Gun Control

joshier wrote:

Funner fact: It was due to England, France, America and Russia Screwing them over after WW1 that gave Hitler the chance to rise to power via powerful propaganda combine with previous life experiences which mean't he had the conviction to do what he did as well as the opportunity to do it...

Blaming the allies in WWI for allowing WWII to happen is like blaming the parents of a deranged lunatic. Just too much of a stretch to hold merit. (early 30's though it could have been prevented)

DemonEyesJoe wrote:

banning guns is a bad idea, although gun related murders would go down it wouldnt lower crime. think of it this way, when a store is robbed by someone with a knife, how do they defend themselves? with a gun, this is the same for personal assualt, however, if its gun vs nothing you have less of a chance to get away than knife vs nothing. HOWEVER criminals dont exactly target people that are fit and in-shape, running will only get you so far against a regular street criminal.

Banning guns does not limit overall crime. You said it right. While gun crimes will go down, crimes with blunt\sharp objects will increase most likely. Also its important to know just how many people have actually been killed with guns and how many have been killed in other ways. When one tool of murder goes away, criminals will simply use other methods.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:
as Doomguy said above much of the larger, more powerful dictators first banned guns before they took over. im no history buff, but, that old saying of history repeating itself...there has to be some merit to it

It always starts this way. Ever hear of a tyrant who has to deal with a "well armed" mob? No person in power wants their subjects to be armed and usually us peasants are stuck with pitchforks and iphones. No wonder it was so hard to remove the royalty from power. The invention of the musket and later the rifle brought about the end of one person rule.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:
on the note of japan.

Has the lowest crime rate. No one agrees why, but I suspect it has to due with a terrific cultural upbringing. Children are obedient to their parents and strive to do well in school. I would have no problem handing a weapon to a person who was raised well in Japan. (Of course they have no guns in Japan anymore)

DemonEyesJoe wrote:
and now something simple, america is never invaded (as many of you know, china basicly owns us) because EVERYONE HAS GUNS, that is very frightening for anyone willing to attack a country when not only do you have to fight the military, but you also have to fight the citenziens who are just as armed as the military. americas military is LARGER THAN THE PAID MILITARY WE ARE OUR OWN MILITARY.

so the question is, why doesnt anyone attack small island japan with all thier no-guns? well, 1:america has a partnership with them, 2:they have a great navy and 3:Gundams

please, i encourage someone to prove me wrong as i love learning about something i have no idea about

You are well informed. (Don't forget Godzilla! How can you forget Godzilla!) I would also like to add that defending against foreign powers is not the main reason for gun ownership, we have the military for that but ALSO for defending ourselves against our own government (who pays the military by the way).

One more note. Those looking to "limit" guns are missing the most important point. Criminals, the police, and the military don't follow the rules anyway. How are we supposed to stop them from controlling us? A pistol will stop a thug but not a well equipped SWAT team or soldier. We didn't win the revolution with pistols but with muskets.

(I trust the police, I trust my military, but when s*** hits the fan the people need to have the tools to survive.)

Doomguy wrote:I was waiting for this topic to spring up eventually. I'm willing to accept many things as opinions but this is not one of those times. There is only one TRUE purpose for the right to carry arms and that is to protect. Protect against robbers? Protect against gun wielding maniacs? That is small time the real reason is to protect people from the GOVERNMENT.

A pistol is NOT going to stop a body armored soldier from breaking into your home. Gun registration only tells the government who has the big guns and therefore they would be the first target if God forbid America has another civil way.

Stop looking at the issue with emotions and realize that crime is either a problem of poverty (stealing, gangs, terrible domestic issues), or simply the RANDOM acts of insanity (can't explain this one....ask a pastor?)

I wonder sometimes if people are either looking at the issue with emotions (understandable but false) or for control (Nazi Germany did the same thing and it worked well)

Fearing you own government and relying on them to do what they feel is right is not a democracy. It's suppose the be the other way around, the government MUST fear their own people in order for anyone to have any say in matters.

People are people. Some are crazy and will kill for no reason and sadly there is no cure to that.

