Gun Control

[o.pwuaioc]

Fine, I'll back out, but I just want to point out that jmustang has now resorted to actually lying. Thankfully, a record is kept:

It is the situation that some of those who are calling for gun bans or restrictions then hire guards who use the weapons they are trying to restrict.

I get what's supposed to be "hypocritical" about it, but I just am not seeing it. Do you seriously think the president shouldn't have guards because he favors gun restrictions?

Nope, but if he has guns to protect his family, then we should have them to protect ours.

Emphasis mine. If you can't even be honest about what you said, then really, I don't see a point in debating further. I will indeed excuse myself.

[Jmustang1968]

Fine, I'll back out, but I just want to point out that jmustang has now resorted to actually lying. Thankfully, a record is kept:

I get what's supposed to be "hypocritical" about it, but I just am not seeing it. Do you seriously think the president shouldn't have guards because he favors gun restrictions?

Nope, but if he has guns to protect his family, then we should have them to protect ours.

Emphasis mine. If you can't even be honest about what you said, then really, I don't see a point in debating further. I will indeed excuse myself.

I am sorry, AppleQueso brought it up. But my initial point wasn't focused at or limited to the President.

Lying is an exaggeration, it was more of a mistake. My point was I wasn't trying to focus on the president. Nor am I saying more guns necessarily. I was simply pointing out a hypocrisy.

And while not all are calling for a complete gun ban, some of those who use armed guards are.

[AppleQueso]

And while not all are calling for a complete gun ban, some of those who use armed guards are.

Those people should probably just be ignored anyway, especially if they aren't in a position to have actual say when it comes to policy. As far as I'm aware, no-one with any real pull in the issue is calling for a complete gun ban, and if anyone is, nobody is going to take them seriously anyway.

If we're talking about people with guards calling for a complete gun ban, yeah I can at least understand calling out hypocrisy on that. Not sure I totally agree, but I'm not gonna argue with you on it.

However, If we're talking about people merely calling for tighter restrictions or bans on specific types of guns, I don't see any hypocrisy in them having guards at all.

[Jmustang1968]

And while not all are calling for a complete gun ban, some of those who use armed guards are.

Those people should probably just be ignored anyway, especially if they aren't in a position to have actual say when it comes to policy. As far as I'm aware, no-one with any real pull in the issue is calling for a complete gun ban, and if anyone is, nobody is going to take them seriously anyway.

If we're talking about people with guards calling for a complete gun ban, yeah I can at least understand calling out hypocrisy on that. Not sure I totally agree, but I'm not gonna argue with you on it.

However, If we're talking about people merely calling for tighter restrictions or bans on specific types of guns, I don't see any hypocrisy in them having guards at all.

They can't even really define what an assault rifle is. What makes an assault rifle so much more deadly than a semi auto pistol in a classroom or theatre? Or more deadly than a semi auto pistol in each hand?

Full autos should be and are banned. But putting some assault rifle ban into place is a band-aid or a misguided attempt to stop media attention grabbing mass murders. It is one of those things that will mostly only inconvenience or prevent the law abiding or 'good' gun owners from getting guns while criminals will still get their hands on them.

Could you show me examples how any of the proposed gun restrictions or legislation would have prevented any of the recent massacres?

Too much attention is focused on the massacres as well. While of course very tragic, and I can't imagine being in the shoes of one of the parents of the victims, many more are killed on average from other random acts of violence spread out across the nation.

These proposals will do much of nothing besides being some sort of partisan political victory for one side or the other and give whomever some false sense of security.

[AppleQueso]

And while not all are calling for a complete gun ban, some of those who use armed guards are.

Those people should probably just be ignored anyway, especially if they aren't in a position to have actual say when it comes to policy. As far as I'm aware, no-one with any real pull in the issue is calling for a complete gun ban, and if anyone is, nobody is going to take them seriously anyway.

If we're talking about people with guards calling for a complete gun ban, yeah I can at least understand calling out hypocrisy on that. Not sure I totally agree, but I'm not gonna argue with you on it.

However, If we're talking about people merely calling for tighter restrictions or bans on specific types of guns, I don't see any hypocrisy in them having guards at all.

They can't even really define what an assault rifle is. What makes an assault rifle so much more deadly than a semi auto pistol in a classroom or theatre? Or more deadly than a semi auto pistol in each hand?

Full autos should be and are banned. But putting some assault rifle ban into place is a band-aid or a misguided attempt to stop media attention grabbing mass murders. It is one of those things that will mostly only inconvenience or prevent the law abiding or 'good' gun owners from getting guns while criminals will still get their hands on them.

Could you show me examples how any of the proposed gun restrictions or legislation would have prevented any of the resent massacres?

Too much attention is focused on the massacres as well. While of course very tragic, and I can't imagine being in the shoes of one of the parents of the victims, many more are killed on average from other random acts of violence spread out across the nation.

These proposals will do much of nothing besides being some sort of partisan political victory for one side or the other and give whomever some false sense of security.

That's all well and good and very understandable, and I don't necessarily disagree with most of those points at all, but I've only just been arguing about a very specific tiny tidbit of an argument that really shouldn't have been dragged out for three pages.

[marurun]

Could you show me examples how any of the proposed gun restrictions or legislation would have prevented any of the recent massacres?

Too much attention is focused on the massacres as well. While of course very tragic, and I can't imagine being in the shoes of one of the parents of the victims, many more are killed on average from other random acts of violence spread out across the nation.

Show me where any politician or social activist can reliably predict how policy will shape events? None of the gun control-specific proposals would have prevented any of these shootings, though gun magazine size restrictions might have saved a life or two here or there. That's beside the point, anyway. In combination with other potential changes to our health system, particularly focused on mental health, there is potential to reduce gun violence in aggregate.

