from a single punch, or a single inexpert stab wound, but a single shot to the head or upper body will do it nearly every time.

This is why gun control works. A particular individual may have less of a chance to respond with superior force, but statistically, the massive reduction in the efficiency of available weapons, will save lives.

In a typical year in the UK, the rate of firearms deaths is 1 per 1,000,000 of population. In the US, it is 42 per 1,000,000. Maybe Americans are 42 times more violent than the British, or maybe it is because the means available to Americans (firearms), are that much more efficient than knives and clubs.

Incidentally, if the firearm death rate in the US were translated to the UK in the form of stabbings and beatings, we would have 2,500 additional deaths annually, adjusting for population.

In 2001/2, there were 886 murders in the UK.

You can see how the availability of guns increases the efficiency of violence, increases the probability of being killed.

The problem with guns is, wide availability means that the chances of a nutcase killing you rise steeply, simply because of their efficiency.

Think about it...someone with existing violent tendencies gets into a tense situation, loses his cool, and beats the s--- out of someone. Maybe the victim gets beaten to death, it happens, but this is hard to do, the steam goes out of most people, even habitually violent ones pretty quick, and the victim will survive.

If a knife is within easy reach, the chances of the fight ending badly for someone can be expected to rise.

If a gun is involved, you know how efficient those things are. It only takes a momentary loss of control. You can step back from a single punch, or a single inexpert stab wound, but a single shot to the head or upper body will do it nearly every time.

This is why gun control works. A particular individual may have less of a chance to respond with superior force, but statistically, the massive reduction in the efficiency of available weapons, will save lives.

In a typical year in the UK, the rate of firearms deaths is 1 per 1,000,000 of population. In the US, it is 42 per 1,000,000. Maybe Americans are 42 times more violent than the British, or maybe it is because the means available to Americans (firearms), are that much more efficient than knives and clubs.


Then can you explain why ownership has increased while crime has decreased? What was the crime rate before the strict UK gun laws? There is no absolute correlation. Pidgeonholing reasons (the US is 42 x more violent) is just biased. Other factors include violent gang culture, drugs, illegal immigration, population density, etc.

Incidentally, if the firearm death rate in the US were translated to the UK in the form of stabbings and beatings, we would have 2,500 additional deaths annually, adjusting for population.

In 2001/2, there were 886 murders in the UK.

You can see how the availability of guns increases the efficiency of violence, increases the probability of being killed.
That is just twisting stats, there are huge culteral and educational differences between the UK and the US. What you imply is these make no difference to violent crime. Canada has a large number of guns within the population but does not have the same level of problem, why? Because of a huge number of social, economic, geographical and historical reasons.
After wwI and WWII there were large numbers of guns in the UK with no significant increase in gun related murder.
Give every Witness in the world twenty guns in a locked cabinet and the rate of murders would not significantly rise. You not only need the means to kill but the will.

But it is much easier to pull the trigger of a gun you have laying around anyways than make car-bombs and molotovs.

It's easier to make those items than become proficient with a gun.

That IS another way of looking at it, but it's a problem outside of Texas and in situations having nothing to do with religion. But it's funny.....(though some would say offensive, they would be anti-humour fanatics)

That's actually an appropriate way of looking at it. It's not the tool that's used. It's the mental state of the person using the tool to kill another person.

Don't fall into the trap of blaming the tool. That's like blaming poor house construction on a screwdriver.

Besides, carbombs and molotov cocktails are limited by how many you can carry and chuck/drive them. Guns make it easier to kill a fair number without having to resort to more elaborate means.

Using a knife requires a fair bit more skill than a firearm if unarmed people decide to fight back.

Ever tried to shoot a moving target with a pistol? It isn't easy.

Encouraging the development and public sale of non-lethal projectile weaponry? That way you can be as trigger happy as you want (the worst you can do is render someone unconscious) but everyone around you will respond in like (by stunning you with their own weapons).

It's both the deterrant and the defence, and it keeps people alive in the process. How's that for a middle ground?

Consequences aren't high enough. I'd rather the criminal know there's a decent chance of dying by trying to attack someone else.

Encouraging the development and public sale of non-lethal projectile weaponry? That way you can be as trigger happy as you want (the worst you can do is render someone unconscious) but everyone around you will respond in like (by stunning you with their own weapons).

