The general gun control thread

[North Calaveras]

that's funny cause the anti-gun crowd is NEVER satisfied

passes anti-gun law, shooting happens

" OMG we need more gun laws"

Shooting happens again and more laws are passed with NO EFFECT.

Uh huh. Just like the pro gun won't be satisfied until we have toddlers armed to the teeth.

that's almost as silly as the " Well why don't you all have nukes!!!" arguement.

[Tule]

Quit the strawman. Pro-gun control is not equivalent to banning guns.

that's funny cause the anti-gun crowd is NEVER satisfied

passes anti-gun law, shooting happens

" OMG we need more gun laws"

Shooting happens again and more laws are passed with NO EFFECT.

We rarely have shootings here.
When they do happen nothing is done to change the laws, because we rarely have shootings, because the laws work.

There was a change in British gun laws in 1988 following a massacre there, and again in 1997 following another massacre. But no change was made in 2010 after a yet another massacre, because people felt that the current gun laws were sufficient.

Norway has not changed its gun laws after the worst mass shooting in history, because they generally work very well.

[North Calaveras]

Seeing as gun control will disarm the peaceful, law-abiding citizens, It is likely to embolden the criminal element,

and yet the homicide rates of every other developed country disagrees. Also gun control does not disarm law abiding citizens, it disarms violent criminals.

leading to an increase in crime (at least over a short term). Right now we are in a good place.

no we are not, High homicide rates are not a good thing

Crime is decreasing,

as it is in every developed nation, still high, not helping your point.

gun laws are loosening in many places,

and becoming stricter in others.

Really, we do not need any more gun control.

the homicide rate disagrees

so if a law abiding citizen has a gun and you make regulations so strict to where it's an extreme hassel to attain one...yeah you kind of are disarming them.

[New Genoa]

Quit the strawman. Pro-gun control is not equivalent to banning guns.

Ok fair enough, but how do they differ and how is there not a slippery slope from restriction of firearms to out right ban?

Well, for one, the pro gc crowd is not a monolithic group. And the slippery slope goes both ways (lets give guns to the mentally insane!). And slippery slope is a logical fallacy anyway.

[Sociobiology]

Quit the strawman. Pro-gun control is not equivalent to banning guns.

Ok fair enough, but how do they differ and how is there not a slippery slope from restriction of firearms to out right ban?

a universal background check or general firearms permit only makes it harder for criminals to get firearms.
the huge legal loophole that makes it easy for criminals to get firearms is the problem.

And don't try the slippery slope argument, if that was true cars and guns and every other regulated item would be illegal, its a bullshit argument and you know it.

[Llamalandia]

that's funny cause the anti-gun crowd is NEVER satisfied

passes anti-gun law, shooting happens

" OMG we need more gun laws"

Shooting happens again and more laws are passed with NO EFFECT.

We rarely have shootings here.

When they do happen nothing is done to change the laws, because we rarely have shootings, because the laws work.

Ok then we sufficent laws, I mean you yourself said, the laws work and as a result we rarely have shootings here. So I guess we're good. I mean you yourself are effectively admitting we don't need to change the gun laws we have now.

[Ifreann]

It could save your life.

Why? They might kill you.

Exactly why I have a number of things to defend myself with. A single pump of one of the shotguns will send most people running.

And if it doesn't, then they might kill you, no matter what weapons you might possess. So why not run? Why fight?

---

It could save your life.

---

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

---

You don't have to be. Running can place obstacles between you and your attacker that will also protect you. Plus, adrenaline's a hell of a drug.

Run some other way. If you're totally surrounded then it hardly matters what you do.

Take your family with you. Leave your property behind. Unless it's small and easy to carry.

---

Do I need to explain to you how "the police" and "outlaws" are generally two distinct groups?

---

Are you under the impression that I was suggesting an infallible means to survive any possible circumstance? Because that's patently ridiculous.

---

Why? They might kill you.