The massacres are indeed tragic and attention-grabbing. They are, however, merely the most dramatic symptoms of deep problems that need to be addressed on multiple levels and at multiple points. Whether one or two particular legislative proposals would have directly stopped any of these big events is irrelevant as to whether many little steps, taken together, can have a larger effect on the problem as a whole.

Truth is, I haven't heard any single proposal from anyone that was at all realistic to implement that would have made any major impact on any of the recent mass shootings. That doesn't mean we should all sit on our thumbs and do nothing. The lack of a magic bullet, if you'll pardon the ironic colloquialism, is not reason to throw up our hands and cry "It is hopeless!".

[Jmustang1968]

Could you show me examples how any of the proposed gun restrictions or legislation would have prevented any of the recent massacres?

Too much attention is focused on the massacres as well. While of course very tragic, and I can't imagine being in the shoes of one of the parents of the victims, many more are killed on average from other random acts of violence spread out across the nation.

Show me where any politician or social activist can reliably predict how policy will shape events? None of the gun control-specific proposals would have prevented any of these shootings, though gun magazine size restrictions might have saved a life or two here or there. That's beside the point, anyway. In combination with other potential changes to our health system, particularly focused on mental health, there is potential to reduce gun violence in aggregate.

The massacres are indeed tragic and attention-grabbing. They are, however, merely the most dramatic symptoms of deep problems that need to be addressed on multiple levels and at multiple points. Whether one or two particular legislative proposals would have directly stopped any of these big events is irrelevant as to whether many little steps, taken together, can have a larger effect on the problem as a whole.

Truth is, I haven't heard any single proposal from anyone that was at all realistic to implement that would have made any major impact on any of the recent mass shootings. That doesn't mean we should all sit on our thumbs and do nothing. The lack of a magic bullet, if you'll pardon the ironic colloquialism, is not reason to throw up our hands and cry "It is hopeless!".

Sure, it is always something to look into. And just because there may not be a magic bullet, it also doesn't necessarily mean we should recklessly create new laws that will have little to no impact on fixing what the law was intended to fix or mitigate.

You know what the biggest impact of all the talk of gun restrictions and new laws? Mass purchasing of guns and ammo on a level that has almost every store sold out and gun manufacturers with extreme backlogs of orders.

[AppleQueso]

You know what the biggest impact of all the talk of gun restrictions and new laws? Mass purchasing of guns and ammo on a level that has almost every store sold out and gun manufacturers with extreme backlogs of orders.

This annoys me a lot. They act like the second amendment is about to be repealed or something. Nobody is coming after your guns people, calm down. :/

[marurun]

This annoys me a lot. They act like the second amendment is about to be repealed or something. Nobody is coming after your guns people, calm down. :/

What frustrates me the most is the people buying these guns typically have more than enough guns and ammo already. The second amendment is about the rights AND responsibilities of gun ownership in relationship to being and retaining independence as a nation (in the immediate context, a still-young nation with great potential and great threat from a former colonial master). Yet most people buying these things simply want more toys that go bang (and happen to also be designed explicitly to kill thinks). When censorship threatens speech or the 4th amendment is impinged they don't scream as loudly as they do when they might have reduced access to toys that KILL PEOPLE.

Of all the amendments, the 2nd seems both the most vague and the most explicit. The statement on arms is so non-specific as to be infinitely interpretable, thus allowing lots of wiggle room as to both freedom and restraint of freedom. Yet the language about the militia is fairly specific as to context. I happen to not believe the 2nd amendment has anything to do with being able to own any old weapon you want in any circumstance, and I don't think even strict restrictions contravene the second amendment, so long as citizens retain some reasonable access to firearms for their primary recognized social and cultural purposes: hunting and self-defense.

Historically it is indeed tied inextricably to the defense of the nation via the militia and the early lack of a formal military. When your military and police forces are all impromptu and relatively green, self-defense is critically important, as is the ability to be drafted in to support the military in defense of the nation. These days there are much more strict lines of both authority and practicality between the average civilian and police and military forces. Despite how high our gun violence rates (and general violence rates) are compared to many other modern, first world nations, those rates are still far lower than 50 or 100 or 150 years ago. This raises the question of whether the general populace has as pronounced a need for guns for the purpose of self-defense as it might once have.

Further complicating all of this is a lack of solid data about guns in the role of self-defense. Do they occasionally serve that role? Absolutely. But there's no way to tell how many lives have or have not been saved. Guns are a deterrent to crime, in a sense, but have they saved as many lives, operating in civilian hands, as they have taken via accidents? No way to know, ever. We can only ever be even remotely certain of the numbers on one side of that equation.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... lf-defense

[DinnerX]

Nobody is coming after your guns people, calm down. :/

I think you are correct, but...

There are many people who have an irrational hatred and fear of firearms. Guns are frequently portrayed negatively in the media. People who like guns are often stereotyped and mocked as either hillbillies or maniacs. Gun owners certainly haven't gained any ground with the public's opinions in recent decades and that is likely to continue. The general feeling is that every regulation that passes is one step closer to bans. That may not be true, but that's the feeling.

A disturbing rhetoric is that gun owners don't "need" guns, so any regulations or bans are fine. It concerns me greatly because of the distrust it shows and the precedence it sets. It seems if some people don't trust part of the population with a right they'd be willing to remove the right from all of us. If they feel threatened by something another smaller group enjoys, but doesn't "need," the government is free to regulate and ban.

The same sort of concerning thoughts are, hilariously, displayed by the other side of the guns debate as well. They don't trust people with violent media and think it's fine to highly regulate or ban it.