It's both the deterrant and the defence, and it keeps people alive in the process. How's that for a middle ground?

...now we just have to convince the criminals to hand over their guns so we can all be on the same footing...

no thank you, I like having the ability to defend myself and my property.

Ever tried to shoot a moving target with a pistol? It isn't easy.
Use a shot gun that is what it's designed for.

Guns are the problem. There are many deaths caused by heat of the impulse moments, what causes this can be anything.

Now it'a easier to take a gun and go down and shoot a group of people. If you tried that with a knife you might not even kill someone before you were stopped.

If you went to make a bomb you might lose your desire to harm anyone. Catch anyone on a bad enough day and they are more likely to shoot you then go off and build a bomb which gives them time to cool down.

Knives aren't as effective because someone who is not used to a knife fight can actually screw up and hurt themselves or cause only minor damage. And with a knife you can at least mitigate the damage so it does the least amount (block with the back of your upper arms). I'd like to see someone avoid a bullet.

The problem with guns is, wide availability means that the chances of a nutcase killing you rise steeply, simply because of their efficiency.


You need to learn a bit more about firearms, TG. You're believing propaganda.


Think about it...someone with existing violent tendencies gets into a tense situation, loses his cool, and beats the s--- out of someone. Maybe the victim gets beaten to death, it happens, but this is hard to do, the steam goes out of most people, even habitually violent ones pretty quick, and the victim will survive.

If a knife is within easy reach, the chances of the fight ending badly for someone can be expected to rise.


And if it's the perpetrator of the violence in the first place, how is them having a VERY bad day all that unreasonable? Sounds to me like them getting sliced up for attacking someone would be justified. Fighting in any physical sense is not appropriate--not at a bar, not after an insult, and certainly not for someone's wallet. I don't understand how fighting is acceptable anywhere.


If a gun is involved, you know how efficient those things are. It only takes a momentary loss of control. You can step back from a single punch, or a single inexpert stab wound, but a single shot to the head or upper body will do it nearly every time.


I'll cry nay on this one. Those untrained in firearms do not hit the head intentionally, nor are COM shots always terminal. Estimated number of people treated for gunshot wounds in the US--150,000. Deaths by firearms in the US--around 35,000. That equates to a 76% survival rate from a gunshot in the US. You have a 3 in 4 chance of surviving not just being in the presence of a gun, but one picked up, pointed at you, fired, and being hit by a bullet. Those are pretty good odds, even if you get to the even less likely position of someone actually going through that process.


This is why gun control works. A particular individual may have less of a chance to respond with superior force, but statistically, the massive reduction in the efficiency of available weapons, will save lives.


It doesn't work--not in the US. You find higher murder rates in the states that have more restrictive gun laws.


In a typical year in the UK, the rate of firearms deaths is 1 per 1,000,000 of population. In the US, it is 42 per 1,000,000. Maybe Americans are 42 times more violent than the British, or maybe it is because the means available to Americans (firearms), are that much more efficient than knives and clubs.

Right now, 2/3 of the murders in the US are performed with the assistance of a firearm as a tool. 13,000 or so. That leaves another 6,000 killed by other means. That's still a chunk of people dying without firearm involvement. Yes, it's the culture, not the firearm.

So please, quit blaming an inanimate object for the actions of humans. They don't CAUSE anything to occur--only the human mind does that.

no thank you, I like having the ability to defend myself and my property.

I second that approach.

Use a shot gun that is what it's designed for.

And also the least likely weapon to be banned in the US. They're the most usefull hunting gun out there.

Criminals tend to like to hide their guns--since criminals can't legally own them. That tends to lean toward pistols.

Hitting a moving target with a pistol is very difficult. Especially with the easily concealable types.

As a gun owner, and gun shooter, let me dispell some common myths here.

First off, unlike what you see in the movies, the average person cannot pick up a gun and use it with a reasonable chance of hitting or doing damage. Pistols even moreso than rifles. You are much more likely to end up on your ass with a roomfull of angry people than you are to actualy kill the guy you were aiming at.

Secondly, even if we did have stricter gun laws, who would still have the guns? That's right, the gang members, and criminals, who get their weapons mostly by stealing them, or smuggling them across our already porous border. And yes, that's just what US border patrol needs, armed and dangerous thugs crossing the border who have no qualms about putting a US officer in a coffin.

