Gun control - murderer control?

[Walsingham]

You also need to remember that guns aren't really to protect against the military (which is unlikely to fight it's own citizens anyway, as has been pointed out), it's to protect against pro-government thugs (see Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Organizing for America in Obama's wet dreams). Also the amount of violence that would result from trying to repress a heavily armed population is enough to give even the most tyrannically minded pol some pause.

 

Edit: Even in Ukraine, protesters were fighting riot police, not the military.

 

Now that's an interesting point that does merit some consideration.

[Bryy]

Mes, you really need to think before you write.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Bryy

[ManifestedISO]

I'm sorry, but this can't remain unaddressed. To assign any probability that legal weapons will be confiscated in the U.S. is an insult to our KIA. There is no conspiracy of confiscation, nor will there ever be. Show some responsibility and respect for the gift of empowered self-defense and treat it like the privilege those who died to preserve it, is.   

[Guard Dog]

Like I said, this is a purely hypothetical discussion. I won't happen because there would be a fight. And there are a number of politicians, mainly on the left, who would love nothing more that to "kick in the doors and take them". If you'd like I can post a page full of quotes. But they are in a minority and while this whole thing is not outside the realm of possibility, it is virtually certain that it will never happen.

 

This whole thread is loaded with sarcasm, hyperbole, is entertaining as hell, and most of all is just hypothetical. We do that kind of thing here, you know that.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Guard Dog

[Kroney]

I love a gun debate. They're always such fun. I'll get this out of the way first of all, for the sake of honesty: I'm pro-gun control. I realise this will immediately make one side of the argument inclined to dismiss everything I subsequently say as a pink commie Euro-weenie, hand-wringling Liberal leftie, big-Goverment nanny-state subject attempting to hide behind Big Government's skirts so that he doesn't have to stand up to automatic rifles, tanks, artillery and air strikes with his bolt action hunting rifle when his democratic Government suddenly turns into a 1930s facist dictatorship BUT bear with me.

 

The basic problem between the two camps butting heads is different perceptions of what safety is. Everybody wants to be safe. Some people think that having a weapon will make them safer, other people think that other people not having weapons will make them safer. There are various arguments on both sides over whether or not each position is valid. The answer is, that both are in different circumstances.

 

Fundamentally, the only reason pro gun ownership people want to keep their guns is because they enjoy having them and don't want them taken away. I don't want guns de-restricted because I personally don't think a civilised society is one in which people need to walk around armed all the damned time. I can see why Guard Dog doesn't want a law to be created to take away something he sees as one of his civil liberties. It's because he likes it.

 

Regardless of whether or not people have guns, the problem with a guy holding up a petrol station with a gun is the guy holding up the petrol station. The fact that he has a gun is almost completely irrelevant. The gun didn't make him attempt to rob the place, his situation did. The only way you fix that is in fixing the situation that caused him to turn to crime. It's just that I happen to believe that having ready access to a pistol made that situation potentially far worse. As, in fact, did the fact that other people in that petrol station had guns, too.

 

Much was made of how two or three people pulled weapons on him and convinced him to lay his down. What if the opposite happened and he decided to start shooting? Sure, he'd probably end up dead, but so might the shop owner and one or two of the good samaritans. People certainly would have been injured. To my mind, it would have been a safer situation if only the criminal had the gun. Nobody would have been inclined to stand up to him, he would have made off with however much money the till had (which, by the way, didn't belong to anybody present) and nobody would have been hurt. You may consider this cowardly, but I consider it to be the job of the police to find and catch people that commit crimes, not the responsibility of the public to stop criminals.

 

This is a perfectly valid opinion to hold. So is Guard Dog and the other pro-gun ownership peoples'. Can we not just accept that people who have guns want to hang on to them, whilst those that have never had them don't see the point in having them and move on?

[Orogun01]

I think there is a major misconception that civilized and peaceful somehow equate with defenseless.

[Orogun01]

I love a gun debate. They're always such fun. I'll get this out of the way first of all, for the sake of honesty: I'm pro-gun control. I realise this will immediately make one side of the argument inclined to dismiss everything I subsequently say as a pink commie Euro-weenie, hand-wringling Liberal leftie, big-Goverment nanny-state subject attempting to hide behind Big Government's skirts so that he doesn't have to stand up to automatic rifles, tanks, artillery and air strikes with his bolt action hunting rifle when his democratic Government suddenly turns into a 1930s facist dictatorship BUT bear with me.

 

The basic problem between the two camps butting heads is different perceptions of what safety is. Everybody wants to be safe. Some people think that having a weapon will make them safer, other people think that other people not having weapons will make them safer. There are various arguments on both sides over whether or not each position is valid. The answer is, that both are in different circumstances.