---

Oscar Pistorius, the man you're thinking of, was convicted of culpable homicide.

---

That is the means by which firearms are used to defend one's self. That or the threat of doing so, which I suppose I should have also mentioned.

Ok then put a probability on it. Or make your example more specific. I mean, I would say me with a gun vs unarmed intruder, the intruder would lose 95% of the time. Intruder with a knife vs me with a gun, idk maybe 90% chance. Yeah, guns don't gurantee survival either, but not having when you need it, is a clear disadvantage.

I simply suggested an alternative means to defend one's self. One I find rarely meets with much support, despite it being very useful. And I wonder, sometimes, if that doesn't suggest that perhaps there is a problem of the sort that Vitaphone Racing earlier alluded to. A problem of being too eager to use a firearm in self-defence. And I wonder if such eager people ought to be allowed to possess firearms.

---

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

1) Your coyness is no match for the definition of defense. I accept your concession.

You can have it when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands.

2) So it doesn't. All you needed to do was answer the question.

Indeed, it doesn't. But then, nothing works in every possible circumstance. I never suggested otherwise. I wonder why you even asked...

---

It could save your life.

---

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

---

You don't have to be. Running can place obstacles between you and your attacker that will also protect you. Plus, adrenaline's a hell of a drug.

Run some other way. If you're totally surrounded then it hardly matters what you do.

Take your family with you. Leave your property behind. Unless it's small and easy to carry.

---

Do I need to explain to you how "the police" and "outlaws" are generally two distinct groups?

---

Are you under the impression that I was suggesting an infallible means to survive any possible circumstance? Because that's patently ridiculous.

---

Why? They might kill you.

---

Oscar Pistorius, the man you're thinking of, was convicted of culpable homicide.

---

That is the means by which firearms are used to defend one's self. That or the threat of doing so, which I suppose I should have also mentioned.

Wait, when would shooting your assailant not be option? I mean, ok I guess if it's close quarters and you have a freaking rifle, but generally with self defense we are talking pistols I should think. I mean, unless it is a riot like ferguson or la and your business is surround then I can see someone relying on a long gun for defense.

You asked how someone like Oscar Pistorius would manage to run away from an assailant without his prosthetics(probably better than you think, incidentally). Similarly, are there not people who are physically incapable of using a firearm? There's also the possibility of the weapon failing to properly operate, or a lack of ammunition, or a lack of access to any firearm in the first place.

[Billugslovakc]

Why can't we just have background checks and stuff like that. I live in Australia and we have very good gun control laws (Sorry but I don't know very much about it so don't drill me with questions, I'm just stating my personal opinion)

[Llamalandia]

Ok fair enough, but how do they differ and how is there not a slippery slope from restriction of firearms to out right ban?

Well, for one, the pro gc crowd is not a monolithic group. And the slippery slope goes both ways (lets give guns to the mentally insane!). And slippery slope is a logical fallacy anyway.

Only if there is no plausible link between one event and other is the slippery slope a fallacy. But fair enough. Between no one havi guns and everyone having guns I choose the latter. Even the mentally ill who have access to guns rarely abuse them.

[Sociobiology]

and yet the homicide rates of every other developed country disagrees. Also gun control does not disarm law abiding citizens, it disarms violent criminals.


no we are not, High homicide rates are not a good thing


as it is in every developed nation, still high, not helping your point.


and becoming stricter in others.


the homicide rate disagrees

so if a law abiding citizen has a gun and you make regulations so strict to where it's an extreme hassel to attain one...yeah you kind of are disarming them.

if filling out a form is so much of a hassle you won't buy a firearm you want, you have too little impulse control to be trusted with a firearm.

[North Calaveras]

Ok fair enough, but how do they differ and how is there not a slippery slope from restriction of firearms to out right ban?

Well, for one, the pro gc crowd is not a monolithic group. And the slippery slope goes both ways (lets give guns to the mentally insane!). And slippery slope is a logical fallacy anyway.