Next, I can make a molotov in five minutes, or less here at my home. Hell, I can make a similar device using completely unrestricted objects, class bottle, rag, and lighterfluid. If I wanted to, I could find out on the internet how to make an easy IED (Improvised Explosive Device), and stick some nails around it, again, bought at my local Home Depot or Lowes, and I have a whole lot of dead people.

To be honnest, compared to those methods, a pistol with 7 or 8 round clip is not all that dangerous. Hell, I could do more damage with a knife, not knowing how to use it well. And it'd be a heck of a lot quiter too.

As for shotguns, you can't hide a shotgun, you really just can't.

On the subject of rifles, I admit that they're deadly, but they're also easy to find. I have a WW2 surplus rifle, Springfield M1903A3 .30-06, that could easily kill a person in a single shot, and could also go through Kevlar if the shooter got a good hit. And guess what, there are a lot of rifles like that hanging around.

If you ban firearms, or emplace even more strict restrictions, all of these old guns will start coming out of the woodwork, but don't think that only the "bad guys" will have them. If you ban or severely restrict firearms, all of those patriotic militiamen and Americans who beleive that the right to bear arms is sacred will come out of the woodwork, and be really, really annoyed.

After all, in Massachusetts, my home state, what set off the first battles?

Gun control:
a British attempt to seize gunpowder and amunition belonging to the colonists.

Guns are the problem. There are many deaths caused by heat of the impulse moments, what causes this can be anything.


No, the human using the gun is the problem.


Now it'a easier to take a gun and go down and shoot a group of people.


Again, I'll ask the person who doesn't seem to know much about firearms and the difficulty level involved: Have you ever shot a pistol at a moving target? It's terribly difficult.


If you tried that with a knife you might not even kill someone before you were stopped.


Really? Someone's attacking me, my first job is to run away. Not to play hero.


If you went to make a bomb you might lose your desire to harm anyone. Catch anyone on a bad enough day and they are more likely to shoot you then go off and build a bomb which gives them time to cool down.


And your proof of this....?

If someone is under the impression that it's okay to attack anyone for any reason other than physical self defense, I'd say there's something wrong with the person or the society they come from. This "lack of control" excuse is just that--an excuse. People have brains. They have logical functions that allow them to override emotional or autonomic systems. If they can't stop themselves from assaulting another, maybe they need to be taken out of the gene pool so that kind of genetic structure allowing for that lack of self control can be mitigated.

Or maybe that person should just be tossed in jail for assaulting someone else. There is never an appropriate time to start an attack. People need to be held responsible for their actions and punished appropriately. Not take away the instrument that millions in the world use appropriately already, and punish innocents.


Knives aren't as effective because someone who is not used to a knife fight can actually screw up and hurt themselves or cause only minor damage.


Same with a firearm. If you don't know what you're doing, you're not going to intentionally hit where you wanted to hit. There's a VERY likely chance you'll miss.


And with a knife you can at least mitigate the damage so it does the least amount (block with the back of your upper arms). I'd like to see someone avoid a bullet.

You seem to think that bullets kill on contact. See the stats listed above. 76% survival rate from a bullet hitting you--in the US. Staying in motion is the best defense from a pistol. Most criminals don't practice, and therefore will not be able to hit a moving target.

Ever tried to shoot a moving target with a pistol? It isn't easy.

Ever tried nailing a moving target with a molotov cocktail? Even harder. I won't say guns increase the crime rate or not. But I will say that they do make murder easier to do.

Ever tried nailing a moving target with a molotov cocktail? Even harder.


So, an area of effect weapon is more difficult to hit with than something that requires a very precise aim? Interesting.


I won't say guns increase the crime rate or not. But I will say that they do make murder easier to do.

Any weapon will make murder easier--they're called tools for a reason--to assist in performing actions.

I think the Australian aprroach is sensible which is ban all fully and semi-automatics. Admittedly they got a little carried away, there were problems for sport shooters for a while, but the approach is sound.
Why do civilians need automatics? I must admit I would not mind a few old ones for historical interest purposes, like Owen guns or World War I and II rifles etc, but no civilian I know needs one.

