[PAX] Gun control

The thing is you can't take guns out of the US so that point is rather moot, the thing is that besides that point there's no real valid reason to put them in place.

The thinking started from a thread asking if the gun laws in the UK should be relaxed. Now as most know we have no truck with gun ownership over here. You can buy one but it has to be kept at a gun club in a locked container probably with the ammo stored in a separately locked compartment, sentry guns and dogs on patrol and a small nuclear device attached to the doorbell... or some such overkill. We like to make certain :)

So here you won't find guns involved in many crimes. So that kind of undermines the idea that criminals will get hold of and use illegal weapons despite any ban. If you know that the opposition will ramp up their responses a hundred fold at the merest mention of a weapon then most criminals seem to see a gun as a very, very serious undertaking (except the gang bangers but there's no accounting for some folk). If a guns involved you will get an armed response unit, you will be dealt with with the maximum extents of the law and you will probably never recover from it... ever.

As to why it works in Switzerland, one person got it right I think because Switzerland doesn't really have a large percentage of people who are destitute do they? It would appear on the surface that a large divide between the haves and have nots which contributes to the gun problem.

Now in terms of freedom, there is no freedom in a civilised country. It doesn't exist. Admittedly the more things you're allowed to do does increase your personal freedom but I think that gun ownership is such a small part of the overall experience of life and freedoms that it's not that big of a deal.

Thinking of intruders I have two thoughts. Firstly why is it necessary for a professional like a policeman to identify their intentions, give adequate warning and only shoot when given little other choice but for a home owner it's just "he's on my land, BANG"? I mean sure every person who breaks in to your home could be a gun toting maniac... but there again you probably pass him on the street. So perhaps you should just shoot people who look like they might break in, as the next logical step. Or shoot people who trespass onto your garden. It'd certainly cut down on kids kicking their ball on to your flowers.
"Can I get my ball back?" steps forward tentatively.
BANG!. "Nope"

Sure if you're in a country where gun ownership is prevalent then you'd have to be a seriously ill intentioned or desperate person to break into someone's house but also if you are that determined then you're going to bring your own firepower to even the field... hence fuelling the fire.

The fact is that people defend and attack every day without resort to firearms. They should be, as a lethal option, treated a little more seriously in my opinion. Just handing out a Raging Bull with your cereal is irresponsible.

Has anyone tried to pass some sort of law regarding having to qualify for gun ownership? I mean I know you have to pass certain checks like not being crazy and having the patience to wait three days or however long it is but what about aptitude or basic training? How many accidental deaths are there which could be prevented with better training? How many more lives could be saved, for the pro gun lobbyists, if people were shown how to operate their new ego extension when they bought it?

I know there's a world of difference between giving out training and requiring a pass mark but at least if you did require a pass then you're going some way to guaranteeing that the instruction actually sank in and that people aren't just being a zombie through the whole thing. Of course setting somewhere up to train the umpteen millions who'd need the certification would be a pain in the neck...

Perhaps if the requirement was that you had to serve to own a gun or something. Then it's a serious life choice and not just another purchase like a VCR?

As to the idea that cars should be banned, I'm firmly of the belief that the tests should be a lot more comprehensive and shouldn't be built on some daft idea that a human being is born with a god given right to drive. What do people expect with the degradation of concepts such as honour and being neighbourly when everything which previously had to be earned is now given away with abandon? If you don't give something value then it is valueless.

Edit-
Guns don't kill more people, people can still kill without a gun.
Guns make convenience food out of what was once a roast dinner with all the trimmings. Bet most people eat more convenience food than roast dinners.

:D <- This is my smug face

:wink:
 
Last edited:
TheLastMohican said:
Is there by any chance a causality there? :whistle:

How about law-abiding-but-insane citizens, or those law abiding only until opportunity conveniently presents itself? I would wager arming them would be somewhat of a risk as well.
Click to expand...

Hey, this is the only conservative issue I follow through with mindless passion. Don't go fucking it up with your logic Mr. NT.
 
Restraint said:
So, someone having the ability to shoot me from a good couple miles away without coming into physical contact with me should be seen in the same light as someone who is physically close enough to stab me with a knife?
Click to expand...

