Guns

The only reason that people don't follow the law is because there is everything to gain and nothing to lose from not following it. Give them a good incentive to follow the law - such as long prison sentences - and they will have one more good reason to give up their criminal ways. If we want to make a complaint about the already corrupt prison system with long sentences for petty drug possession crimes, well, I'll venture a guess that there are more people incarcerated for drug crimes than would be for illegal arms possession. So it won't really make a difference if that is true.

Another digression: it wouldn't help the issue of crime in general to increase prison times vs. rehabilitating criminals. Of course it's unsustainable to keep people in jails (unless you could pull a profit) so somewhere along the lines people will realize that and decide to attack the problem of crime at its roots. But I'm just responding to your claim that most people will not obey the law. It's more or less a valid observation, but I don't think you should take that for granted.

You've been using that claim a lot up and down this thread, but it's only an assumption. Another assumption/generalization that you use - you treat criminals as if it's this one-dimensional personality profile that some people have and other people don't. Characterizing "criminals" as such only assumes an us vs. them attitude that stifles the ability for us to see change in their behaviour as possible. I don't want to sound too leftist with all this attitudes and labelling talk, but my point is that criminality is a behaviour, not something that defines a person inherently. And before anybody gets up on this, yes crime is more than just individual behaviour, it also involves cultural values and social dynamics for example. I mean to describe it as behaviour and not as a definition of someone's personality to emphasize that it /can/ be changed and we should consider that whenever we make a debate about strengthening gun laws, because that is basically what laws do. Laws guide behaviour. Simply saying that certain people just won't obey the law first of all throws the very point of laws out of the window, and secondly turns a question of more or less into yes or no, which is both an unrealistic portrayal of the world, as well as a discussion-killing rhetorical device.

It /is/ possible to make criminals obey the law more - or to state it differently - make laws that encourage less people to become criminals, whatever makes you happy.

CarcharOdin said:

From what I understand, it requires a good amount of strength to handle guns properly, especially stronger guns. There are other reasons people own firearms besides protection. Hunting and sport (like archery) are two of the most common, alongside decoration, or because they're just plain interested in the mechanics behind them.

Gun ownership and total confidence in one's own physical attributes are not mutually exclusive, and I think it's kind of erroneous (not to mention rude) to claim owning a gun makes someone a coward.

Click to expand...

The average weight of a hand gun is around 2 pounds. To put that into perspective, that's less than the weight of a full plate of food. The average weight of a shotgun is around 6 to 7 pounds, or, less than the weight of a newborn baby. A child of 5 can handle a gun without any strain to his or her arm muscles.

I understand the reason why people THINK they need a gun, but even for the reason you listed above, a gun is not required. You already mentioned archery, which shows that even in sport, guns are not necessary. My father was a hunter, and he'd be the first person to tell you that using a gun for hunting is preferred for one reason, and one reason only: it makes the task easier. In other words, it requires less skill to hunt with a gun than it would using a bow for example. The human race then, is simply too lazy to try something more challenging.

Now, as for collectors, that's slightly different, in that a good number of collectors do not USE the guns they collect, and to ensure that they can't be fired, they remove the firing mechanism.

In the US, gun ownership is a right. But way too many people forget that gun ownership is also a responsibility. And that is PRECISELY why we read stories about 3 and 4 year old children getting a hold of a parent's gun and accidentally shooting themselves or a friend while playing with it.

I live in one of the largest cities in southern Ontario. The crime rate here is relatively low. Often I'll even leave the front door to my house unlocked when I go out. It certainly isn't locked when I'm at home. I have never, in my 40 years on this Earth ever once felt the need to own a gun. In my view, anyone thinking they need one for protection is either missing a few screws or is paranoid... or involved in criminal behaviour.

Here's something to think about. Actually two separate things to think about.

Banning guns wont stop violence, nothing will stop violence unless you do the following.

Ban racing fuel, fertilizers, and box trucks (you should know what I'm talking about). Also water, hammers, chainsaws, knives, animals, fire, ammonia & bleach, ropes, glass, concrete, fists, rocks, nails, forks, wires, wood, bats, crowbars, vehicles, gasoline, guns, beer bottles, scooters, tree's & tree branches, four wheeler's, aluminum, steel toe boots, aluminum cans, fans, sticks, electricity (you'd be surprised with what you could do with this ****), hangers, tables, ladders, chairs (let's go WWF style), plywood, razors, wood chippers, liquid, dirt bikes, curtain hangers, thumb tacks, heavy objects, pencils, keys, pens, televisions, bicycles, guitars, microphones, (anything music related), cd's, etc.