I think the Australian aprroach is sensible which is ban all fully and semi-automatics. Admittedly they got a little carried away, there were problems for sport shooters for a while, but the approach is sound.
Why do civilians need automatics? I must admit I would not mind a few old ones for historical interest purposes, like Owen guns or World War I and II rifles etc, but no civilian I know needs one.

There's one of the cultural differences--the US rebelled and fought off a government to create one. We're worried about a government being corrupt enough to try to take over completely. That's why you need automatic rifles, to fight an oppresive government--not to mention there is a rather popular target sport involving autos, too.

So, an area of effect weapon is more difficult to hit with than something that requires a very precise aim? Interesting.

Splash from a molotov cocktail assuming a 500ml bottle is what, 1-2 meters at best? I'll admit that you can hit slow moving and unsuspecting targets easy, but that applies to firearms too.

I second that approach.

second that emotion! hehe

You seem to think that bullets kill on contact. See the stats listed above. 76% survival rate from a bullet hitting you--in the US. Staying in motion is the best defense from a pistol. Most criminals don't practice, and therefore will not be able to hit a moving target.

Hope you don't run into a Chopper
6 weeks practice till he can hit 6 bottles with six shots in six seconds at 30 feet, then he carries it.
'Chopper' Read is something of an Aussie idynocrasty (sp?)
Mad, violent bastard that made a living killing and torturing drug dealers and other criminals, then went straight and sold thousands of books and got some on the best seller lists, I think his wrote ten or so now.
Public opinion of him is reasonable because he does not touch normal people, only criminals that prey on normals, so it is a case of "Thinning out the underworld? Okay"

Splash from a molotov cocktail assuming a 500ml bottle is what, 1-2 meters at best? I'll admit that you can hit slow moving and unsuspecting targets easy, but that applies to firearms too.

That splash is still larger than a shotgun spread. I will admit hitting any moving target regardless of the weapon, will be more challenging. However, something that allows a larger spread or splash inherently makes it easier to hit a target.

Hope you don't run into a Chopper
6 weeks practice till he can hit 6 bottles with six shots in six seconds at 30 feet, then he carries it.
'Chopper' Read is something of an Aussie idynocrasty (sp?)
Mad, violent bastard that made a living killing and torturing drug dealers and other criminals, then went straight and sold thousands of books and got some on the best seller lists, I think his wrote ten or so now.
Public opinion of him is reasonable because he does not touch normal people, only criminals that prey on normals, so it is a case of "Thinning out the underworld? Okay"

Hey, I'm all for the criminal element eliminating itself.

I can hit those same six bottles in three seconds, but the point is those bottles aren't moving.

I hope I never run into anyone that would threaten me enough to warrant using any of my firearms. I just don't want to have to go through the situation. I want people to live and let live--I just won't go down without a fight, if I can't get out. That's really the only difference. I want the ability to defend myself, and I want others to have that ability as well. All gun bans do is make it more difficult for the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from those that would already break the law and have a gun to assault someone with.

Hey, I'm all for the criminal element eliminating itself.

I can hit those same six bottles in three seconds, but the point is those bottles aren't moving.

I hope I never run into anyone that would threaten me enough to warrant using any of my firearms. I just don't want to have to go through the situation. I want people to live and let live--I just won't go down without a fight, if I can't get out. That's really the only difference. I want the ability to defend myself, and I want others to have that ability as well. All gun bans do is make it more difficult for the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from those that would already break the law and have a gun to assault someone with.


I don't own a gun and don't currently feel the need to. But there have been times when I would have felt much safer. Though I strongly dislike handguns and full automatics because they are meant only for killing people (face it, that's what they were DESIGNED to do) my biggest objections to gun control laws are based on their usefulness as a tool and for self-defence in RURAL areas. As I pointed out in my first post, up here in Canada, and in the US, there are large parts of the land where its only wise to go out with a shotgun, lest you become a bear or cougars lunch, and bow hunting deer is just a little too challenging and difficult for practicality, and I think most moose would just shrug off direct hit with an arrow...bears would just be even more pissy than usual, etc.

This, and in urban areas, the arguments you've put forward, make me realize anything beyond minimal and reasonable gun control laws such as background checks, proper storage, a decent registration system and the like are simply unfeasible. I was at one point very anti-gun, but the more delve into the entire problem, the more I realize the problem can't be called "Gun Violence" with any accuracy, but rather "Human on Human Violence."

