Gun Control

[Night Strike]

NOTHING INEQUAL? Did you even read the article, or did you only look at the headline?

Yes, I read the article.

Meanwhile, owning and bearing arms IS a right, which is why there are large problems when the government chooses to take them away from people simply because a few elitists don't like guns.

Who around here is talking about taking guns away from people? You keep throwing up this false flag that doesn't exist.

Several politicians who are writing the laws have stated that they want to take all guns away. We've posted stories about how some governments are already twisting current laws into taking away guns based on other perceived breaking of the law. And yes, there are people on the forum eager to take away guns (look at Juan for one).

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not after all guns. Just the ones used everyday for crime. And that's not a freedom issue, it's an application of common sense.

[isaiah40]

I'm not after all guns. Just the ones used everyday for crime. And that's not a freedom issue, it's an application of common sense.

That would be just about all types of guns. So which ones? Please be specific!

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not after all guns. Just the ones used everyday for crime. And that's not a freedom issue, it's an application of common sense.

That would be just about all types of guns. So which ones? Please be specific!

I've named these a dozen times, but we do need to keep the discussion moving.
In general, I dislike firearms kept for protection, because they are far and away more likely to be used on a family member. This idea of saving your family from a gang of rapists is pretty much just a fantasy. If we take abused women for example, they're 6 times more likely to be shot and killed if there is a gun kept in the home.
But I can live with people's fantasys, so long as they can own up to them (NIGHTSTRIKE).

So I am against all hand guns, which are far and away the #1 choice of criminals and mass shooters. And I am also against Assault-Type Rifles as well. No, they're not A-typically used in crime, but when they are, the results are always devastating. Take the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, or the North Hollywood shootout as my examples. We should also ban large clips for the same reasons.
I am ok with almost all hunting weapons, except those special long-distance hunting rifles. I can't say that I'm comfortable with private citizens owning Riot Guns, but I don't have any evidence that they're more likely to use a Riot Gun in crime than a regular shotgun. So hunting weapons are all ok in my book.

Yes again, I am aware the some hunter use hand guns, but these tend to be gun enthusiasts who'll shoot a deer with anything they can find. Leaving any hand guns on an unregulated market will put hand guns in the hands of criminals.

[2dimes]

Ok so I ban hand guns tomorrow. How do you collect them?

[Night Strike]

Juan believes that people do NOT have the right to protect themselves and that the government will always be there to protect them.

This idea of saving your family from a gang of rapists is pretty much just a fantasy. If we take abused women for example, they're 6 times more likely to be shot and killed if there is a gun kept in the home.

Why do you equate domestic abuse with street attackers? You're comparing two completely different things.

[2dimes]

Yes of course, Juan is planning on raiding your garden and doesn't want to be shot. Moving on...

I either want no hand guns like him or I want to be allowed to shoot them responsibly.

[Juan_Bottom]

Ok so I ban hand guns tomorrow. How do you collect them?

You don't.
Just like machine guns, you give a termination date for the manufacture and distribution of them to private buyers. So any hand gun that is manufactured before a certain date is legal to buy, sell, trade, gift, or inherit for forever. Over time, a solid 20 or 30 years at least, you'll see the legal supply begin to dry, and eventually the illegal supply will shrivel and shrink to almost non-existence. If it worked with machine guns, it can work with any other guns.

Juan believes that people do NOT have the right to protect themselves and that the government will always be there to protect them.

Look around you NS. You see the need for any militias? The British are gone, and the Indians are all dead. The government does protect you. People call 911, they do not pray to the fire god or flash the bat signal. Only 2.2% of all gun homicides in this country are classified as "justified."
How can you not see that we look at you like some little kid fantasizing about rescuing his mom with his red-ryder bb gun? You're arguing about a fantasy land. You can just as easily defend yourself that 2.2% of the time with a rifle or shotgun. But the statistics say that you're more likely to murder your wife than that.

[Woodruff]

NOTHING INEQUAL? Did you even read the article, or did you only look at the headline?

Yes, I read the article.

