The general gun control thread

[The Union of the West]

I support gun ownership, but I wouldn't be opposed to background checks to keep them out of the hands of ex-convicts or other criminals.

Which we already have.

Which is a good thing.

[Ifreann]

I dislike the idea of en masse private gun ownership, but I recognize it has a valid place in hunting, sport shooting, farming etc. But self-defence, stand your ground, castle doctrine etc? No, that undermines the rule of law and makes people think they can have their own little militias, etc which can undermine the rule of law.

Sorry, I don't wanna wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up.

What if I told you you can defend yourself without trying to kill anyone?

[Llamalandia]

I dislike the idea of en masse private gun ownership, but I recognize it has a valid place in hunting, sport shooting, farming etc. But self-defence, stand your ground, castle doctrine etc? No, that undermines the rule of law and makes people think they can have their own little militias, etc which can undermine the rule of law.

For this reason I support the repeal of the 2nd amendment, as well as a long-term (say 50-year) plan to eliminate gun violence and gradually reduce the amount of privately owned firearms in circulation via increased regulations, bans on certain types of weapons, compulsory gun buy backs(compensated confiscation, I guess), etc. but that'd be a very long term thing and I still would allow rural and sporting gun ownership.

And that whole "rule of law" isn't all that helpful when the govt itself stops obeying the law. Or more realistically for most, when a criminal has kicked in your door.

[Llamalandia]

I dislike the idea of en masse private gun ownership, but I recognize it has a valid place in hunting, sport shooting, farming etc. But self-defence, stand your ground, castle doctrine etc? No, that undermines the rule of law and makes people think they can have their own little militias, etc which can undermine the rule of law.

For this reason I support the repeal of the 2nd amendment, as well as a long-term (say 50-year) plan to eliminate gun violence and gradually reduce the amount of privately owned firearms in circulation via increased regulations, bans on certain types of weapons, compulsory gun buy backs(compensated confiscation, I guess), etc. but that'd be a very long term thing and I still would allow rural and sporting gun ownership.

Plus also lots of things can undermine the rule of law and we don't ban them.

[Atlanticatia]

I dislike the idea of en masse private gun ownership, but I recognize it has a valid place in hunting, sport shooting, farming etc. But self-defence, stand your ground, castle doctrine etc? No, that undermines the rule of law and makes people think they can have their own little militias, etc which can undermine the rule of law.

For this reason I support the repeal of the 2nd amendment, as well as a long-term (say 50-year) plan to eliminate gun violence and gradually reduce the amount of privately owned firearms in circulation via increased regulations, bans on certain types of weapons, compulsory gun buy backs(compensated confiscation, I guess), etc. but that'd be a very long term thing and I still would allow rural and sporting gun ownership.

And that whole "rule of law" isn't all that helpful when the govt itself stops obeying the law. Or more realistically for most, when a criminal has kicked in your door.

The argument that people need guns to defend themselves against some imagined 'tyrannical gubmint' is even more ridiculous to me. Seems kind of paranoid.

a) That undermines the rule of law.
b) If the US government really wanted to become tyrannical, you really think a few firearms will stop them?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sorry, I don't wanna wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up.

What if I told you you can defend yourself without trying to kill anyone?

I already know I can, I've done more than a few martial arts and self defense classes over the years. That doesn't change the fact that I'll take using a gun over getting into a fist fight with someone who might or might not be armed.

[Llamalandia]

Sorry, I don't wanna wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up.

What if I told you you can defend yourself without trying to kill anyone?

Ok, I'll bite how do you propose this be done? Be careful you know we will all be waiting to respond.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Sorry, I don't wanna wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up.

What if I told you you can defend yourself without trying to kill anyone?

Like trying to scare them off, which is the gun's first line of defense?

[Llamalandia]

And that whole "rule of law" isn't all that helpful when the govt itself stops obeying the law. Or more realistically for most, when a criminal has kicked in your door.

The argument that people need guns to defend themselves against some imagined 'tyrannical gubmint' is even more ridiculous to me. Seems kind of paranoid.

a) That undermines the rule of law.
b) If the US government really wanted to become tyrannical, you really think a few firearms will stop them?

Given that assassinations can and have changed world history, yes yes I do think guns might stop them. Never any gurantees of course but a decent shot.

[Patridam]

I know it's a bit cliched, but I go with the old standby: "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."

For what reasons?

I don't want to live in a community where regular, untrained, unsupervised people have even the remotest access to deadly weapons. I feel much safer in communities where only police services, which are trained to keep me safe, can access and use firearms. And even then, I'd prefer that the police don't carry them around on regular patrols.

Are you also viscerally opposed to the ownership of kitchen knives.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I dislike the idea of en masse private gun ownership, but I recognize it has a valid place in hunting, sport shooting, farming etc. But self-defence, stand your ground, castle doctrine etc? No, that undermines the rule of law and makes people think they can have their own little militias, etc which can undermine the rule of law.

Militias are entirely different things, actually. They're authorized by the second amendment, not castle doctrine or stand your ground.
I prefer my rule of law to presume innocence, even in cases of claimed self-defense, unless proven otherwise. If you have a different conception of 'rule of law', you're wrong.

For this reason I support the repeal of the 2nd amendment, as well as a long-term (say 50-year) plan to eliminate gun violence and gradually reduce the amount of privately owned firearms in circulation via increased regulations, bans on certain types of weapons, compulsory gun buy backs(compensated confiscation, I guess), etc. but that'd be a very long term thing and I still would allow rural and sporting gun ownership.

Not interested

[Atlanticatia]

The argument that people need guns to defend themselves against some imagined 'tyrannical gubmint' is even more ridiculous to me. Seems kind of paranoid.

a) That undermines the rule of law.
b) If the US government really wanted to become tyrannical, you really think a few firearms will stop them?