 

Fundamentally, the only reason pro gun ownership people want to keep their guns is because they enjoy having them and don't want them taken away. I don't want guns de-restricted because I personally don't think a civilised society is one in which people need to walk around armed all the damned time. I can see why Guard Dog doesn't want a law to be created to take away something he sees as one of his civil liberties. It's because he likes it.

 

Regardless of whether or not people have guns, the problem with a guy holding up a petrol station with a gun is the guy holding up the petrol station. The fact that he has a gun is almost completely irrelevant. The gun didn't make him attempt to rob the place, his situation did. The only way you fix that is in fixing the situation that caused him to turn to crime. It's just that I happen to believe that having ready access to a pistol made that situation potentially far worse. As, in fact, did the fact that other people in that petrol station had guns, too.

 

Much was made of how two or three people pulled weapons on him and convinced him to lay his down. What if the opposite happened and he decided to start shooting? Sure, he'd probably end up dead, but so might the shop owner and one or two of the good samaritans. People certainly would have been injured. To my mind, it would have been a safer situation if only the criminal had the gun. Nobody would have been inclined to stand up to him, he would have made off with however much money the till had (which, by the way, didn't belong to anybody present) and nobody would have been hurt. You may consider this cowardly, but I consider it to be the job of the police to find and catch people that commit crimes, not the responsibility of the public to stop criminals.

 

This is a perfectly valid opinion to hold. So is Guard Dog and the other pro-gun ownership peoples'. Can we not just accept that people who have guns want to hang on to them, whilst those that have never had them don't see the point in having them and move on?

The hypothetical situation that you mentioned fails to address the fact that:

One, if the criminal succeeds he will continue to commit crimes.

Two, that the criminal might not be inclined to let witnesses live.

That situation could easily be a robbery in which 3 bystanders were killed by a gunman who feared recognition

[Kroney]

 

The hypothetical situation that you mentioned fails to address the fact that:

One, if the criminal succeeds he will continue to commit crimes.

Two, that the criminal might not be inclined to let witnesses live.

That situation could easily be a robbery in which 3 bystanders were killed by a gunman who feared recognition

 

 

I would counter that by saying that doesn't justify vigilantes shooting people in the streets. It's a matter of perspective, ain't it.

[Volourn]

I like how people's answer is allow the bad guys to have all the power. LMAO Since when did cowardice become the way to go?

[Kroney]

Speaking of cowardice, it'd be my opinion that saying inflicting death or serious bodily harm is against the law and then allowing people to shoot other people in the name of "he started it" speaks of moral cowardice. Again, it's all perspective, isn't it.

[Amentep]

Anybody remember the lone Gurkha who fought off and routed a group of forty men who were intent on abusing a young lady on a train a few years ago? In that case i'm glad the gentleman was carrying a weapon, and glad that he knew how to use it.

Life isn't action movie, and guns far more commonly used by criminal elements then some regular joe who saves the day. So this is the exception that prove the rule.

 

It reminds me an old statistic that showed that people who trained in martial arts are far more likely to be involved in fight and require medical attention.

 

 

In the case of Bishnu Shrestha, he didn't have a gun, he had a khukuri.  IIRC, the thieves (who originally started out as just robbers before deciding to try to rape the young woman) were armed with knives and guns, however many (if not all) of the guns may have been fakes (apparently a common ploy in banditry in India).  If they had real guns they were at a disadvantage of the crowded space (a lot of chance to hit each other, not as much chance to hit Shreshta) and the fact that Shrestha was a trained military man having just left military service and familiar with his weapon of choice and its use.

[Orogun01]

 

 

The hypothetical situation that you mentioned fails to address the fact that:

One, if the criminal succeeds he will continue to commit crimes.

Two, that the criminal might not be inclined to let witnesses live.

That situation could easily be a robbery in which 3 bystanders were killed by a gunman who feared recognition

 

 

I would counter that by saying that doesn't justify vigilantes shooting people in the streets. It's a matter of perspective, ain't it.

 

I think you're confusing perspective with speculation; what we are doing is speculating, what your perspective *is* is actually quite subjective. For example, I know that the rates of vigilantism are not higher than the crime rates, I know that most people who carry concealed do not go around looking for criminals.  But it seems that you believe differently.  

[Volourn]

"Speaking of cowardice, it'd be my opinion that saying inflicting death or serious bodily harm is against the law and then allowing people to shoot other people in the name of "he started it" speaks of moral cowardice. Again, it's all perspective, isn't it."

 

What a re you talking about? Certainly not the same thing as me. I'm talking self defense. Youa re talking about hunting  accused down after the fact then gunning them down. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

[Guard Dog]

 Can we not just accept that people who have guns want to hang on to them, whilst those that have never had them don't see the point in having them and move on?