For claiming to be all about the facts and not giving into emotional arguments, your statements seem largely devoid of facts but bountiful with emotion. :/

That's fine if you're pro-gun but please don't presume to make baseless generalizations about what the other side says and condescend about knowing your history.

short and simple to the point, guns are so popular in america changing the law now would be a HORRIBLE IDEA unless we want to cut our population a bit, oh, and lets enforce the death penalty or else jails will be more packed than they already are. (this should also scare criminals) perhaps if guns were banned right after WW2 or something like that, then this wouldnt be an issue now.

on the point of media making people violent, i dsiagree, but i think media has played a part into the hyping of guns, i mean, so many violent games and movies, using real life, available guns, by name, has made them somewhat of a...prize possession? people want guns becasue they are "cool" not becasue they want to kill people, however, the backfire to this is that guns are now everywhere in ameria (this is all based on my own observations, no real statistics here)

A side note: i dont own a gun, i cant ever see myself wanting one, but although i would never want to kill someone, i would choose to shoot someone in the shoulder or other extremely painful area rather than be shot myself. Most street criminals who rob you with a gun, probally stole it, have never fired it, and have never been shot at themselves, meaning someone who is trained with a gun is VERY intimidating to them, they fear for thier lives too.

im not pro-gun i think they should be banned (rifles at least), however, realistically, its to late for that now and the only thing that would cause is a disaster in america

MiniSiets wrote:
For claiming to be all about the facts and not giving into emotional arguments, your statements seem largely devoid of facts but bountiful with emotion. :/

That's fine if you're pro-gun but please don't presume to make baseless generalizations about what the other side says and condescend about knowing your history.

Let's see

1. I say the right to bear arms is used to protect
2. A pistol cannot stop a well armored person (I should have been clear about the assault weapon ban here)
3. Gun registration tells the government who has the big guns
4. Poverty or random acts of violence lead to crime
5. Nazi Germany pressured for gun control as a means to control their people
6. The government need to fear the people, not the other way around

This is what I said in a list form. Not at all different then the 5 paragraphs I wrote down. Let's hammer down on key points then.

1. Fact. Protect us from invaders from outside borders and inside borders
2. Fact. Look at #1. Can't stop corrupted government now can we
3. Fact. Why would we as free people tell the government who is their biggest threat?
4. Fact?. Poor folks with no money and desperation are more likely to commit crimes. Also poor living conditions "can" be a factor (Perhaps debatable. Seems logical to me though. Poor areas of big cities have lots of crime)
5. Fact. It's what the founding fathers of America feared could happen here. Also look at #3
6. Fact. I am not debating this point. People need to be in control not a small group or individuals. That is Democracy

I guess that would be more clear

The second amendment only talks about the right to bear arms in the context of a *well-regulated* militia. It says nothing about the rights of individuals to bear arms, nor could it possibly take into consideration the fact that weaponry has drastically evolved from the days of muskets and bayonets. The embellishment of the US constitution like it's this holy grail of perfection is pure fantasy. The second amendment is called the second amendment because it was added to the constitution at a later date after it was already conceived. The founding fathers were not infallible and their laws are subject to change.

Your invocation of Godwin's Law is baseless. Not only do you fail to cite a credible source to support it, but even if I assumed it was true it doesn't guarantee that all governments can only implement gun control for this reason. Last I checked, Japan's strict gun laws haven't turned them into a genocidal totalitarian state.

2. Fact. Look at #1. Can't stop corrupted government now can we

This statement is contradicted by recent events in Egypt, wherein mass protests led to its government being overturned without the use of any firearms.

5. Fact. I am not debating this point. People need to be in control not a small group or individuals. That is Democracy

This is an opinion.

The rest of your facts aren't necessarily relevant to justify your conclusions.

Democracy is not the government fearing the people, it is the government being the people.

(Also, less confirmation bias please).

MiniSiets wrote:The second amendment only talks about the right to bear arms in the context of a *well-regulated* militia. It says nothing about the rights of individuals to bear arms, nor could it possibly take into consideration the fact that weaponry has drastically evolved from the days of muskets and bayonets. The embellishment of the US constitution like it's this holy grail of perfection is pure fantasy. The second amendment is called the second amendment because it was added to the constitution at a later date after it was already conceived. The founding fathers were not infallible and their laws are subject to change.