Given that assassinations can and have changed world history, yes yes I do think guns might stop them. Never any gurantees of course but a decent shot.

Now - for example - what if someone takes their gun to go assassinate Obama because they think he's undermining the Constitution, or whatever the drivel coming from Fox News said. That's why it undermines the rule of law and social cohesion - turns ordinary people into thinking they're in militias, or who think they can define the law.

[Big Jim P]

Given that assassinations can and have changed world history, yes yes I do think guns might stop them. Never any gurantees of course but a decent shot.

Now - for example - what if someone takes their gun to go assassinate Obama because they think he's undermining the Constitution, or whatever the drivel coming from Fox News said. That's why it undermines the rule of law and social cohesion - turns ordinary people into thinking they're in militias, or who think they can define the law.

It turns ordinary people into people who can defend themselves from, deter, or prevent crime, thus enhancing the rule of law.

[Nihon-Amerika]

For what reasons?

I don't want to live in a community where regular, untrained, unsupervised people have even the remotest access to deadly weapons. I feel much safer in communities where only police services, which are trained to keep me safe, can access and use firearms. And even then, I'd prefer that the police don't carry them around on regular patrols.

*facepalm*

I've said it before, I'll say it again; if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

[Ifreann]

What if I told you you can defend yourself without trying to kill anyone?

I already know I can, I've done more than a few martial arts and self defense classes over the years. That doesn't change the fact that I'll take using a gun over getting into a fist fight with someone who might or might not be armed.

You don't have to fight them, either. It is an art surely more ancient than any other. It pre-dates human civilisation. It pre-dates the human species.

---

What if I told you you can defend yourself without trying to kill anyone?

Ok, I'll bite how do you propose this be done? Be careful you know we will all be waiting to respond.

It's simple.
Run away.

[Patridam]

I don't want to live in a community where regular, untrained, unsupervised people have even the remotest access to deadly weapons. I feel much safer in communities where only police services, which are trained to keep me safe, can access and use firearms. And even then, I'd prefer that the police don't carry them around on regular patrols.

*facepalm*

I've said it before, I'll say it again; if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

Tis one of the strongest arguments around.

[Atlanticatia]

Now - for example - what if someone takes their gun to go assassinate Obama because they think he's undermining the Constitution, or whatever the drivel coming from Fox News said. That's why it undermines the rule of law and social cohesion - turns ordinary people into thinking they're in militias, or who think they can define the law.

It turns ordinary people into people who can defend themselves from, deter, or prevent crime, thus enhancing the rule of law.

The State enforces the law, not random civilians. In a civilised society at least. Otherwise, that line between citizen and government/law enforcement can become increasingly blurred, and that's dangerous.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I already know I can, I've done more than a few martial arts and self defense classes over the years. That doesn't change the fact that I'll take using a gun over getting into a fist fight with someone who might or might not be armed.

You don't have to fight them, either. It is an art surely more ancient than any other. It pre-dates human civilisation. It pre-dates the human species.

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ok, I'll bite how do you propose this be done? Be careful you know we will all be waiting to respond.

It's simple.
Run away.

1) Such is not 'defense' by definition, such is escape.
2) Please explain how this works when running away is not an option.

[Patridam]

Ok, I'll bite how do you propose this be done? Be careful you know we will all be waiting to respond.

It's simple.
Run away.

1. I am not fast.
2. What of situations where your means of exit is blocked, such as by a second attacker?
3. What of situations where you are protecting your family or property from harm?

[Llamalandia]

Given that assassinations can and have changed world history, yes yes I do think guns might stop them. Never any gurantees of course but a decent shot.

Now - for example - what if someone takes their gun to go assassinate Obama because they think he's undermining the Constitution, or whatever the drivel coming from Fox News said. That's why it undermines the rule of law and social cohesion - turns ordinary people into thinking they're in militias, or who think they can define the law.

Well ultimately this is a government of for and by the people, so first off the people already ideally do form the laws that govern via their elected representatives. Plus education and advocacy is the way to counter this sense of militia-ness of which you speak. And ironically that is kinda what the second amendment is for having an armed citizenry from which militias can be drawn in time of crisis.

But let me throw this scenario at you. Corporate money plays a bigger and bigger role in influencing (legally mind you) elections until basically Google and Apple and maybe idk Microsoft essentially just pick who governs and ALEC writes every piece of legislation. Would you still be ok with "the rule of law"? pkus a bit off topic, but I can't help but wonder how you feel about are many effectively unenforceable border and immigration laws in this country. Or the fact that the Feds won't go after marijuana in states which have legalized the drug? Or is your rule of law advocacy limited in scope.

[Ifreann]

*facepalm*

I've said it before, I'll say it again; if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

Tis one of the strongest arguments around.

"I think only the police should have access to firearms"
"But then only outlaws will have guns!"
"Totes strong argument"

[Atlanticatia]

You don't have to fight them, either. It is an art surely more ancient than any other. It pre-dates human civilisation. It pre-dates the human species.

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

[Llamalandia]

It turns ordinary people into people who can defend themselves from, deter, or prevent crime, thus enhancing the rule of law.

The State enforces the law, not random civilians. In a civilised society at least. Otherwise, that line between citizen and government/law enforcement can become increasingly blurred, and that's dangerous.

Guess we don't need security guards then. Heck even unarmed security guards. After all the govt will protect every warehouse and mall in America.

Also ever hear of citizens arrest?

[Patridam]

Tis one of the strongest arguments around.

"I think only the police should have access to firearms"
"But then only outlaws will have guns!"
"Totes strong argument"

You have proof that making weapons illegal keeps them out of the hands of criminals and off the black market, then?