I don't see you bitching about pools, more people die from drowning than firearms yet where are the "anti-pool" crowd demanding they been heavily regulated/banned.

[North Calaveras]

so if a law abiding citizen has a gun and you make regulations so strict to where it's an extreme hassel to attain one...yeah you kind of are disarming them.

if filling out a form is so much of a hassle you won't buy a firearm you want, you have too little impulse control to be trusted with a firearm.

I live in Hawaii and they purposefully make it extremley difficult to get a gun, it's not "just a form"

I'm also in the Army military police, so I think i'm pretty well trusted with firearms

[New Genoa]

Uh huh. Just like the pro gun won't be satisfied until we have toddlers armed to the teeth.

that's almost as silly as the " Well why don't you all have nukes!!!" arguement.

Thats the point I'm making. Assuming regulation = ban is akin to saying no regulation means lets arm everyone to the teeth.

[Llamalandia]

Exactly why I have a number of things to defend myself with. A single pump of one of the shotguns will send most people running.

And if it doesn't, then they might kill you, no matter what weapons you might possess. So why not run? Why fight?

---

Ok then put a probability on it. Or make your example more specific. I mean, I would say me with a gun vs unarmed intruder, the intruder would lose 95% of the time. Intruder with a knife vs me with a gun, idk maybe 90% chance. Yeah, guns don't gurantee survival either, but not having when you need it, is a clear disadvantage.

I simply suggested an alternative means to defend one's self. One I find rarely meets with much support, despite it being very useful. And I wonder, sometimes, if that doesn't suggest that perhaps there is a problem of the sort that Vitaphone Racing earlier alluded to. A problem of being too eager to use a firearm in self-defence. And I wonder if such eager people ought to be allowed to possess firearms.

---

1) Your coyness is no match for the definition of defense. I accept your concession.

You can have it when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands.

2) So it doesn't. All you needed to do was answer the question.

Indeed, it doesn't. But then, nothing works in every possible circumstance. I never suggested otherwise. I wonder why you even asked...

---

Wait, when would shooting your assailant not be option? I mean, ok I guess if it's close quarters and you have a freaking rifle, but generally with self defense we are talking pistols I should think. I mean, unless it is a riot like ferguson or la and your business is surround then I can see someone relying on a long gun for defense.

You asked how someone like Oscar Pistorius would manage to run away from an assailant without his prosthetics(probably better than you think, incidentally). Similarly, are there not people who are physically incapable of using a firearm? There's also the possibility of the weapon failing to properly operate, or a lack of ammunition, or a lack of access to any firearm in the first place.

Sure and I also said, guns were no gurantee of survival either. Sometimes you are outgunned, or yeah, sometimes they don't work. But in any situation which requires a gun for survival, not having a gun ensures your death. Now sure you may also be in a situation where you need a gun to survive and it jams. Yeah, it sucks you die. But for the times when the gun functions properly, well it's nice to have it.

[Sociobiology]

if filling out a form is so much of a hassle you won't buy a firearm you want, you have too little impulse control to be trusted with a firearm.

I live in Hawaii and they purposefully make it extremley difficult to get a gun, it's not "just a form"

And that has what to do with instituting a universal background check?
I have already said we should be modeling our system after countries with general firearms permits or universal background checks.

[North Calaveras]

that's almost as silly as the " Well why don't you all have nukes!!!" arguement.

Thats the point I'm making. Assuming regulation = ban is akin to saying no regulation means lets arm everyone to the teeth.

the problem is regulation is leading towards an outright ban.

" were not trying to ban your guns"

yet they stack regulation upon regulation upon regulation in states like CA where im from, just look at anti-gun politicians, they don't know what the hell they are talking about 90% of the time.

[North Calaveras]

I live in Hawaii and they purposefully make it extremley difficult to get a gun, it's not "just a form"

And that has what to do with instituting a universal background check?
I have already said we should be modeling our system after countries with general firearms permits or universal background checks.

We already have background checks...

