Carrying A Weapon

[Chrono Traveler]

So what's your plan? Ban all fire-arms because a criminal or two decide to go killing? You do realize that you have just denied the innocent a chance to defend themselves, right? And you're okay with that?

This is just plain foolish, people seem to think by having a gun youre automatically protected. This is the mistake. Everyone needs to wake and and realize that its the guns themselves thats causing most of the violence problems. More guns can AND WILL cause more violence and more problems in America.

And people can stop with the "you wanna ban our right to own a fire arm". Cause thats a load of it, and everyone knows it. There is a huge difference between having more gun control and banning them.

 

[Ryal Kane]

I guess while I'm working I have a couple of craft knives in my belt bag (cutting newspaper string) but they only situation I'd use them in would be something like a dog attack. Guns aren't quite so common in this country.

 

[Blackguard_]

This is just plain foolish, people seem to think by having a gun youre automatically protected.

No, but this is an argument them how? "Guns are not magic anti-crime devices, therefore, they are worthless"?

This is the mistake. Everyone needs to wake and and realize that its the guns themselves thats causing most of the violence problems.

Now that is just plain foolish. You think murderers and thugs will give up their violent and murderous ways just because they couldn't use guns?

The Prohibition-like conditions of the War on Drugs is what's causing most the violence in America. Gangs and the drug trade and related violence would not disappear even if guns did.

More guns can AND WILL cause more violence and more problems in America.

No, a gun is something violent people use and is used in violent acts. Guns do not cause violence, that's BS.
As I'm sure you'd agree, guns are not magic charms that ward off criminals, but neither are they magic devices that cause peaceful people to turn violent.

There is a huge difference between having more gun control and banning them.

COuld you give some examples of gun control measures that doesn't ban something? Remember, any form of licensing is the result of a ban.

ANd seriously, with thei deas and attitude you display, I think it's understandable if people fear they would ban everything besides mouse guns and then act like our 2nd amendment rights are still intact.

 

[Lynden1000]

This is just plain foolish, people seem to think by having a gun youre automatically protected. This is the mistake. Everyone needs to wake and and realize that its the guns themselves thats causing most of the violence problems. More guns can AND WILL cause more violence and more problems in America.

It *might* cause more violence, but that violence could be the result of more goodies disposing of more baddies. Which I have no problem with.

And people can stop with the "you wanna ban our right to own a fire arm". Cause thats a load of it, and everyone knows it. There is a huge difference between having more gun control and banning them.

What further type of control do I need? I obey all the regulations, I've taken safety courses, and I regularly practice at a shooting range. I think a 16-year old behind the wheel of a two ton vehicle poses a far greater threat to society than I do.

 

[Chrono Traveler]

Not everyone obeys. Which is why there needs to be tighter background checks. I personally don't if someone who is going to obey the law is carrying or not.

The fact of the matter is though, that guns all to often fall into the wrong hands. This is not, and never will be fixed by making it easier to get guns. I just want a tighter level of control.

 

[rebelEnigma]

This is just plain foolish, people seem to think by having a gun youre automatically protected.

Well, you kind-of ARE PROTECTED. Who do you think the criminals want to rob: the defenseless or the ones with rifles? If I were a criminal, I'd want to make sure that my victim was someone that couldn't defend themselves. I wouldn't dream of robbing a military man's house because, well, HE'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A GUN.

This is the mistake. Everyone needs to wake and and realize that its the guns themselves thats causing most of the violence problems. More guns can AND WILL cause more violence and more problems in America.

That is the dumbest, most ignorant thing I have ever heard about guns. Have you ever once looked at the statistics? Guns are shown to be used at least 2.5 million times per year in acts of self-defense against a criminal. How could you think that denying these people weapons to defend themselves is the right thing to do? You, my friend, are the one that needs to wake up.

And people can stop with the "you wanna ban our right to own a fire arm". Cause thats a load of it, and everyone knows it. There is a huge difference between having more gun control and banning them.

Gun control just leads to more gun control. They ban rifles, then semi-automatics, then pistols, then what? Knives? Bats? Spatulas? How about giving someone a high-five?

 

[The Bellman]

Gun control just leads to more gun control. They ban rifles, then semi-automatics, then pistols, then what? Knives? Bats? Spatulas? How about giving someone a high-five?

Do you know of any jurisdictions where they have implemented any form of gun control and it has escalated to banning knives/bats/etc? No? I'm not surprised.

I'm no "Ban all guns!" advocate, but arguments like the above are just silly. Lots and lots of things are controlled without that control leading to a ban on them or other things. Argue whether or not gun control would be a good thing, not imagined slippery slopes that have no basis in reality.

 

[quatona]

Well, you kind-of ARE PROTECTED. Who do you think the criminals want to rob: the defenseless or the ones with rifles? If I were a criminal, I'd want to make sure that my victim was someone that couldn't defend themselves. I wouldn't dream of robbing a military man's house because, well, HE'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A GUN.

I have always worked from a different psychological approach:
If people put a lot of effort into protection, guns, alarm units etc. it´s sure to say they have a lot to protect and robbing them will earn me a lot more than robbing that guy over there who apparently has so little that he doesn´t even care about protecting himself.

 

[Darkhorse]

That's assuming you live through the robbery, avoid capture, and don't find it necessary to flee the area - which are all highly unlikely!