Meanwhile, owning and bearing arms IS a right, which is why there are large problems when the government chooses to take them away from people simply because a few elitists don't like guns.

Who around here is talking about taking guns away from people? You keep throwing up this false flag that doesn't exist.

Several politicians who are writing the laws have stated that they want to take all guns away. We've posted stories about how some governments are already twisting current laws into taking away guns based on other perceived breaking of the law. And yes, there are people on the forum eager to take away guns (look at Juan for one).

I specifically accused Juan of that actually (sort of), and he stated he was not. Is this like the oppression of Christianity?

[Woodruff]

Juan believes that people do NOT have the right to protect themselves and that the government will always be there to protect them.

This idea of saving your family from a gang of rapists is pretty much just a fantasy. If we take abused women for example, they're 6 times more likely to be shot and killed if there is a gun kept in the home.

Why do you equate domestic abuse with street attackers? You're comparing two completely different things.

He wasn't comparing them.

[Woodruff]

This is where Juan and I disagree. I am not in favor of banning handguns, though I do at least understand his rationale.

I am not in favor of it because handguns really are the most effective way to defend your home against intrusion, in the hands of an experienced owner.

[kentington]

Ok so I ban hand guns tomorrow. How do you collect them?

Big Magnets?

[kentington]

This is where Juan and I disagree. I am not in favor of banning handguns, though I do at least understand his rationale.

I am not in favor of it because handguns really are the most effective way to defend your home against intrusion, in the hands of an experienced owner.

Yes. You needn't be physically powerful to use a handgun. Training is very important though.

[2dimes]

Ok so I ban hand guns tomorrow. How do you collect them?

Big Magnets?

How do they work?

[Woodruff]

This is where Juan and I disagree. I am not in favor of banning handguns, though I do at least understand his rationale.

I am not in favor of it because handguns really are the most effective way to defend your home against intrusion, in the hands of an experienced owner.

Yes. You needn't be physically powerful to use a handgun. Training is very important though.

I certainly agree with that. And a lot of training.

[Night Strike]

You don't.
Just like machine guns, you give a termination date for the manufacture and distribution of them to private buyers. So any hand gun that is manufactured before a certain date is legal to buy, sell, trade, gift, or inherit for forever. Over time, a solid 20 or 30 years at least, you'll see the legal supply begin to dry, and eventually the illegal supply will shrivel and shrink to almost non-existence. If it worked with machine guns, it can work with any other guns.

So how is that NOT a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Juan believes that people do NOT have the right to protect themselves and that the government will always be there to protect them.

Look around you NS. You see the need for any militias? The British are gone, and the Indians are all dead. The government does protect you. People call 911, they do not pray to the fire god or flash the bat signal. Only 2.2% of all gun homicides in this country are classified as "justified."
How can you not see that we look at you like some little kid fantasizing about rescuing his mom with his red-ryder bb gun? You're arguing about a fantasy land. You can just as easily defend yourself that 2.2% of the time with a rifle or shotgun. But the statistics say that you're more likely to murder your wife than that.

The police aren't immediately there to help a person, assuming that person can even call 911. If they have a gun on their person or nearby in their home, then they immediately have a tool to protect themselves. Furthermore, you are making it virtually impossible for people to protect themselves out in public because people can't readily carry their shotgun or rifle in public. A handgun can easily be concealed in a purse/bag or directly on the person.

You do NOT have the right to take away the ability of people to protect themselves. Furthermore, what other Constitutional rights can we take away? Why don't we ban you from voting? Or ban you from speaking freely? Why don't we save money by housing troops in your home or just knock down your door anytime we want to search your property? Why don't we put you in front of a secret tribunal for judgement instead of a jury? Why is the right to bear arms expendable in YOUR fantasy land?

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok so I ban hand guns tomorrow. How do you collect them?

You don't.
Just like machine guns, you give a termination date for the manufacture and distribution of them to private buyers. So any hand gun that is manufactured before a certain date is legal to buy, sell, trade, gift, or inherit for forever. Over time, a solid 20 or 30 years at least, you'll see the legal supply begin to dry, and eventually the illegal supply will shrivel and shrink to almost non-existence. If it worked with machine guns, it can work with any other guns.