[New Genoa]

Well, for one, the pro gc crowd is not a monolithic group. And the slippery slope goes both ways (lets give guns to the mentally insane!). And slippery slope is a logical fallacy anyway.

I don't see you bitching about pools, more people die from drowning than firearms yet where are the "anti-pool" crowd demanding they been heavily regulated/banned.

More people drown than are murdered. Clearly we need to legalise murder.

[North Calaveras]

I don't see you bitching about pools, more people die from drowning than firearms yet where are the "anti-pool" crowd demanding they been heavily regulated/banned.

More people drown than are murdered. Clearly we need to legalise murder.

that's not logical at all, because murder is a crime/act while guns are inanimate objects, so you can't really apply that logic here.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Exactly why I have a number of things to defend myself with. A single pump of one of the shotguns will send most people running.

And if it doesn't, then they might kill you, no matter what weapons you might possess. So why not run? Why fight?

And I'm willing to take my chances that I'll come out on top if they don't run. I'm not in the business of running and cowering in fear for 10-15 minutes while I wait for the cops to show up.

[Sociobiology]

And that has what to do with instituting a universal background check?
I have already said we should be modeling our system after countries with general firearms permits or universal background checks.

We already have background checks...

for some sales, for others we have no background check.
no background check for private sales, many states don't even have background checks for gun show purchases.

[New Genoa]

More people drown than are murdered. Clearly we need to legalise murder.

that's not logical at all, because murder is a crime/act while guns are inanimate objects, so you can't really apply that logic here.

And people actively use guns to kill others. Are there more homicides by drowning in a pool than guns?

[Diopolis]

I don't see you bitching about pools, more people die from drowning than firearms yet where are the "anti-pool" crowd demanding they been heavily regulated/banned.

More people drown than are murdered. Clearly we need to legalise murder.

Nice false equivalence.

[Patridam]

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

It could save your life.

---

1) Such is not 'defense' by definition, such is escape.

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

2) Please explain how this works when running away is not an option.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

---

1. I am not fast.

You don't have to be. Running can place obstacles between you and your attacker that will also protect you. Plus, adrenaline's a hell of a drug.

The attacker will not only likely have a firearm which they might shoot me in the back with should I run, but even if they do not, could easily catch up since they likely are more fit than I AND have adrenaline pumping through their veins just as I do.

2. What of situations where your means of exit is blocked, such as by a second attacker?

Run some other way. If you're totally surrounded then it hardly matters what you do.

You do realize there are several situations where there are few or one exit(s). Such as, you know, interior rooms. Or when you are behind a counter at a store. Or the upstairs of a house. Or the basement of a house. Or any number of other locales.

3. What of situations where you are protecting your family or property from harm?

Take your family with you. Leave your property behind. Unless it's small and easy to carry.

You are operating under the assumption that I have prior warning to such a scenario. What if I come downstairs during the night and discover an armed intruder? Do I run upstairs to get my children as he follows me and then proceeds to bash all of our heads in? Do I run away and try to save myself, leaving them to die?

Or how about this: I shoot the people currently attacking/threatening/surrounding me and/or my family, or better yet, hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive.

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

Do I need to explain to you how "the police" and "outlaws" are generally two distinct groups?

You believe the police are the only ones who should have access to firearms - and in such a situation that you get your way, yes, police are the only people capable of obtaining a weapon through legal means.

But criminals and terrorists and mass shooters and what have you will still have extralegal access to firearms. You take away guns from those who use them responsibly for hunting or self defense and leave guns only in the hands of police and criminals.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ok fair enough, but how do they differ and how is there not a slippery slope from restriction of firearms to out right ban?

a universal background check or general firearms permit only makes it harder for criminals to get firearms.

This depends entirely on how such are instituted. Because with any cost associated, it makes it harder for non-criminals as well. In much the same way that Voter ID requirements make it harder for the ineligible to vote but also almost always possess particulars wherein they hurt the poor.