Predators of all kinds prey on the weakest in the group;
I refuse to be a victim.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Interesting that few facts have been presented by either side in this thread, which goes to show that this is an emotion driven issue. The good news is that when bills are introduced to impose ridiculous gun controls the actual facts come out and these proposed controls are almost universally defeated (in the U.S. that is).

There is a God in heaven after all!

owg

 

[The Bellman]

Interesting that few facts have been presented by either side in this thread, which goes to show that this is an emotion driven issue. The good news is that when bills are introduced to impose ridiculous gun controls the actual facts come out and these proposed controls are almost universally defeated (in the U.S. that is).

Yeah, it must be that the facts come out, because political decisions are never made based on emotions.

Please.

 

[MarcusHill]

It's clear how great it is to be able to buy guns to protect yourself. I mean, just look at the homicide rates in the US vs. the UK, where guns are very rigidly controlled.

 

[Blackguard_]

Well, that's becasue England does not have the gang and War on Drug/drug Black Market problem the USA does. A large proportion of murder here is drug and/or gang related.

Besides, on your side of the pond you have higher violent crime rates.

 

[MarcusHill]

Well, that's becasue England does not have the gang and War on Drug/drug Black Market problem the USA does. A large proportion of murder here is drug and/or gang related.

I think you'll find we do have drug and gang problems. I live in Manchester, which is seen as having a serious gun crime problem, though obviously nowhere near to the extent that there is in any US city. In fact, just this morning on the radio I heard the fact that 1 in 5 people know how to obtain a gun presented as a "shocking" statistic.

 

[Blackguard_]

yes, I know you have gang/drug problems there, but they are not on the same scale as ours.

Anyway, what's the murder rate in Manchester? I can only find a 10 per 100K gun murder stat. (which is about Tucson's total murder rate of 10.4 per 100K) and a bunch of useless "violence agains the person" stats.

Also, we have cities much lower than that, such as Arlington VA with a 1.6 per 100K murder rate.

It really problematic to compare the UK to the US given our diveristy of circumstances and laws.

In fact, just this morning on the radio I heard the fact that 1 in 5 people know how to obtain a gun presented as a "shocking" statistic.

It kinda should be on a small island nation almost on the edge of the world whose nieghbor countries aren't much freindlier towards guns, that's trying to have a near total gun ban.

 

[MarcusHill]

It really problematic to compare the UK to the US given our diveristy of circumstances and laws.

I think that's a point a lot of people don't see in these sorts of discussions. It's like the old joke about a guy who asks for directions and gets an answer starting "Well, I wouldn't start from here..."

Regardless of whether it is "better" to have draconian gun control laws such as in the UK or very liberal ones like the US, this doesn't mean one should necessarily change to become like the other since the nations are starting from very different places. Even from a purely practical point of view, it was much easier for the UK government to tighten already quite restrictive gun laws than it would be to attempt to implement gun control of a similar level in the US. The culture and general perception of firearms is also vastly different - although gun sports are seen as a fairly normal hobby, anyone in the UK who feels the need to carry a firearm for "protection" would be assumed to be involved in crime, or at least to move in those circles; in the US this is definitely not the case.

I suspect this whole difference of cultures is a big reason why almost every debate on gun law I've seen with transatlantic participants tends to degenerate into people getting angry because the other side just can't see how clearly wrong they are.

 

[quatona]

Can we exclude the possibility that the long tradition of liberal (even explicitly positive, I may add) attitude towards gun possession is a contributing cause to the particular crime situation in the US, that you, Blackguard, give as a reason for the necessity of gun possession?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, it must be that the facts come out, because political decisions are never made based on emotions.

Please.

This particular issue; that of possibly infringing upon the constitutional right to bear (fire)arms, isn't taken lightly by legislators. And facts presented with emotion are facts nonetheless. It is liberals who attack gun ownership using emotional arguments. Facts mean nothing to them, but it is the facts that defeat their efforts every time.

owg

 

[The Bellman]

This particular issue; that of possibly infringing upon the constitutional right to bear (fire)arms, isn't taken lightly by legislators.

Anything that might lose them votes isn't taken lightly by legislators.

And facts presented with emotion are facts nonetheless. It is liberals who attack gun ownership using emotional arguments. Facts mean nothing to them, but it is the facts that defeat their efforts every time.

And they would say precisely the same about you. They would say that it is conservatives who defend gun ownership using emotional arguments, that facts mean nothing to them, that their emotional arguments, sadly, defeat the liberals' fact-based arguments every time.

The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between. It is not a case of one side having all the facts and the other side relying exclusively on emotion-based appeals. Both have facts in their favour; both also heavily use emotion-based appeals.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Anything that might lose them votes isn't taken lightly by legislators.


And they would say precisely the same about you. They would say that it is conservatives who defend gun ownership using emotional arguments, that facts mean nothing to them, that their emotional arguments, sadly, defeat the liberals' fact-based arguments every time.

The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between. It is not a case of one side having all the facts and the other side relying exclusively on emotion-based appeals. Both have facts in their favour; both also heavily use emotion-based appeals.

Except that when all the 'facts' are presented, by both sides, the truth emerges, and we conservative gun supporters win everytime. And with all due respect, liberal anti's don't accept facts or truth about the gun issue. If they did they would see that there is no gun problem and move on to something else.

To demonstrate this I could challenge any anti that is tuned in to present facts in support of gun control. Of course they cannot. However, what they do say will be strongly emotional, which will prove my assertion in the first place.

owg