Let's pad the whole world with asylum padding instead handcuff everybody and surround everyone in padding so no kicking or headbutting takes place. That's how you end violence. Wow, the world would be pretty empty because everything above can be used to cause harm in some way, shape, or form.

Here's the other thing to think about.

We purchase and wear the type of clothing we want to wear
We purchase and drive the kind of car we want to drive
We rent or purchase the house we want to live in
We buy the technology we want
We buy the type of food we want to eat
We buy what type of (home) animal we want *dogs, fish, turtles, lizzards, cats, birds, etc*

Why shouldn't we be allowed to purchase or own a gun if we want one? I mean seriously no one says we can't purchase a car, no one say's we can't purchase specific food, no one say's we can't wear specific types of clothing, no one say's we can't live in a certain kind of house, no one say's we can't own gaming consoles, ipods, phones, musical instruments, and no one says we can't own pets. So why should it be any different for guns?

Please don't quote back with bs because it makes you look ignorant. This post is how it should be and how it should stay. No one should say we can and can't own something we want period. I don't tell you, you can't own a car, I don't tell you, you can't buy a dog, I don't tell you, you can't own technology, etc. So none of you, should be allowed to tell me I can't own something I want. I wanted a gun and I own a gun, if you got a problem with it, get over it. Quit judging me for something I want and my way of life, because frankly none of you personally know me. You don't know a damn thing about me.

That's the way I see it. If someone wants to own something let them and move on. They're not in you're life and don't care what you do nor should you. It's they're life and they shall do what they damn well please with it. If they want an AK 47, that's cool with me.. More power to them is all I gotta say. A guns a gun.

You're presenting a false dichotomy - either we stop all violence, or we allow guns to hang loose. Your second point: we don't have the freedom to buy anything - I can't buy elephant tusks, or a coin minting machine because doing so is illegal. Similarly we can make buying guns illegal if we feel like it. You can ban anything you want as long as the law has it banned. You live in the United States where everything seems to be okay except for gay marriage - so I'm gonna assume that being able to buy whatever you feel like just happens to be normal to you. One objection to American "freedom" is how it's often bastardized into an entitlement and consumptionist culture - but I guess you're right. Freedom doesn't make people feel like they're entitled to consume everything, people feel that.

The point is, that things can be made illegal and usually there's a reason why. So I'm going to ignore the fact that we can buy cats and cheetos and stuff because that is irrelevant and the comparison you make while real is not significant. Just because you want things and most of the things you want are permitted by law, doesn't mean we can't consider that some of them should be prohibited.

So why should it be any different for guns? Many of us believes that guns facilitate violence and we've been posting that over and over, but you seem to be ignoring that. It is quite simply easier to kill with a gun than another weapon. We know it's impossible to ban violence completely, but we can at least remove a lot of violence from society by banning guns. I don't know what else to say - you haven't addressed other people's point - you've just said oh, I want it so I get to have it. End of story, guns don't kill people but it doesn't matter they make murder easier, the details are not important and just because guns don't have a mind of their own, people should own them.

And your use of logical fallacies is regrettable. I don't know why you're accusing us of bs and ignorance when you are twisting logic to explain your own points. Your arguments are insincere and I suppose you don't hold us to be your intellectual equals if you think you can get away with bs like that. Nobody cares what gun you own and why you own it. All we care about is the respect you have for other people's intellectual capabilities and your own intellectual rigorousness that you bring to the table. Nobody's opinion or preferences is worth anything without rational argument supporting it.

Whether or not we should continue having guns is a mix bag, to my knowledge that is. On one hand, it's the best way to kill a zombie, as other effective weapons require close-range without getting bitten, and my skills with close-range weapons are sub-par. The whole zombie craze in the western media has made me realize that a zombie infestation is the closet thing to being a realistic apocalypse because zombies are created by an anonymous virus, which means it can happen in anytime. Based from what I've learned from ZombiU, a country such as the UK, which has very strict gun laws and where the game is set on, is easily vulnerable to a zombie infestion if not everyone owns a gun to protect themselves. However, the idea of having everyone owning a gun would only increase gun-related crimes and murders, which is something we need to avoid in order to builder a healthier society.