Guns are a complicated and dangerous tool, and as such I believe in some form of licensing to ensure a minimum level of competence and understanding on the part of a law-abiding owner. I know it doesn't solve the problems of violence, but the way I look at it is the same way I do another complicated and dangerous tool: automobiles. Making sure those who drive are doing so fully trained in its use and are continuing to abide by certain practical laws does make it safer for everyone, including those that don't drive an auto at all.
Would you (or anyone else here) agree that licensing and other minimally invasive/restrictive systems are a good idea in regards to guns? Are there people who truly believe there should be no enforceable rules and restrictions on such a potentially dangerous tool?

Would you (or anyone else here) agree that licensing and other minimally invasive/restrictive systems are a good idea in regards to guns? Are there people who truly believe there should be no enforceable rules and restrictions on such a potentially dangerous tool?

OF course there needs to be some regulation. Felons, mental conditions, etc ast well as "straw purchasers" need to be controlled.

My issue w/ "licensing" or registrations is that in the US, "gun control" groups use these to nickel & dime the laws towards flat-out or defacto bans. There stated purposes is to remove ALL firearms from citizens. If there could be a way to absolutely guarantee such things from not happening, I would be in favor of it.

I don't own a gun and don't currently feel the need to.


And that is your right to control your actions. :)


But there have been times when I would have felt much safer.


I don't know how much safer they make me feel, but by having another option--I'm always up for more options out of life-threatening situations.


Though I strongly dislike handguns and full automatics because they are meant only for killing people (face it, that's what they were DESIGNED to do)


Some are, but some are designed for self defense, some are designed for hunting, and in the case of full auto small arms, those were created for suppression, not necessarily direct kills. But that's all I'll push on those particular topics. :D


my biggest objections to gun control laws are based on their usefulness as a tool and for self-defence in RURAL areas. As I pointed out in my first post, up here in Canada, and in the US, there are large parts of the land where its only wise to go out with a shotgun, lest you become a bear or cougars lunch, and bow hunting deer is just a little too challenging and difficult for practicality, and I think most moose would just shrug off direct hit with an arrow...bears would just be even more pissy than usual, etc.


Yeah, a pissed of grizzly just doesn't give me warm fuzzies.


This, and in urban areas, the arguments you've put forward, make me realize anything beyond minimal and reasonable gun control laws such as background checks, proper storage, a decent registration system and the like are simply unfeasible. I was at one point very anti-gun,


Anyone that knows me on this forum isn't going to believe this, but so was I (I think it was up until my mid-20s that I "knew" everything :D).


but the more delve into the entire problem, the more I realize the problem can't be called "Gun Violence" with any accuracy, but rather "Human on Human Violence."


Bingo.


Guns are a complicated and dangerous tool,


I would put potentially dangerous tool, since the tool itself can't harm anyone without human intervention, but close enough, I suppose.


and as such I believe in some form of licensing to ensure a minimum level of competence and understanding on the part of a law-abiding owner.


Unfortunately, anti-gun governments can use that to limit or outright ban citizen ownership of firearms. :mad:


I know it doesn't solve the problems of violence, but the way I look at it is the same way I do another complicated and dangerous tool: automobiles. Making sure those who drive are doing so fully trained in its use and are continuing to abide by certain practical laws does make it safer for everyone, including those that don't drive an auto at all.


The previous answer applies here as well.


Would you (or anyone else here) agree that licensing and other minimally invasive/restrictive systems are a good idea in regards to guns?


Unfortunately, no, I can't. Licensing creates governmental lists. Lists that can be used by a corrupt government to know who to hit first.


Are there people who truly believe there should be no enforceable rules and restrictions on such a potentially dangerous tool?

<raises hand>

The enforcable rules are already there--assault and murder are already illegal. Criminals who have a felony record (in the US) are not allowed to own guns. That should be enough. We have 80 million legal gun owners in the US, and there are 13,000 people murdered each year, using a firearm. That means a maximum of 13,000 criminals would have the ability to limit the rights of 80 million citizens. I can't argue for that path. The citizens must have their rights first, security second.