Your invocation of Godwin's Law is baseless. Not only do you fail to cite a credible source to support it, but even if I assumed it was true it doesn't guarantee that all governments can only implement gun control for this reason. Last I checked, Japan's strict gun laws haven't turned them into a genocidal totalitarian state.

2. Fact. Look at #1. Can't stop corrupted government now can we

This statement is contradicted by recent events in Egypt, wherein mass protests led to its government being overturned without the use of any firearms.

5. Fact. I am not debating this point. People need to be in control not a small group or individuals. That is Democracy

This is an opinion.

The rest of your facts aren't necessarily relevant to justify your conclusions.

The second admendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Contrary to what you said, it DOES state the right of the individual to bear arms.

Also on the weaponry of that time, getting hit by a firearm is nearly a death sentence... If its incredibly powerful shot did not kill you, infection or disease would of done it instead.

The second amendment is called the second amendment because it was added to the constitution at a later date after it was already conceived. The founding fathers were not infallible and their laws are subject to change.

The bill of rights was introduced only a year after the Constitution was the law of the land. Rode Island, North Carolina, and Vermont did not even ratify the constitution by then.


Japan, btw, has had its gun control laws for a long time now. The people were willing to it as well.

Bleh.

Ok, so, let me list out, for all of you, the actual facts (as established, some in this thread, some in common knowledge. correct me if I am wrong):

Fact: Guns exist.
Fact: People are a form of intelligent life.
Fact: When a person is killed by the intent of another person, it is called murder.
Fact: When a person acts in a way not contingent to law, it is called crime. (crime usually also involves the wronging of another person).
Fact: Guns can be used to commit murder/crime.
Fact: Murder/crime existed before guns.
Fact: Murder/crime will exist long after guns.
Fact: Murder/crime will cease to exist when intelligent life does.

HEREIN lie the established conclusions:

Conclusion: Murder/crime is not linked to guns, but to intelligent life (in this case people).
Conclusion: Gun control will not stop murder/crime.

Now this is where it gets blurry:

OPINION: WILL GUN CONTROL LESSEN MURDER/CRIME?

Here, I will introduce ideas, and shall attempt to avoid trying to answer this question.

There are many things to consider, are there not?

(I know that some of you are on your moral high-horses, in this case, imagine someone willing to commit each crime instead)

A.1. Imagine yourself (or someone else) to be poor, and in this example, I mean POOR. Your spouse and children lay starving in the street, with no source of food imaginable. Now, scenario I: you have a pistol, and you're desperate. you don't care of the consequences, your thoughts along the line of "they provide food in jail, should worst come to worst." Would you try to rob a store? secenario II: you have nothing but your bare hands (or a knife, or a baseball bat), same level of desperation, same thoughts, would you still try to rob said store?

A.2. Imagine yourself (or someone else) to be livid. Imagine you know a man, who has taken your wife from you, taken your home from you, taken your children from you (all of this done legally), taken your job. One single man has done all of this to you. Now, scenario I: you have a gun, would you kill this man? scenario II: you have a knife, would you kill this man?

if your answer to A.1.I was the same as your answer to A.1.II, then a gun didn't change it, same deal with A.2.I and A.2.II.

B.1. Imagine you (or someone else) are POOR (as in example A.1). however, you're more worried about jail than relieved. Would the clerk fight back against someone with only a bat or knife? Would the clerk fight back against someone with a gun? If the clerk fights back, your odds of going to jail are going to skyrocket. so then, I: with gun, II: without. would you rob the store?

B.2. Imagine you (or someone else) are livid. much like in example one, however, you don't want this man to live, you don't want him to get away, and you don't want him to fight back. I: with gun, II: without. Would you kill him.

Now, if your answer to B.1.I and B.1.II were different, the gun did change something, same goes for B.2.I and B.2.II.

Now, these examples may not be perfect, but feel free to post more.

