Support for more gun control fading

[moonbogg]

Liberal logic. Gotta love it.

SO, by your reasoning, criminals with guns are just hard working guys trying to make ends meet, but an average citizen with a gun is just a time bomb waiting to go off?

Based on recent history, yeah, that sounds correct. American citizens can't be trusted with guns. We have this strange need to shoot people. I trust drug dealers to not shoot me more than I trust some angry old white man at the movie theater with a chip on his shoulder.

 

[Matt1970]

Based on recent history, yeah, that sounds correct. American citizens can't be trusted with guns. We have this strange need to shoot people. I trust drug dealers to not shoot me more than I trust some angry old white man at the movie theater with a chip on his shoulder.

You really think the majority of gun murders are carried out by people with no criminal history?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Based on recent history, yeah, that sounds correct. American citizens can't be trusted with guns. We have this strange need to shoot people. I trust drug dealers to not shoot me more than I trust some angry old white man at the movie theater with a chip on his shoulder.

I've been using my guns wrong, I keep shooting targets and not people.


Question for the anti-gun people. How do you feel about alcohol regulation / prohibition since guns are so evil but alcohol kills far more people? The CDC says that there are 88,000 alcohol-related deaths per year. The CDC also says that in 2013 there were 11,068 firearm-related homicides. That makes alcohol ~8x more dangerous than a gun. What does alcohol provide to a person? What does a gun provide? A gun can protect you and be used for a hobby or to hunt to put food on the table. What benefit does alcohol provide to a person or society? How often does the media do a story of someone dying of cirrhosis due to alcohol? How often does the media cover someone dying from a firearm related homicide? I'm not saying gun violence isn't a problem, but to a large degree I think the hype it is manufactured by media coverage.

For the record, I don't think alcohol or guns need more regulation.

 

[Matt1970]

I've been using my guns wrong, I keep shooting targets and not people.


Question for the anti-gun people. How do you feel about alcohol regulation / prohibition since guns are so evil but alcohol kills far more people? The CDC says that there are 88,000 alcohol-related deaths per year. The CDC also says that in 2013 there were 11,068 firearm-related homicides. That makes alcohol ~8x more dangerous than a gun. What does alcohol provide to a person? What does a gun provide? A gun can protect you and be used for a hobby or to hunt to put food on the table. What benefit does alcohol provide to a person or society? How often does the media do a story of someone dying of cirrhosis due to alcohol? How often does the media cover someone dying from a firearm related homicide? I'm not saying gun violence isn't a problem, but to a large degree I think the hype it is manufactured by media coverage.

For the record, I don't think alcohol or guns need more regulation.

And remember how successful banning alcohol was?

 

[SlowSpyder]

And remember how successful banning alcohol was?

I believe it was about as successful as the 'War on Drugs'. They repealed alcohol prohibition, they changed the Constitution. We still have the wasteful and very expensive War on Drugs, but this time they bypassed the Constitution.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The War on Christmas has seemed to peter off since last Christmas too.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Based on recent history, yeah, that sounds correct. American citizens can't be trusted with guns.

So .001% of American gun owners do something bad with their gun...therefore the other 99.999% can't be trusted?

We have this strange need to shoot people.

Speak for yourself. The vast majority of American's do not share this need you claim to have.

I trust drug dealers to not shoot me more than I trust some angry old white man at the movie theater with a chip on his shoulder.

How many angry old white men killed people in movie theaters this year? Is that guy really the problem?

Also, is this angry old white man the representative of all Americans? Who appointed him? I don't like him...how do I vote in a new guy to represent me?

 

[NeoV]

The real problem in this country is how easy it is for someone who should not have a gun, or access to guns, to get them.

That said, any efforts made in any way, shape or form - are battle cries for the idiots who think the government is going to take all their guns away.

Until this basic fact is recognized, we aren't going anywhere with this.

 

[hal2kilo]

Based on recent history, yeah, that sounds correct. American citizens can't be trusted with guns. We have this strange need to shoot people. I trust drug dealers to not shoot me more than I trust some angry old white man at the movie theater with a chip on his shoulder.

Made me chuckle for a moment, but I agree.