You can't pre-emptively punish someone for what they might do. It's like saying to a 16 year old kid (and yes, this is what nanny governments do....), "No, you can't drive the car because you might wreck it," when the kid already owns the car. The right to bear arms is already guaranteed in the US Constitution--no government--state or federal--can put limitations on this. Yet, we have over 20,000 regulations on gun ownership in the US now. The Supreme Court has failed to support the Constitution yet again.

That splash is still larger than a shotgun spread.

Mmm, not quite. You see, a Molotov cocktail only directly affects it's impact point, i.e. wherever it lands. It won't hurt anyone if you overthrow or underthrow even if it is aimed straight at them. A shotgun spread on the other hand, will affect a conical area in front of the gun until the end of the ballistic trajectory. Besides, if you miss someone in front of you with a gun, you might still hit something behind him/her. Can't say the same if your molotov splashes down where there's no one in the effect area.


I will admit hitting any moving target regardless of the weapon, will be more challenging. However, something that allows a larger spread or splash inherently makes it easier to hit a target.

Only if you manage to get the splash effect to occur within the target area. If you miss with a bullet however, you might still hit something/someone assuming level aim.

being to lazy to read the thread, but I wanted to at least drop a lol cuz the title made me laugh as I scrolled through the forum.

Unfortunately, no, I can't. Licensing creates governmental lists. Lists that can be used by a corrupt government to know who to hit first.


Tempting to dismiss this as paranoia, but seeing it being played out just in Zimbabwe even as we speak quickly dispels that notion. The type of people in favour of invasive gun control laws would say "Oh, but that can't happen here." But they just don't like dealing with real possibilities that make them uncomfortable....hence their advocating for gun bans or overly restrictive control laws.


<raises hand>

The enforceable rules are already there--assault and murder are already illegal. Criminals who have a felony record (in the US) are not allowed to own guns. That should be enough. We have 80 million legal gun owners in the US, and there are 13,000 people murdered each year, using a firearm. That means a maximum of 13,000 criminals would have the ability to limit the rights of 80 million citizens. I can't argue for that path. The citizens must have their rights first, security second.

You can't pre-emptively punish someone for what they might do. It's like saying to a 16 year old kid (and yes, this is what nanny governments do....), "No, you can't drive the car because you might wreck it," when the kid already owns the car. The right to bear arms is already guaranteed in the US Constitution--no government--state or federal--can put limitations on this. Yet, we have over 20,000 regulations on gun ownership in the US now. The Supreme Court has failed to support the Constitution yet again.

You raise some interesting points here, but use the car license analogy (since you referred to it as well) the concept of people owning & operating a motor vehicle without proper training scares the bejeesus out of me. People are poor enough drivers as it is (mind you this last comment comes from a person who has a couple racing licenses :D )

It IS much safer to have cars registered to drivers, and enforcing strict rules to ensure those people have some sort of a clue as to what their doing makes our roads much safer. Besides, most under the age of 16 should not be allowed to drive. I'd go so far as to say the age for an auto license should be raised to 18 but I'm double biased there (31, with 15 years of driving experience plus aforementioned racing licenses)

I really strongly feel that proper training should be required of anyone wanting to own a firearm. Unfortunately that does involve lists etc, but sometimes you just have to sacrifice something for the good/safety of the community.
I'd be fine with just a basic lesson, open to all who attend a simple course...no names recorded, but with a certificate forwarded to the gun shop on your behalf...but I doubt such as system would be workable. The sad fact is that a lot of people who buy guns don't necessarily have access or interest to the right information (such as my uncle giving me all the basics before loaning me a shotgun for a walk in some very wild woods) I don't think a super comprehensive multipart course is needed, just enough so the person doesn't harm themselves through improper maintenance and storage. Some kind of basic practice/competence is needed for any tool with such a potential for danger.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.


BTW, an angry Grizzly has nothing on a hungry or just plain ornery Cougar (Mountain Lions I believe they call em down south) They will actually stalk a person for miles and miles before attacking without warning, usually from behind.

Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.

Mmm, not quite. You see, a Molotov cocktail only directly affects it's impact point, i.e. wherever it lands. It won't hurt anyone if you overthrow or underthrow even if it is aimed straight at them. A shotgun spread on the other hand, will affect a conical area in front of the gun until the end of the ballistic trajectory. Besides, if you miss someone in front of you with a gun, you might still hit something behind him/her. Can't say the same if your molotov splashes down where there's no one in the effect area.