Yes, because if someone really wants you dead, they'll find a way.

I shoot 0.38 MOAs (or at least I did in my prime), which is world class marksmanship. I would have a lot of trouble hitting a human sized target at a range of one mile - meaning that if someone had the skill to kill you at a range of a couple of miles, you're definitely outclassed, and they'd find a way even if there wasn't a gun involved.

Here are a few ways someone (as in anyone with the ability to research on the internet and follow instructions, not just a world class sniper) could kill you from a couple miles away...

- Rig a bomb from ordinary household products, and detonate it with a cell phone call.

- Make a radio controlled airplane with a video camera to fly to your house and disperse a poison, again made from ordinary household products, into your ventilation system.

- Pay someone else to come and drown your head in your own toilet.

I hate to be so graphic, but the simple truth of the matter here really is that guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns, and anything else they can get their hands on when they want to kill someone. We've been doing it for thousands of years before there were guns, and unfortunately will continue to do so until we as a civilization start to realize that there are elements that cause people to be less likely to kill other people, and encourage those elements in our society.

The problem isn't guns. The problem is people. We're the most dangerous species on the planet. That's what has to change.
 
Xander said:
Now in terms of freedom, there is no freedom in a civilised country. It doesn't exist. Admittedly the more things you're allowed to do does increase your personal freedom but I think that gun ownership is such a small part of the overall experience of life and freedoms that it's not that big of a deal.

Thinking of intruders I have two thoughts. Firstly why is it necessary for a professional like a policeman to identify their intentions, give adequate warning and only shoot when given little other choice but for a home owner it's just "he's on my land, BANG"? I mean sure every person who breaks in to your home could be a gun toting maniac... but there again you probably pass him on the street. So perhaps you should just shoot people who look like they might break in, as the next logical step. Or shoot people who trespass onto your garden. It'd certainly cut down on kids kicking their ball on to your flowers.

"Can I get my ball back?" steps forward tentatively.
BANG!. "Nope"

Sure if you're in a country where gun ownership is prevalent then you'd have to be a seriously ill intentioned or desperate person to break into someone's house but also if you are that determined then you're going to bring your own firepower to even the field... hence fuelling the fire.

The fact is that people defend and attack every day without resort to firearms. They should be, as a lethal option, treated a little more seriously in my opinion. Just handing out a Raging Bull with your cereal is irresponsible.

:wink:
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Von Hase said:
Yes, because if someone really wants you dead, they'll find a way.

I shoot 0.38 MOAs (or at least I did in my prime), which is world class marksmanship. I would have a lot of trouble hitting a human sized target at a range of one mile - meaning that if someone had the skill to kill you at a range of a couple of miles, you're definitely outclassed, and they'd find a way even if there wasn't a gun involved.

Here are a few ways someone (as in anyone with the ability to research on the internet and follow instructions, not just a world class sniper) could kill you from a couple miles away...

- Rig a bomb from ordinary household products, and detonate it with a cell phone call.

- Make a radio controlled airplane with a video camera to fly to your house and disperse a poison, again made from ordinary household products, into your ventilation system.

- Pay someone else to come and drown your head in your own toilet.

I hate to be so graphic, but the simple truth of the matter here really is that guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns, and anything else they can get their hands on when they want to kill someone. We've been doing it for thousands of years before there were guns, and unfortunately will continue to do so until we as a civilization start to realize that there are elements that cause people to be less likely to kill other people, and encourage those elements in our society.

The problem isn't guns. The problem is people. We're the most dangerous species on the planet. That's what has to change.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a reason not to get rid of them now rather than a reason to have them in the first place though?
 
Von Hase said:
I'm not sure I understand what your pronouns are referencing in this sentence. Please clarify.
Click to expand...
What I mean't was that your thinking works in context of the US where there are guns but wouldn't be as true in a place without such prevalence of firearms.

The reason I'm saying that is I was trying to not just address the US in specific but more generally. Sort of a discussion along the lines of 'if you had a country with no guns, where they're all highly illegal, is there a good reason to make them legal'.

Does that make more sense?
 