Anyway, as the examples show, it would seem that there are two viewpoints. Even in the most factual argument, you reach a branching off point. So, Is there truly a way to solve this dilemma? certainly not with opinion alone, as each side demands fact from the other; and, unless Spock appears, I doubt enough factual evidence to argue one way or the other will ever be put together.

With this, I'd like to leave you with a different idea:
Rather than trying convince the other side that you're more correct, why not try, from an impartial standpoint, to compare and contrast the two sides of the argument, rather than having labels of right and wrong, consider them equal and just measure them to each other.

Belsfir wrote:The second admendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Contrary to what you said, it DOES state the right of the individual to bear arms.

Except that... it doesn't. :/ Or at the very least, it's an ambiguous implication at best given that the entire sentence is wrapped up in the context of a well-regulated militia, like I said before.

Also on the weaponry of that time, getting hit by a firearm is nearly a death sentence... If its incredibly powerful shot did not kill you, infection or disease would of done it instead.

I'm pretty sure a musket can't empty a 30-round clip in a matter of seconds, potentially killing dozens of people at once. I'm also fairly certain that they didn't have anything comparable to rocket-propelled grenade launchers or nuclear arms for that matter back then.

The bill of rights was introduced only a year after the Constitution was the law of the land. Rode Island, North Carolina, and Vermont did not even ratify the constitution by then.

Japan, btw, has had its gun control laws for a long time now. The people were willing to it as well.

Interesting, though all irrelevant to my points. Regardless of the timeframe involved the point is the founding fathers weren't infallible and Japan is a demonstrable example that even rather draconian gun legislation doesn't automatically lead to a totalitarian state. It's worth noting that I don't even necessarily agree with Japan's policy; I'm just pointing out some faulty arguments here.

MiniSiets wrote: I'm just pointing out some faulty arguments here.

And that, sir, is admirable.

Doomguy wrote:

joshier wrote:

Funner fact: It was due to England, France, America and Russia Screwing them over after WW1 that gave Hitler the chance to rise to power via powerful propaganda combine with previous life experiences which mean't he had the conviction to do what he did as well as the opportunity to do it...

Blaming the allies in WWI for allowing WWII to happen is like blaming the parents of a deranged lunatic. Just too much of a stretch to hold merit. (early 30's though it could have been prevented)

I don't particularly want to start arguing history so I will end on this; Hitler's motivations for what he did were largely due to the economic state of Germany at the time which was a result of the reperations put on them by the Allies. Although I am sure there are other theories and that there are other reasons, this is generally accepted as one of the main causes of his rise, so following that view you can blame the Allies... But as I have said on other topics it all comes down to individual view point and analysis... So anything can be right effectively...

Colme wrote:

Anecdotes are not arguments.

As an aside, why are most of the things explicitly labeled in this thread as facts not facts? Do people seriously not understand what facts are?

you referring to my facts as well?

I said this in the last thread, and I will repeat it here - what works in Japan will not work in the US, all "gun culture" and "militia" reasons aside geography works against it. As in, Japan is a fairly small country with huge population, when you call the cops there chances are they already have a patrol unit near your vicinity. On the other hand the US is a huge country, with some rather large scarcely populated areas - for instance if someone from my household calls 911, the fastest we can expect a police presence is half an hour, and that is if the deputy runs his cruiser foot to the floor and does not wipe out in the process. If the US police forces had the manpower and the means and willingness to respond ANYWHERE in the country in mere minutes then Japanese-style draconian anti-gun measures may be applicable, but till then those who live out in no-man's-land still need the means to defend themselves against any and all threats, be them violent criminals or rabid wild life.

Another point that I didn't see brought up - statistics are only as accurate as the criteria of what gets included in them - situations where simply producing a firearm causes the assailant to abandon and flee are usually not included, for the simple reason they cannot be confirmed and often are not even reported to the authorities to begin with. I've had such encounters, and about every female I know who carries has had at least one as well - lots of messed up people out there who see a lone individual in a dark-lit area as a perfect target, but when said target actually turns out to be armed all of sudden they become a threat and thus not worth further pursuing by your regular crime-of-opportunity perpetrator. A knife or even a vicious-looking machete does not have the same stopping effect, as it takes fitness and skills to use effectively, whereas at close range any handgun can be deadly to a criminal in the hands of even an inexperienced shooter.