 

[smackababy]

The real problem in this country is how easy it is for someone who should not have a gun, or access to guns, to get them.

That said, any efforts made in any way, shape or form - are battle cries for the idiots who think the government is going to take all their guns away.

Until this basic fact is recognized, we aren't going anywhere with this.

So, in a country with around 300 million guns, how do you, with laws, stop people who should not have access to guns? Until we get our magic "all guns disappear" machine, guns aren't going anywhere. Laws that make it harder for people to get guns legally, simply shifts more people into obtaining them illegal, especially those willing to commit crimes with said gun. Nobody ever said "Well, I was going to shoot up this school, but getting a gun would be illegal so I will refrain! Damn those darn laws!"

It is unrealistic and completely unenforceable to stop guns from being in the hands of people who are willing commit crimes.

 

[Texashiker]

The real problem in this country is how easy it is for someone who should not have a gun, or access to guns, to get them.

There are laws on the books that prohibit felons from being in possession of a firearm.

When someone who is prohibited from buying a gun tries to make a purchase and is denied by the FBI background check, very few of those people are prosecuted.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/23/eric-holder-has-viewed-gun-prosecutions-as-a-local/

Eric holder stated,

it was “fundamentally wrong” to earmark funds for enforcing federal gun laws

What are we supposed to do when the department of justice refuses to enforce gun laws?

And then people like you complain how easy it is to buy a gun? Maybe you should demand the government enforce the laws they are sworn to uphold.

 

[moonbogg]

So, in a country with around 300 million guns, how do you, with laws, stop people who should not have access to guns? Until we get our magic "all guns disappear" machine, guns aren't going anywhere. Laws that make it harder for people to get guns legally, simply shifts more people into obtaining them illegal, especially those willing to commit crimes with said gun. Nobody ever said "Well, I was going to shoot up this school, but getting a gun would be illegal so I will refrain! Damn those darn laws!"

It is unrealistic and completely unenforceable to stop guns from being in the hands of people who are willing commit crimes.

You don't do it with gun laws. You do it without guns. A choice needs to be made though. If we keep guns, then current laws are fine. leave them alone, because no laws will help.
If we decide to make an attempt to stop gun violence, then guns should be outlawed and removed from people's possession. Someone having a gun is treated like them having a bomb or a WMD. Severe punishment, treated as severe risk to society etc. There really is no middle ground. Its all or nothing.

 

[Texashiker]

If we decide to make an attempt to stop gun violence, then guns should be outlawed and removed from people's possession.

That is not going to happen without amending the Constitution.

In other words, it aint gonna happen.

 

[SlowSpyder]

But what about all the other things that are far deadlier that we're ok with? Why just guns? Don't let the amount of media coverage some things get and some things don't receive be your decision maker on this.

There are some 100,000,000+ gun owners in this country. Each night 99.9999999% of them go to bed without having fired a shot at anyone.

 

[ralfy]

Proliferation of firearms also does not necessarily decrease crime rates. That's because crime rates are driven by multiple factors, especially economic ones.

 

[moonbogg]

That is not going to happen without amending the Constitution.

In other words, it aint gonna happen.

I know. I said it before, it would take the consistent slaughter of little kids, on a monthly basis, as well as an immediate threat to the safety of gun lovers themselves, before gun lovers would be willing to give them up and do what is actually required to make it stop.

But what about all the other things that are far deadlier that we're ok with? Why just guns? Don't let the amount of media coverage some things get and some things don't receive be your decision maker on this.

There are some 100,000,000+ gun owners in this country. Each night 99.9999999% of them go to bed without having fired a shot at anyone.

I know. The world is a dangerous place and we choose to do things which harm ourselves. Being faced with many problems is not a reason to freeze up and do nothing about any of them.
Guns are different from alcohol, because no one uses alcohol to intentionally kill someone. It happens by accident. Guns are used to intentionally kill people and people have a difficult time with that because guns are designed to take life away.
There is a difference in the likely success of banning firearms vs alcohol. People can easily make their own alcohol, but they can't easily make their own guns. I'm sure you'll claim the exact opposite simply for the sake of doing so, but I know that making a functioning gun is harder than making alcohol.
Both alcohol deaths and firearms deaths come down to a simple calculation: What is a person willing to sacrifice for the safety of their neighbor? The answer is, sadly, not much.