The arguement of "Your a idiot if you don't agree with me" is prevalent in a lot of topics, really.

Its generally used when they are presented with logic that proves their own stances wrong, or when they don't feel like backing up their own claims with facts. It's a varient of the "Your going to hell if you support this" argument that a lot of religious people default to if someone questions them. (Generally, it follows the "Bible says so" argument.)

Anyway, Shiny, you ARE forgetting one major thing... That list of items you gave? They were all created with a primary use in mind. Guns were created with one too. Yours is to long a list to give primary uses for, but guns? They were created because people were looking for more effective ways to kill each other. Their primary use is to kill - Has been since they were first made.

Additionally, for water, this is something that we need. Evolution has made water a requirement for survival.

With all this talk of gun control and gun banning, I haven't heard a single person say just exactly HOW we're going to get the resources and the funding to take the guns away from even law-abiding citizens who apparently are cowards according to the condescending opinions of some people here...let alone criminals.

Apparently, one of the reasons behind more gun control laws is that our enforcement agencies don't have the time or manpower to enforce several ones already put into place effectively.

"And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." - Joe Biden

Uhhhh....what? How exactly is that supposed to be reassuring? If you don't have time or manpower to sufficiently enforce laws already put in place, how exactly are you going to enforce the new ones?

LOOOL but that's just Joe Biden and why we love him.

I don't think any of us here has expertise in public policy so we can't really say how much and where the money would come from. America might be a lost case.

CarcharOdin said:

With all this talk of gun control and gun banning, I haven't heard a single person say just exactly HOW we're going to get the resources and the funding to take the guns away from even law-abiding citizens who apparently are cowards according to the condescending opinions of some people here...let alone criminals.

Click to expand...

There's really no safe or non corrupt way to confiscate guns if they do get banned. What, they gonna knock on everyones door and ask for they're gun and if they say they don't have one search they're home? Yea like that's not illegal... Not to mention if they step in the hood they'll get shot up, the hood don't take kindly to they're kind in there. They've killed innocent citizens before I'm sure they'd kill to keep they're guns they have "illegally". But for those who have them legally they most likely wont give them up. I'd say about 80% of legal gun owners wont give up they're guns up without some kind of issue. I have a feeling if they get banned it will turn into a battlefield because they believe it's a right to have one

Apparently, one of the reasons behind more gun control laws is that our enforcement agencies don't have the time or manpower to enforce several ones already put into place effectively.

Click to expand...

What would stricter gun laws do? Absolutely nothing.

Then the military would mow them down. I wouldn't call them law abiding citizens if they don't abide by the law. The military is involved in policing in Mexico due to how bad violence is down there, so if the States ever came to it - that's what it could look like. If the hood turned out to be that bad, I'd rather shoot first ask questions later.

I think you're underestimating what the police can do. There's things called rule of law, escalation of force, and dignity that makes it easy for you to make fun of cops. In China cops shoot at you as they chase you. And this police agency was handing out "kill rewards" until the media caught wind of it. Crazy gun-owning people are a threat to society, and I'm sure the feds will put it down if push comes to shove.

And you're underestimating things cartels, gangs, mafias, and mobs can do.

Not really, they're just criminals. They don't have the ability to create revenue like the state does, and they aren't seen as legitimate. I'd like to see cartels use drones to assassinate leaders. Some countries fight crime by using a strong law and order stance - drug trafficking equals death. Homicide isn't prison time, but death. And if they don't have evidence, they'll find evidence, or they'll detain you until you waste away in a black prison because they know you're guilty. Criminals, relatively speaking, have it easy in the United States. I'd like to see how long these mafias and mobs will last under Shariah law in Mali, for example.

I'm giving you evidence of states that have a tough line to stand against crime, and you're telling me that I "underestimate" what they can do. If the US decided to take away your rights one day, and if push comes to shove they will as they are a sovereign state - then it would be impossible to stand your ground against the most powerful military power in the world.

Throwing human rights and democracy out of the window, one thing you can do is enact and enforce strict gun control laws. Then, anybody caught with a gun would be a violent criminal. Thus you can increase the sentences on those who possess firearms because you'll only be targeting those undesirable in society. It's called a crackdown - and you make sure these people never get back onto the streets.

Underestimating what they can do - only because the police and our culture cut them slack.