The above are simply the opinions of a mostly-regular Joe Shmoe who respects and obeys the law but does not rely solely on the law to guarantee his and his family's safety.

JAMSM wrote:you referring to my facts as well?

If you're uncertain I think it speaks for itself.

The above are simply the opinions of a mostly-regular Joe Shmoe who respects and obeys the law but does not rely solely on the law to guarantee his and his family's safety.

*cough* Anecdote. *cough*

The government can have all the gun control laws that they want. Criminals and other dangerous groups will always find ways of getting guns of all kinds and all calibers.

plantkingman wrote:The government can have all the gun control laws that they want. Criminals and other dangerous groups will always find ways of getting guns of all kinds and all calibers.

I haven't seen too many criminals running around with railguns and bazookas. I wonder why.

Colme wrote:

plantkingman wrote:The government can have all the gun control laws that they want. Criminals and other dangerous groups will always find ways of getting guns of all kinds and all calibers.

I haven't seen too many criminals running around with railguns and bazookas. I wonder why.

More importantly the fact that people will commit crimes regardless doesn't mean we should make it easy for them. I guess we should just legalize murder then since people are going to do it anyway?

Colme wrote:

plantkingman wrote:The government can have all the gun control laws that they want. Criminals and other dangerous groups will always find ways of getting guns of all kinds and all calibers.

I haven't seen too many criminals running around with railguns and bazookas. I wonder why.

becasue only the military has the tech to build a railgun, oh, and this girl

Spoiler:

and some higher tiers of organized crime probally DO have RPGs, but, good luck finding a time they would be used.

Colme wrote:

The above are simply the opinions of a mostly-regular Joe Shmoe who respects and obeys the law but does not rely solely on the law to guarantee his and his family's safety.

*cough* Anecdote. *cough*

Call me ignorant and narrow-minded if you wish, but I refuse to take a stand on a topic that could potentially affect the safety of me and my family based on what may or may not have been working good for some folks clear across the planet. Instead I make it a point to take a stand based on my personal experience in the matter, whatever that may be. If I have no relevant personal experience, I will simply abstain from picking a side (as I have done so in regards of the healthcare topic). If in your opinion that invalidates my opinion as a viable argument, so be it.

Hey don't trash talk Joe Shmoe, hes a really cool guy.

Mylespol wrote:Hey don't trash talk Joe Shmoe, hes a really cool guy.

yea, but Jhonny Bravo is cooler

DemonEyesJoe wrote:becasue only the military has the tech to build a railgun, oh, and this girl

and some higher tiers of organized crime probally DO have RPGs, but, good luck finding a time they would be used.

No, the reason people don't have these military-grade weapons is because they're illegal (and thus unavailable).

If you want to talk about usefulness, how about grenades? I can't say I've heard of two many criminals with those. Just ask Brick:

If in your opinion that invalidates my opinion as a viable argument, so be it.

It's not my opinion that your argument isn't viable. Anecdotes used to make generalizations are never viable arguments.

Colme wrote:It's not my opinion that your argument isn't viable. Anecdotes used to make generalizations are never viable arguments.

Think I'm beginning to understand you there. However, if you don't mind, can you please explain clearly what is a viable argument? Preferably w/ an example as well?

Colme wrote:

DemonEyesJoe wrote:becasue only the military has the tech to build a railgun, oh, and this girl

and some higher tiers of organized crime probally DO have RPGs, but, good luck finding a time they would be used.

No, the reason people don't have these military-grade weapons is because they're illegal (and thus unavailable).

If you want to talk about usefulness, how about grenades? I can't say I've heard of two many criminals with those. Just ask Brick:

good point, but your falling back to my other point, have they EVER been available? my other point was that its TO LATE to make them illegal, in Japan they were banned 60 YEARS AGO before everyone had thier hands on one. now that everyone and their mother has a gun, they are readily available, illegal or not