How about foreign imports?

Care to comment on the drug war and your overestimated effectiveness of prohibition?

Would you bother to think about the difference in the prices of producing and distributing machine guns versus hand guns?

[Phatscotty]

Texas senator Ted Cruz on Friday indicated that the battle among GOP senators over gun-control legislation was so fierce that, at several points during the debate, some of his Republican colleagues yelled at him “at the top of their lungs.”

“I don’t know that there is an issue that has generated more heat internally in the Republican conference,” Cruz said at a Texas tea-party rally. “We’ve had probably five or six lunches with a bunch of Republican senators standing up and looking at Rand [Paul] and Mike [Lee] and me and yelling at us at the top of their lungs, I mean, really upset.” He continued, “They said, ‘Look, why did you do this? As a result of what you did, when I go home, my constituents are yelling at me that I gotta stand on principle.’ I’m really not making that up. I don’t ever bother to argue with them, I just sorta let them yell and said, ‘Look, you know, vote your conscience.’”

Cruz who, along with senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee, launched an effort to filibuster any gun-control legislation brought to the Senate floor, called Republicans who did not back the effort ”squishes.” The trio were criticized by conservatives outside the halls of Congress as well — Cruz noted that the Wall Street Journal ran two editorials attacking their efforts.

Though their motion was defeated, aides to Cruz and Lee told National Review in the wake of the Senate vote that the trio believe they achieved an important strategic victory by drawing attention to the constitutional issues at stake before in the preceding weeks. They point to the defeat of the Democrats’ legislation as proof of their success.

Since his election to the Senate in November, Cruz has joined with Paul and Lee — both tea-party candidates elected in 2010 — to challenge not only the Democrats, but much of the Republican party, which they appear to be trying to steer in a different direction. More than once, senior senators such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham have voiced their disdain and disapproval.

Thus far, though, the newcomers are undeterred. ”We are winning,” Cruz told the crowd.

[thegreekdog]

Those guns ALL came from legal sources. At one point they may have been moved illegally, but as the other side says "criminals don't follow the laws." So flood the legal market with unwatched cheap guns and the illegal market will be soon flooded as well.

Okay. I'm not sure what that has to do with increasing background checks. Are you saying tighter background checks will decrease the amount of guns that are obtained illegally? That seems counterintuitive.

The idea is guns in the ilegal market were at some point obtained from the legal supply. Reduce the legal supply and theoretically you reduce the illegal supply as well.

I understand his point, but those types of laws are not currently being considered. To my knowledge, there is no proposed law restricting the manufacture of handguns, the weapon used in by far the most violent crimes dealing with guns. Instead we have a proposed law to ostensibly increase the effectiveness of background checks and a proposed law to make illegal the purchase of semi-automatic rifles that look like rifles.

[thegreekdog]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Why is it important to remember that in the context of a gun control debate where members of the Democratic Party have been in control of the mayors' office in the highest gun violence cities in the United States? There is at least a correlation between Democrats and high gun violence in inner cities. Perhaps we should focus on that first.

Did you see my response to that claim?

No. Can you sum up?

Here, I linked to it: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=188997&p=4149480&hilit=population#p4149480

Okay. Why is more population congestion the culprit (in your opinion)?

Cities will necessarily have higher numbers of individuals who are out of work, using drugs, generally unhappy with their shitty lives, etc. I'm not talking about a higher percentage (as someone who grew up in a small town, I know that alcohol usage, for instance, is a pretty high percentage), but rather higher numbers. Some small percentage of those individuals will turn to crime as a means for either surviving or, more likely in my opinion, improving their lives or attaining the particular lifestyle they prefer. Cities will also necessarily have a larger "pool of victims to choose from", if you will, providing better options in crime. It's a numbers game.

Makes sense to me.

[Baron Von PWN]

Those guns ALL came from legal sources. At one point they may have been moved illegally, but as the other side says "criminals don't follow the laws." So flood the legal market with unwatched cheap guns and the illegal market will be soon flooded as well.