EDIT:

This my favorite gun



This is what it can do at 100 yards (5 shot group)



You don't think I love my gun? You don't think I'm invested in it financially, culturally, socially and emotionally? You don't think I feel I have a right to own and use it responsibly, as I do?
You can have it. If it will contribute to saving the life of one person, at any point in the future, you can have my guns.

 

[ralfy]

Also, about the Constitution, the Second isn't about the right to bear arms. Rather, it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militia.

The reason for the first point is that the right to bear arms is part of natural rights, which include the right to defend oneself. That means the right to bear arms doesn't require government approval.

The catch is that the second point--the need for regulated militia--isn't a natural right. That is, each person has the right to defend himself, but he cannot be forced to defend others. The Second enforces that, which is why it is seen in light of the Militia Acts, which essentially involves mandatory service. Of course, this is no longer needed given a very expensive standing army and reserve.

Finally, rights may be abridged following laws. Thus, an individual still has the right to defend himself, but following given laws he can only defend himself using firearms following regulations.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I know. The world is a dangerous place and we choose to do things which harm ourselves. Being faced with many problems is not a reason to freeze up and do nothing about any of them.
Guns are different from alcohol, because no one uses alcohol to intentionally kill someone. It happens by accident. Guns are used to intentionally kill people and people have a difficult time with that because guns are designed to take life away.
There is a difference in the likely success of banning firearms vs alcohol. People can easily make their own alcohol, but they can't easily make their own guns. I'm sure you'll claim the exact opposite simply for the sake of doing so, but I know that making a functioning gun is harder than making alcohol.
Both alcohol deaths and firearms deaths come down to a simple calculation: What is a person willing to sacrifice for the safety of their neighbor? The answer is, sadly, not much.

Does a drunk driver mowing down a loved one and killing that person with a car hurt less than a loved one killed by a gun? I would say both situations would have some unique qualities and maybe unique feelings to a degree, but the person I love is still gone before they should be, and that's really the meat of it.

How many people on this board do we know were murdered or even accidentally killed by a fire arm? I know of at least one who was unfortunately killed by a drunk.

You don't think I love my gun? You don't think I'm invested in it financially, culturally, socially and emotionally? You don't think I feel I have a right to own and use it responsibly, as I do?
You can have it. If it will contribute to saving the life of one person, at any point in the future, you can have my guns.

What if the gun would have contributed to saving your life or a loved one's one day, had you as a responsible gun owner kept it and used it when/if a need arose?

 

[moonbogg]

Does a drunk driver mowing down a loved one and killing that person with a car hurt less than a loved one killed by a gun? I would say both situations would have some unique qualities and maybe unique feelings to a degree, but the person I love is still gone before they should be, and that's really the meat of it.

It hurts just as bad. Like I already said once, more success would result from banning firearms than alcohol. You can make alcohol too easily for a ban to work. Guns would be rare enough to make a real difference.

How many people on this board do we know were murdered or even accidentally killed by a fire arm? I know of at least one who was unfortunately killed by a drunk.


What if the gun would have contributed to saving your life or a loved one's one day, had you as a responsible gun owner kept it and used it when/if a need arose?

Needs like that are very rare. I'm willing to give up the gun to prevent gun crimes. I don't need to hang on to a gun in the off chance I need it while thousands are being killed with them each year. That would put my hypothetical safety ahead of the real safety of many = insanely selfish and outright insane thinking.

EDIT: Comparing alcohol to guns really is like comparing apples to oranges. Apples and oranges are both round fruits, but the similarities diminish from there.
Alcohol and guns both result in deaths, but the similarities stop there. Alcohol is something that can be self made, and more importantly, used in the privacy of your own home. The potential for violating a ban is very high.
You can't exactly use a gun in the privacy of your living room without the cops getting called. Guns can't be used in secret as commonly as alcohol can be used in secret, so there is less incentive to make one or buy one illegally.
A ban on either would require widespread public support. Guns stand a higher chance of success here, while alcohol...well, you can forget it.
My point is we can actually do something about gun violence.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I guess where I disagree with you is that the tool is to blame. A gun doesn't make a decent person do a bad thing. We're still human, and largely a blood-thirsty and often me-first in our way of thinking. Guns are just easy to point at as the problem because they're largely available and can be used with deadly effect with little to no training. If all guns went away, we'd just kill our fellow humans with different means, or people would pick targets that could be killed with those other means easier. Those who are largely to blame for gun violence, I just don't see them changing. I don't see gang members playing paper rock scissors to decide drug turf if guns were gone, do you?