 

Great post Kroney. Totally disagree with most of it but it was a great post. As for this one part, I'd love to agree to disagree and let's all go our separate ways but it seems too many of the folks who don't see the point of having them are not interested in simply not having them. They want to take everyone else's away too.

[Mor]

 

Life isn't action movie, and guns far more commonly used by criminal elements then some regular joe who saves the day. So this is the exception that prove the rule.

 

It reminds me an old statistic that showed that people who trained in martial arts are far more likely to be involved in fight and require medical attention.

 

In the case of Bishnu Shrestha, he didn't have a gun, he had a khukuri.  IIRC, the thieves (who originally started out as just robbers before deciding to try to rape the young woman) were armed with knives and guns, however many (if not all) of the guns may have been fakes (apparently a common ploy in banditry in India).  If they had real guns they were at a disadvantage of the crowded space (a lot of chance to hit each other, not as much chance to hit Shreshta) and the fact that Shrestha was a trained military man having just left military service and familiar with his weapon of choice and its use.

 

It is a nice story, even heroic. However, I wasn't really commenting on it or the type of weapon used in it, but the context in which it was posted, since such stories are commonly used to set the tone for the "self defense" argument in such discussions.

[Kroney]

 

 Can we not just accept that people who have guns want to hang on to them, whilst those that have never had them don't see the point in having them and move on?

 

Great post Kroney. Totally disagree with most of it but it was a great post. As for this one part, I'd love to agree to disagree and let's all go our separate ways but it seems too many of the folks who don't see the point of having them are not interested in simply not having them. They want to take everyone else's away too.

 

 

I'm a little guilty of playing devil's advocate to an opinion I don't necessarily agree with. I think what people are concerned about is demonstrated pretty clearly by other responses above. For my own part, I'm happy to live and let live. I think gun ownership should be regulated under some fairly strict rules. In the UK, you can actually get hold of legal weapons. Mostly if you can prove it's required for your work. Farmers carrying shotguns are pretty common, for example. The Swiss issue weapons to their adult population and their gun crime rate is negligable. The pro gun lobby is correct in saying that guns do not make killers.

 

However, relatively free access to guns does make it easier for killers to be killers.

 

There are, I agree, some unrealistic people in the anti-gun camp that think that the simple ownership of firearms makes you somebody to fear and that the answer is to take your guns away from you. It isn't the viewpoint of more moderate types like myself. I'm not convinced of the need to carry concealed weapons. I can see the worth in having a shottie for home defence purposes in rough areas, hunting rifles for game, pistols for sports and range shooting etc. I understand the arguments that anything can be a weapon if somebody wants to go killing.

 

Ultimately the answer is to address the problems that makes a society violent. To an outsider, the urban US is a pretty violent society. Whether it's unfavourable media coverage or not, that is the perception and people think "how can more guns make a society less violent". Inner city Britain can be a surprisingly violent society too, with a surprising amount of gun crime, given our policy on weapons. However, it's relatively rare enough that coppers don't habitually carry firearms and muggings usually happen at knife point or, in my personal experience, mostly by a couple of lads using their fists.

 

Basically, I think most people that want to blanket gun ownership are simply afraid of being shot. Realistically, or not. Much like, in fact, advocates of gun ownership for home defence purposes.

 

 

 

 

 

I would counter that by saying that doesn't justify vigilantes shooting people in the streets. It's a matter of perspective, ain't it.

 

I think you're confusing perspective with speculation; what we are doing is speculating, what your perspective *is* is actually quite subjective. For example, I know that the rates of vigilantism are not higher than the crime rates, I know that most people who carry concealed do not go around looking for criminals. But it seems that you believe differently.

 

 

Yes and no, we're both guilty of speculation, that's what happens in theoretical discussions. What I mean by perspective is our attitudes to how to fix the problem.

 

"Speaking of cowardice, it'd be my opinion that saying inflicting death or serious bodily harm is against the law and then allowing people to shoot other people in the name of "he started it" speaks of moral cowardice. Again, it's all perspective, isn't it."

 

What a re you talking about? Certainly not the same thing as me. I'm talking self defense. Youa re talking about hunting accused down after the fact then gunning them down. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

 

I know you were talking of self-defence. I don't happen to think that gunning down a home intruder is acceptable. I don't happen to think "He broke into my home, so I killed him" is sufficient justification.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Kroney

[Volourn]

" Can we not just accept that people who have guns want to hang on to them, whilst those that have never had them don't see the point in having them and move on?"