Okay. I'm not sure what that has to do with increasing background checks. Are you saying tighter background checks will decrease the amount of guns that are obtained illegally? That seems counterintuitive.

The idea is guns in the ilegal market were at some point obtained from the legal supply. Reduce the legal supply and theoretically you reduce the illegal supply as well.

For example, one could prohibit the production of firearms---as the US government did against alcohol and is now doing in regard to marijuana, cocaine, prostitution, heroin, terrorism, murder, etc.

Hmm, I smell a Nirvana fallacy brewing in the minds of statists here.

Agreed there are obvious problems, I was simply pointing out how greater gun control may indirectly affect the supply of guns.

However guns, not really being a consumer good, I wonder if it comparing it to drugs or alcohol prohibition is reasonable.

[isaiah40]

I've named these a dozen times, but we do need to keep the discussion moving.
In general, I dislike firearms kept for protection, because they are far and away more likely to be used on a family member. This idea of saving your family from a gang of rapists is pretty much just a fantasy. If we take abused women for example, they're 6 times more likely to be shot and killed if there is a gun kept in the home.
But I can live with people's fantasys, so long as they can own up to them (NIGHTSTRIKE).

So I am against all hand guns, which are far and away the #1 choice of criminals and mass shooters. And I am also against Assault-Type Rifles as well. No, they're not A-typically used in crime, but when they are, the results are always devastating. Take the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, or the North Hollywood shootout as my examples. We should also ban large clips for the same reasons.
I am ok with almost all hunting weapons, except those special long-distance hunting rifles. I can't say that I'm comfortable with private citizens owning Riot Guns, but I don't have any evidence that they're more likely to use a Riot Gun in crime than a regular shotgun. So hunting weapons are all ok in my book.

Yes again, I am aware the some hunter use hand guns, but these tend to be gun enthusiasts who'll shoot a deer with anything they can find. Leaving any hand guns on an unregulated market will put hand guns in the hands of criminals.

So what are Assault-Type rifles?? A 30-30 can be an assault type rifle. A BB could theoretically be classified as an assault-type rifle. or do mean those rifles that have those scary looking military-style parts on them??

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

[BigBallinStalin]

Those guns ALL came from legal sources. At one point they may have been moved illegally, but as the other side says "criminals don't follow the laws." So flood the legal market with unwatched cheap guns and the illegal market will be soon flooded as well.

Okay. I'm not sure what that has to do with increasing background checks. Are you saying tighter background checks will decrease the amount of guns that are obtained illegally? That seems counterintuitive.

The idea is guns in the ilegal market were at some point obtained from the legal supply. Reduce the legal supply and theoretically you reduce the illegal supply as well.

For example, one could prohibit the production of firearms---as the US government did against alcohol and is now doing in regard to marijuana, cocaine, prostitution, heroin, terrorism, murder, etc.

Hmm, I smell a Nirvana fallacy brewing in the minds of statists here.

Agreed there are obvious problems, I was simply pointing out how greater gun control may indirectly affect the supply of guns.

However guns, not really being a consumer good, I wonder if it comparing it to drugs or alcohol prohibition is reasonable.

Guns are a consumer good. Just as knives are. It's something people buy because it yields them some mixture of monetary and non-monetary profit over some estimated amount of time.

The prohibition analogy is fine. People think it's so easy to prohibit something, so they need to stop thinking that (e.g. JB and anyone entertaining prohibitionist ideas).

[Woodruff]

Let me ask you Juan. Let's say you are married, a burglar breaks into your home while your wife is there alone. She does not have time to get to the phone because the burglar sees her and comes after her. Now would you want her to have a gun to protect herself, or would you rather have the burglar have his way with her and possibly kill her?? Now let's say she had a gun and drew it on the burglar, and held him there until the police got there. Which way is better? Possibly end up with a raped and/or dead wife or the police arresting the burglar?? I think you would probably want to wife to be unharmed as would the majority of husbands.

It seems to me that your wife's gun should be stored in a gun safe. A gun safe will typically be more difficult to get into than a telephone.

[Lootifer]

haha, that seriously solutions website is gold.