 

[moonbogg]

I guess where I disagree with you is that the tool is to blame. A gun doesn't make a decent person do a bad thing. We're still human, and largely a blood-thirsty and often me-first in our way of thinking. Guns are just easy to point at as the problem because they're largely available and can be used with deadly effect with little to no training. If all guns went away, we'd just kill our fellow humans with different means, or people would pick targets that could be killed with those other means easier. Those who are largely to blame for gun violence, I just don't see them changing. I don't see gang members playing paper rock scissors to decide drug turf if guns were gone, do you?

The tool is not to blame. My gun never shot anyone either. But there is a reality to be faced here. Guns make it too easy to kill. I never even hinted at the idea that removing guns would make the world a more sane place to live, but it would make at least our corner of that world a good bit safer.
If gangs had to kill each other with knives and bats, they would go ahead and do that, but less would die without the ease a gun delivers.
This would open up a stronger market for alternative devices for self defense. Stun guns, tasers and things like that would see a huge uptake and better devices would be created, and they would do a good job for self defense. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and we can make some serious defensive tools that are great for defense, but lousy for murder.
Anyway, like I said, it has to be all or nothing. We both know the middle ground is bullshit. If we want guns, then stop the BS regulation and just let it go. If we don't want them, then its time to treat them like hand grenades, RPGs, bombs and other killing devices which were engineered for killing.

 

[NeoV]

There is no way in hell there are 100,000,000 gun owners in this country.

The arguments brought up here - about how it's impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals - prove the point I brought up earlier, that the 'it's our constitutional right' crowd will forever prevent any real progress in making this a safer country.

"We'd just kill our fellow humans with different means" is idiotic. How many 'mass killings' take place in countries with much tougher gun laws with weapons other than guns?

Alcohol has nothing to do with guns - and yes, it's a problem - but again, it's not related in any way, and distracts from the topic at hand.

 

[Texashiker]

The arguments brought up here - about how it's impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals - prove the point I brought up earlier, that the 'it's our constitutional right' crowd will forever prevent any real progress in making this a safer country.

Jesus H Christ, I get so sick and tired of seeing that same crap over and over.

If you want to make progress on preventing gun crimes, take the criminals off the streets and keep them off.

If someone is a multiple violent offender, take them to an island, drop them off, and leave them there forever. Problem solved.

Leave the law abiding gun owners alone.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The tool is not to blame. My gun never shot anyone either. But there is a reality to be faced here. Guns make it too easy to kill. I never even hinted at the idea that removing guns would make the world a more sane place to live, but it would make at least our corner of that world a good bit safer.
If gangs had to kill each other with knives and bats, they would go ahead and do that, but less would die without the ease a gun delivers.
This would open up a stronger market for alternative devices for self defense. Stun guns, tasers and things like that would see a huge uptake and better devices would be created, and they would do a good job for self defense. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and we can make some serious defensive tools that are great for defense, but lousy for murder.
Anyway, like I said, it has to be all or nothing. We both know the middle ground is bullshit. If we want guns, then stop the BS regulation and just let it go. If we don't want them, then its time to treat them like hand grenades, RPGs, bombs and other killing devices which were engineered for killing.

I think you're projecting how you think a gun-less society would function, but your future gun-less society differs in your mind from what I would see happening. As you say, necessity is the mother of invention. And as you point out, we aren't a sane society. So do you really think other weapons wouldn't take the place of guns? Maybe even something deadlier that makes society long for the days when we had 'just' 11,000 gun homicides a year. And I think that is the answer right there... fix society, fix those problems and things will improve. Take away our common way of killing one another, still have a broken society, and we'll just find other ways. The root problem is still there.