You really think the whole military would follow the govt. commands? If the govt. did turn to tyranny after guns were banned (if they were) then they would split. Guns wont become banned unless people vote them which wont happen. If they did get banned from votes then it's rigged simple as that because a majority of Americans will vote against it.

Mafias, cartels, gangs, and mobs (especially mobs and mafia's) can make you disappear without any trace of evidence. How will the law know if they did something if there's no evidence whatsoever? Do you not think they don't have military type weapons? Seriously, these people don't just have .9 mm like cops. They got grenades, fully auto's, hell I wouldn't be surprised if they got artillery weapons with a tank somewhere. They have they're ways of getting stuff. Gangs on the other hand, not exactly but mafia and mobs, don't underestimate them. Mafia and mom members are underground and hide themselves very well, unlike gangs where it's obvious.

You seem convinced that organized crime is better equipped than the forces of a state. You also seem to believe that these guys work better than intelligence agencies like the CIA or the KGB. While these guys are trying to arm themselves, they do so illegally while the state does it legitimately and have a much easier time. You say "they have ways of getting this stuff". The US army nor do security forces "have ways of getting this stuff", they just get the stuff because they can and there's no "law" imprisoning them for it.

And I think we would both agree that it is the culture and politics of the US that allow these crime organizations to grow so strong. You admit that there would be political opposition if the government enacted draconian gun control laws. You also believe democracy would prevent harsher laws from being enacted in the first place.

This argument has lead to you romanticizing the mafia like they're ninjas that "can make you disappear without any trace of evidence" and "hide themselves very well" against law enforcement. I think the original argument was that if you ban guns, violent crime won't go down because you won't be able to take them away from criminals. And when I say that's exactly what security forces would do, you say oh, but the mafia is too strong, it'll never happen. Great, that's an assumption based on the fact that organized crime is committed by Spartan supersoldiers.

I fail to see how organized crime being well equipped all the sudden means that a tougher stance on violent crime just happens to not work. That's absolutely unrealistic - you provide these guys funding, they get better equipment, better training, more electronic equipment to monitor criminal activity, forming stronger relationships to the community and so on. It's as simple as that. Crime organizations are not immune to law enforcement like ground types to electricity. But you keep saying, it's never gonna happen, it's never gonna happen.

I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over - when you give the police resources, they get stuff done. I'm not going to take any more appeals to how OP criminal organizations are because that is just fantastical. Murders in NYC have gone from ~2200 to 414 over a space of 20 years - I hope this is evidence enough for you to stop blowing the abilities of criminals into hyperbolic proportions. You ban guns, and then you start taking it away from the hands of criminal.

Careful though...step on the second amendment enough and gun manufacturers might not want to supply law enforcement with equipment:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/19/gunmakers-wont-sell-to-ny-police/1931283/

Okay ban guns and there will not be any violent crimes, there you happy? Get an army tank driving through the hood and blow up every house on the street that looks suspicious, machine gun anybody holding a gun because they will fire first, and go door to door and confiscate everyones guns. Yea, I'm sure that wouldn't cause any major issues in America. Even the thought of thinking banning guns will stop crime is idiotic. Drugs are illegal but there's still crime involved with it. War on drugs, yea, yea, yea. Last thing we need is banning guns and having "war on guns" going around America. Why can't you just accept my reasoning and move on? I see it as a right to have a gun, so ****ing what they're used to kill people. Anything else can be used as well. Wanna end violence, ban everything end of discussion.

And yea the manufactures would supply to other people other than law enforcements for making the laws, it's how it works.

I'm not going to skinny dip in lava so i'll just keep neutral on this one.

I've read somewhere (cracked! I know, totally reliable) that the main reason guns are so popular is because it's like barbie dolls for men. I mean, where else other than hunting [people] are you going to use a gun for? We've been in peace (by that I mean that no conflict has broken out at home) for about 150~180 years now, there's few chances for wartime use of guns.

But have you tried to take a favorite toy from a kid? That is damn near impossible, and they will go to any means to take it back. Now multiply that with income, (possible) super strength, and weapons. Woah, what did we just do?! So that's why we're getting so much backlash from those who own guns.

But for those who want to be safe, the obvious solution is to take away guns, and they are firm on that stance. So that's why we're in gridlock…:\

But what is the real cause of violence? I won't give any suggestions (because I have none), but to those who are worried, guns are not the problem. It's the kid who hasn't been thinking that is the real problem. Solve that a bit first, then we'll discuss guns.