Xander said:
What I mean't was that your thinking works in context of the US where there are guns but wouldn't be as true in a place without such prevalence of firearms.

The reason I'm saying that is I was trying to not just address the US in specific but more generally. Sort of a discussion along the lines of 'if you had a country with no guns, where they're all highly illegal, is there a good reason to make them legal'.
Click to expand...
no

Does that make more sense?
Click to expand...
yes
 
Xander said:
The thinking started from a thread asking if the gun laws in the UK should be relaxed. Now as most know we have no truck with gun ownership over here. You can buy one but it has to be kept at a gun club in a locked container probably with the ammo stored in a separately locked compartment, sentry guns and dogs on patrol and a small nuclear device attached to the doorbell... or some such overkill. We like to make certain :)

So here you won't find guns involved in many crimes. So that kind of undermines the idea that criminals will get hold of and use illegal weapons despite any ban.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting something, one of the main reasons illegal gun use is relatively low in the UK is simply because of our location.

In the US a lot of the illegal guns come from across the border in Latin America, because the governments and police are so corrupt down there the drug gangs operate with almost complete impunity, which makes acquiring guns from them a piece of piss.

In the UK however we don't have the same corruption issues so illegal gun ownership already becomes that much harder, plus we're an island so it's that much harder to smuggle guns into the country than it is in the States.

On top of that we're surrounded by countries that also don't have the kinds of corruption issues that Latin America does, which makes illegal gun ownership and gun smuggling even more difficult.
 
Xander said:
What I mean't was that your thinking works in context of the US where there are guns but wouldn't be as true in a place without such prevalence of firearms.

The reason I'm saying that is I was trying to not just address the US in specific but more generally. Sort of a discussion along the lines of 'if you had a country with no guns, where they're all highly illegal, is there a good reason to make them legal'.

Does that make more sense?
Click to expand...

Perfect sense.

I personally don't own or carry a gun or any other weapons. Living in the US, and especially the most violent city in America in 2008, I support the right of anyone to carry weapons to defend themselves, because I know that the implied threat that I might be carrying weapons help keep me safe from crime.

However, if there were a nation that had no guns, I would place a much higher priority on educating the populace to a point where violence is a last resort, or just plain not an option, regardless of what weapons (or household items that could be turned into weapons) are legal.

If you want to kill someone, you don't need to go further than your local grocery store to find everything you need to make them dead.
 
sookie said:
Billy,
People are people. law abiding, whatever.

Even people who try to do the right thing can snap.
This is not good person, bad person argument.

the other thing is that there are accidents with guns. Especially when there are kids involved.

I dont think guns should be banned.....I think there should be responsibility.
Click to expand...

I think that has always been the pro gun attitude. Which I share. Personal responsibility.
 
Billy said:
I think that has always been the pro gun attitude. Which I share. Personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Gun control means controlling your own gun.

- Make the bullets go where you intend, not where you don't intend.
- Make the bullets come out when it is appropriate, not when it is not.

This is all summed up by the word 'responsible'.

When you take away a person's right to be responsible, you're forcing everyone to be irresponsible.
 
Last edited:
I can't stand guns. I know the arguments and I know the reasons why for them. But guns in my family's neighborhoods weren't used wisely and I had one uncle murdered due to a violent crime involving guns. I don't see guns as solving any kind of issue with violent crime but I see them as an aspect of violent crime.

That being said, I have no problems with propellant weapons or BB guns. I even have a BB hand gun that feels like a real handgun, loads like a handgun, and fires BBs like you wouldn't believe. But I know me - I couldn't fire a gun at an intruder, even if my life depended on it. And knowing the damage I've seen in my family over it I doubt I ever will fire a real one.

I won't stop someone from obtaining a gun, but I see far more danger with the owners of handguns than with criminals. I think more accidental deaths occur with guns than incidents of criminals forcing innocent people to do things at gunpoint. Yes, bad incidents happen. But I'm personally more worried about getting hit by a drunk driver than I am by being shot in my own home.

Just my two cents.
 
BenW said:
Uh.
I'd wager none to few?

What were you implying?
Click to expand...
That homicide doesn't mean intentional killing. Homicide =/= murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top