Valid points. I guess I was talking about the splash area--thanks for getting me to think about it more!


Only if you manage to get the splash effect to occur within the target area. If you miss with a bullet however, you might still hit something/someone assuming level aim.

You will definitely hit something--building, ground, etc. May not be a person, though. Fourth rule of shooting--know what's behind your intended target. If you miss with the coctail, though, you have all those fire consequences.

They both have their inherent weaknesses.

You raise some interesting points here, but use the car license analogy (since you referred to it as well) the concept of people owning & operating a motor vehicle without proper training scares the bejeesus out of me. People are poor enough drivers as it is (mind you this last comment comes from a person who has a couple racing licenses :D )


Oh, I know there are many crappy drivers on the road--I see them every day. However, firing a 7 pound gun from a stationary point is much different than knowing all the controls and dealing with 3 dimensional movement (oh yeah, and the 2 ton car). :)


It IS much safer to have cars registered to drivers, and enforcing strict rules to ensure those people have some sort of a clue as to what their doing makes our roads much safer. Besides, most under the age of 16 should not be allowed to drive. I'd go so far as to say the age for an auto license should be raised to 18 but I'm double biased there (31, with 15 years of driving experience plus aforementioned racing licenses)


I'll bring up the governmental lists again--a corrupt government isn't going to go after those with vehicles first--they'll go after those who can fight back.


I really strongly feel that proper training should be required of anyone wanting to own a firearm.


I believe in personal responsibility where the person would pursue "proper" training--if they don't, and they kill someone, they go away for a long time.


Unfortunately that does involve lists etc, but sometimes you just have to sacrifice something for the good/safety of the community.


That's the socialism vs. freedom argument. I'm on the side of freedom, where the individual doesn't get run over because 51% of the population decides something for them.


I'd be fine with just a basic lesson, open to all who attend a simple course...no names recorded, but with a certificate forwarded to the gun shop on your behalf...but I doubt such as system would be workable.


Without a database or list, there'd be no way to stop counterfeiting. :(


The sad fact is that a lot of people who buy guns don't necessarily have access or interest to the right information (such as my uncle giving me all the basics before loaning me a shotgun for a walk in some very wild woods) I don't think a super comprehensive multipart course is needed, just enough so the person doesn't harm themselves through improper maintenance and storage. Some kind of basic practice/competence is needed for any tool with such a potential for danger.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.


The only thing we're disagreeing about is the method of getting people to train. Responsible people make sure they are prepared in their endeavors.


BTW, an angry Grizzly has nothing on a hungry or just plain ornery Cougar (Mountain Lions I believe they call em down south) They will actually stalk a person for miles and miles before attacking without warning, usually from behind.

Yeah, cats are good at that. I have smaller versions. They stalk and attack me all the time. :D But you bring up a good point--a side arm is a good tool for hiking.

PS. WHOO HOO! 2000 posts finally. It's taken me forever!

As Eddie Izzard said (sorry to nick this from whoever posted it before):

"I've heard that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun does have some part! I mean, it wouldn't be exactly the same if you pointed your finger at them and went >bang<, would it?"


Heehee :p

-snip-


That's the socialism vs. freedom argument. I'm on the side of freedom, where the individual doesn't get run over because 51% of the population decides something for them.



-snip-

The only thing we're disagreeing about is the method of getting people to train. Responsible people make sure they are prepared in their endeavors.



I think it boils down to (I may be wrong here) to you having more faith in your fellow humans that they'll do the right thing. Though I suppose it could be argued that it is this proliferation of laws which leads people to be irresponible, instead of taking such decissions upon their shoulders, they leave it up to the gov't to tell them what is right or wrong, responsible vs. irresponsible. Not sure I buy that arguement, but we thats something for another thread.

Its been a pleasure discussing this with you.

I think it boils down to (I may be wrong here) to you having more faith in your fellow humans that they'll do the right thing. Though I suppose it could be argued that it is this proliferation of laws which leads people to be irresponible, instead of taking such decissions upon their shoulders, they leave it up to the gov't to tell them what is right or wrong, responsible vs. irresponsible. Not sure I buy that arguement, but we thats something for another thread.


Well, when you treat people like children.... :D


Its been a pleasure discussing this with you.

Same here! :)