There is no way in hell there are 100,000,000 gun owners in this country.

The arguments brought up here - about how it's impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals - prove the point I brought up earlier, that the 'it's our constitutional right' crowd will forever prevent any real progress in making this a safer country.

"We'd just kill our fellow humans with different means" is idiotic. How many 'mass killings' take place in countries with much tougher gun laws with weapons other than guns?

Alcohol has nothing to do with guns - and yes, it's a problem - but again, it's not related in any way, and distracts from the topic at hand.

I don't know what the real number is, but I don't see many sources claiming less than that.

Right from a simple Google Search:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...nt-of-americans-own-guns-for-personal-safety/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/

I remember having this conversation some time back and the number I recall was 80,000,000. Even it it was 50,000,000 what does it matter? It would still be a minority of people owning a gun either way, it is still a Constitutional right either way.

The point of bringing up alcohol isn't because gun violence isn't a problem, as I stated, but because I wanted to know how people felt about something far more deadly and serving little 'real' purpose being barely regulated vs. a bogeyman that I feel is at least in part created by the media. Again, gun violence IS a problem and needs to be talked about. But I don't get the double standard. None of the more anti-gun leaning crowd has directly answered me on that, either.

There really aren't different kinds of dead, dead is dead. Why is alcohol celebrated and accepted by so many when it kills far more people every bit as dead as guns? Why are guns so vilified? Is it really just an emotional thing because of the intent? That's fine, but in the end it doesn't mean alcohol is anything but a far bigger killer than 'evil' guns. (and that's not even talking about how many lives guns have saved.)

And once again, for the record, alcohol and guns are both just fine with me.

*edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers Many are gun related, some aren't. Have a look if you'd like.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I'm willing to give up the gun to prevent gun crimes. I don't need to hang on to a gun in the off chance I need it while thousands are being killed with them each year. That would put my hypothetical safety ahead of the real safety of many = insanely selfish and outright insane thinking.

What about protecting your family (if you have one)? Wouldn't you do anything to protect them, even owning a gun that you will never use to murder people? Giving up YOUR gun does absolutely nothing to lower gun death rates. Unless you are a murderer and have some kind of a strange need to kill people like you stated above.

EDIT: Comparing alcohol to guns really is like comparing apples to oranges. Apples and oranges are both round fruits, but the similarities diminish from there. Alcohol and guns both result in deaths, but the similarities stop there.

But that's the heart of your entire argument. That means EVERYTHING. The entire point of gun control is to prevent needless, innocent deaths, right? Anything beyond that is just window dressing. The fact that some people are so fixated on GUN deaths instead of things that cause FAR more deaths per year blows my mind. If you care so much about preventing needless deaths, then why not support a ban on swimming pools? The number one cause of child deaths in western states is drowning. Do you really care about innocent deaths or is it just about government and criminals having the monopoly on violence? I cannot reconcile this point with your arguments. Help me see?

Alcohol is something that can be self made.

Guns, too. More importantly, there are enough guns to last for generations after any gun ban. Generations. Is that how long you want people at the mercy of criminals?

, and more importantly, used in the privacy of your own home. The potential for violating a ban is very high. You can't exactly use a gun in the privacy of your living room without the cops getting called. Guns can't be used in secret as commonly as alcohol can be used in secret, so there is less incentive to make one or buy one illegally.

No, guns absolutely can be used in your home after a gun ban. At a MINIMUM of one time. Then eventually the cops come and take you away. But once is all that's needed, just one shot can kill or maim somebody. Alcohol takes decades to kill people via addiction, and many many tries to kill someone via drunk driving. The average drunk driver who kills somebody has driven drunk dozens if not hundreds of times. Banning either is a costly, douchey, tyrannical action.

My point is we can actually do something about gun violence.

No, you can not. It would take a minimum of decades in America. We are talking about your grandchildren's children being in danger from illegal guns and completely unable to defend themselves. And in the end, the only difference is WHO gets to own guns...government. Do you trust government that much? Are you willing for your family and neighbors to be in danger from criminals and completely unable to fight back for the rest of your life, your childrens' lives, their childrens' lives, and their chilrens'?