Just food for thought.

droomph said:

I've read somewhere (cracked! I know, totally reliable) that the main reason guns are so popular is because it's like barbie dolls for men. I mean, where else other than hunting [people] are you going to use a gun for? We've been in peace (by that I mean that no conflict has broken out at home) for about 150~180 years now, there's few chances for wartime use of guns.

Click to expand...

Yea and we would no longer be at peace if they were banned.

But have you tried to take a favorite toy from a kid? That is damn near impossible, and they will go to any means to take it back. Now multiply that with income, (possible) super strength, and weapons. Woah, what did we just do?! So that's why we're getting so much backlash from those who own guns.

Click to expand...

That's a good way of putting it, I wont give up my guns. I like my guns. I don't need them but I want them and people on here make me seem like I'm a criminal for owing guns when I'm perfectly normal.

If anyone's got a problem with me owning a gun, they **** you!

But for those who want to be safe, the obvious solution is to take away guns, and they are firm on that stance. So that's why we're in gridlock…:\

Click to expand...

I understand they're stance but they don't understand my stance. They don't understand guns aren't the problem in society.

But what is the real cause of violence? I won't give any suggestions (because I have none), but to those who are worried, guns are not the problem. It's the kid who hasn't been thinking that is the real problem. Solve that a bit first, then we'll discuss guns.

Click to expand...

Corruption, money, power, and greed is the main cause of violence.. At least in my opinion. Without money there wouldn't be as many murders, without drugs there wouldn't be as many murders, without labeled streets there wouldn't be as many murders, etc.

So, was watching CNN today and they did a piece on "smart guns". Like that scene in Skyfall where Bond had a tailored gun that only he could use.

Apparently that exists, but they aren't sold because gun lobbies are against it.

Not the ultimate solution, of course. But a piece of the puzzle. If a gun could only respond in the hands of the person who purchased it - that could hopefully put a dent in the number accidents at home or stolen guns being used.

I can't accept your reasoning because you don't have reasoning. Everything to you is black and white, and you're unable to stop yourself from turning every subtlety of an argument into hyperbole.

Drugs are illegal but there's still crime involved with it. War on drugs, yea, yea, yea. Last thing we need is banning guns and having "war on guns" going around America. Why can't you just accept my reasoning and move on?

Click to expand...

Lemme break this down. Drugs are illegal but there's still crime involved in it - fine that's reasonable. Last thing we need is banning guns... and why is that? You haven't explained why drugs being illegal and a gun ban would be the last thing we need are connected. And then you say why can't you just accept my reasoning and move on... you are not entitled to have people unconditionally accept your lack of reasoning without any argumentation nor evidence to support that. I'll accept your reasoning when you provide some, but the quality of what you're writing is getting worse and worse. Actually that might not be entirely true because of this:

I'm not answering it because it wont do anything, you're point isn't valid.

Click to expand...

Okay so it's a bit of a trend, but further back you actually gave argumentation:

I see where you're coming from but saying a guns intended purpose to kill isn't entirely true. Some people have guns because they enjoy shootings at the shooting range. They have the guns for hobbies, but also have it for self defense in case that happens. That doesn't mean it's intended to kill, they bought it for the shooting range because they enjoy it and I see nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

But now you talk like this:

Anything else can be used as well. Wanna end violence, ban everything end of discussion.

Click to expand...

Thank you for ignoring about 100 posts of dissenting opinions? Dude, it doesn't help anybody when you say the same things over and over like a broken record and pretending that people's opinions that don't agree with yours don't exist. For goodness's sake, Mr. X, Scarf, Jay, Went, all of our points just outright ignored. For a person who's appealing to freedom and the character of this country and all, that's not a very democratic thing to do.

I don't like resorting to ad hominem, but you missed the entire point of my last post - which is not everything is black and white, there is a continuum between all crime and no crime. And you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying, because I don't think myself nor any of us see a crime-free utopia as possible. I think I'll be happy if the police upped their game and stopped some of these criminals from seeing the light of day again.

And I don't know why you love freedom, and then exalt how powerful criminals because of that. I thought you have freedoms in this country was so everybody could pursue their interest without infringing on the rights of others - and crime kind of does that by killing people and getting them addicted to drugs. It doesn't make sense to me that you praise both the liberty and how violent crime can't be stopped by law enforcement. Your second amendment is strictly an American phenomenon. Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it stands up to reason and other people's conception of a greater good that involves neither guns nor crime.