 

Eh. I have never owned a gun and likely never well.  POINT. NOT. VALID. This isn't about guns for me. It's about freedom. I'm tired of  gov'ts telling me what I can and cannot have. I don't need the gov't to protect me from me.  

 

This idea that guns are the reason people become murderers is stupid. Murder existing well before the guns existed. And, murder woudle xist after the last gun vanishes. This is FACT.

 

 

"I know you were talking of self-defence. I don't happen to think that gunning down a home intruder is acceptable. I don't happen to think "He broke into my home, so I killed him" is sufficient justification."

 

Depends on the situation. This is where common sense comes in.

[Amentep]

 

 

Life isn't action movie, and guns far more commonly used by criminal elements then some regular joe who saves the day. So this is the exception that prove the rule.

 

It reminds me an old statistic that showed that people who trained in martial arts are far more likely to be involved in fight and require medical attention.

 

In the case of Bishnu Shrestha, he didn't have a gun, he had a khukuri.  IIRC, the thieves (who originally started out as just robbers before deciding to try to rape the young woman) were armed with knives and guns, however many (if not all) of the guns may have been fakes (apparently a common ploy in banditry in India).  If they had real guns they were at a disadvantage of the crowded space (a lot of chance to hit each other, not as much chance to hit Shreshta) and the fact that Shrestha was a trained military man having just left military service and familiar with his weapon of choice and its use.

 

It is a nice story, even heroic. However, I wasn't really commenting on it or the type of weapon used in it, but the context in which it was posted, since such stories are commonly used to set the tone for the "self defense" argument in such discussions.

 

I understand, but also wanted to elaborate on what happened - I think its important to note that Shrestha was not going to defend against the theives until they attempted to rape the woman which in my mind puts him in a vastly different category that the guy with some martial arts training who thinks that with a little knowledge he can whip the world.

 

And I think its fair point that ties into what I perceived being made - that knowing when to use a weapon (external or internal) is an important thing to understand in regards to self-defense. Situations can easily escalate by deciding to threaten to use a weapon when its not necessarily. If we see it in the police force who are trained on these things, how much easier is it for a civilian to go off the rails (its part of the reason why that - even though I feel that a person has a right to self-defense - most "stand your ground" laws, as I understand them, seem to encourage reckless behavior.)

Edited March 5, 2014 by Amentep

[Mor]

^ I agree.

 

This idea that guns are the reason people become murderers is stupid. Murder existing well before the guns existed. And, murder woudle xist after the last gun vanishes. This is FACT.

There were pedophiles before internet kidy porn, and they would exist without it, your point? also gun control

[Kroney]

This idea that guns are the reason people become murderers is stupid. Murder existing well before the guns existed. And, murder woudle xist after the last gun vanishes. This is FACT.

Yes. This is why I said that I agree with the guns don't kill people point. I'm not sure what the point of you saying this was.

[Volourn]

"There were pedophiles before internet kidy porn, and they would exist without it, your point?"

 

You kiddin' right? That's the comparison youa re using? Kiddie porn? LMAO

 

The very existence of 'kiddie porn' is evidence of someone sexually molesting/assaulting/raping 'kiddies'. Which is both illegal and immoral.

 

How does 'owning a gun' even remotely the same?

 

That's some extremely fraud logic.

[Mor]

How does 'owning a gun' even remotely the same?

 

That's some extremely fraud logic.

more like an extreme example to make fun of your strawmen argument, but if you wish more appropriate one simply replace guns with explosives in it:

 

"This idea that explosives are the reason people become murderers is stupid. Murder existing well before explosive existed. And, murder would exist after the last explosive vanishes. This is FACT."

 

So explosive control is stupid? you can also add the usual legal use argument i.e. Explosives are legitimately used by demolition experts, mining, special effects guys or claim that explosive enthusiasts shouldn't be hampered by big brother telling them what todo. You can even "bolster" your argument with usual saying that you can buy that stuff illegally or even make some variants with help of internet and common products)

 

----

 

On unrelated note, China is having bad streak of disasters, yesterday an inbound Boeing 777 with 237 passengers crashed.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Mor

[Volourn]

You used kiddie porn as a counter example. All your arguments are now irrelevant and unworthy.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Volourn

[licketysplit]

This is what kills me: gun nuts want the right to use a military grade weapon for leisure, even if some wacko uses the same weapon for mass murder. Anything for leisure, apparently.

[Orogun01]

This is what kills me: gun nuts want the right to use a military grade weapon for leisure, even if some wacko uses the same weapon for mass murder. Anything for leisure, apparently.

That is an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. So far the only major groups campaigning to change gun legislation are the ones either for gun control or for making them illegal.

I have never seen the NRA or any other pro gun group clamor that they would like to have nukes. Despite the stereotype most gun owners are not insane rednecks.