• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun Control Proposal

Bikewer said:
Concealed carry has had little or no effect on street crime. There have been instances where armed individuals have defended themselves against carjackers or armed robbers, but these are statistically rare.
Click to expand...
Are you speaking specifically of your jurisdiction or in general? If it's a general statement, I'd love to see the numbers which make you believe that.


MikeG said:
Maybe they should try anything. Anything at all, other than carry on doing something which so clearly isn't working. They're very much looking like slow learners in this field at the moment.
Click to expand...
Which other government has been set up specifically as "from the people, by the people, for the people" and stated in nearly as importantly a manner, the specific civil right of all citizens the right to be armed, exactly?

That's what is constantly mentioned but nearly always ignored in these discussions. IT. ***********. MATTERS. You cannot just claim that "oh, Switzerland did it, so can the US!" trololololthe US SUXXORZ

The United States is a relatively young country which deliberately set out to make a government that has never been seen before in history. THIS. MATTERS. Yes, that's right. In this case, I am claiming American Exceptionalism. Like it or not, the United States is an outlier in a huge number of vital statistics. We just do not cluster around the rest of Europe, say; universal health (mental health) care, number of guns privately owned, outrageous income disparities, and so on. Focusing solely on guns, IMO, is like passing law after law trying to prevent the carpets from getting wet while the house is on fire.


Horatius said:
This is, once again, an example of how Americans seem to believe that rules which have been successfully applied in other countries could not, for some reason, possibly work in the US.
Click to expand...
Yup. See above.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Guns aren't toys, of course.

Not sure what you meant, but it was a strange way to put it.

I shoot as a hobby, but my guns still are not toys.
Click to expand...
For many people they are toys, as evidenced by the childish way people treat them. Accidental shootings all too often come from "fooling around" with a firearm.
I started shooting handguns in about 1980 at age 12 or 13.
Click to expand...
1965, age 14, hand guns and long guns, under the supervision of a medically retired Marine.
The only living things I have shot above plant life are some turtles a land owner asked me to shoot/thin out, as they had taken over his farm pond.

And that was within the last few years.

Prior to that, strictly paper and plinking.

I feel like an easy gun control target.
Click to expand...
I've using firearms in combat.
 
Horatius said:
Again, a perfectly reasonable and workable system, that's by and large effective, but again, rejected by Americans under the belief that it just couldn't work, for some reason.
Click to expand...
The USA is not Canada. Nor is it Europe. You cannot assume that what works for Canada or Europe will work for the USA. They are different countries with different cultures, and that must be taken into account. The fact that you're willing to so blithely dismiss this, and to take such an antagonistic tone while doing so, suggests that this is more of an ideological than a practical issue for you.

Gawdzilla Sama said:
For many people they are toys, as evidenced by the childish way people treat them.
Click to expand...
There are firearms in 1 out of every 3 homes in the USA, at minimum. You hear about the ones that get hurt because someone acts stupidly; it is a serious error (a specific logical fallacy, in fact) to assume that those you hear about are representative of the whole. Growing up practically everyone had a gun, and I can't remember an accidental shooting that wasn't with a BB gun in my generation or the one before (in my grandfather's time there were a few hunting accidents that involved humans).

And it's not really over toys. It's over the question of what the government is and is not allowed to do. Owning firearms is not a violation of anyone's rights. Using them in peaceful ways (including displaying them, carrying them, hunting, target shooting, etc) is not a violation of anyone's rights. Therefore the government doesn't get to say we aren't allowed to do either of those things. Again, "Innocent until proven guilty" is the standard, not whatever social engineering goal someone opts to push for.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Error? Dead kids are not errors.
Click to expand...

The specific fallacy is called the Clinician Fallacy. Your data is quite obviously skewed, giving you a distorted perception of reality. The fact that you hide behind corpses of children to avoid that fact is rather reprehensible (and, if you understand demographics, very ignorant).

This is why I hate these debates; this isn't logic or reason, it's an emotional appeal designed to distract people from the fact that your reasoning is invalid. I'd say it's boarderline emotionally abusive, in as much as it attempts to frame those who disagree with you as baby killers.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Error? Dead kids are not errors.
Click to expand...

Except a lot of times when the "toys" thing is brought up it's not about anybody dying or even accidental discharge - it's about infantilizing (screw you spellcheck, that is a word) adults who have done nothing wrong and don't want to be forced to give up their legally-owned property because of someone else's actions, so that one side of the debate can feel superior and ignore everything the other side says.
 
Dinwar said:
The specific fallacy is called the Clinician Fallacy. Your data is quite obviously skewed, giving you a distorted perception of reality. The fact that you hide behind corpses of children to avoid that fact is rather reprehensible (and, if you understand demographics, very ignorant).
Click to expand...
Tell me where I get my data, please.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
You mean both sides.
Click to expand...

Only one side refers to the other as "kids with their toys", which is what I was referring to.

There are a lot of talking points in the pro-side that drive me bananas, as well as posters I really wish weren't on my side, but I don't have any obligation to use some sort of Fairness Doctrine here.
 
Polaris said:
Only one side refers to the other as "kids with their toys", which is what I was referring to.
Click to expand...
You put that in quotes. Got a link?
There are a lot of talking points in the pro-side that drive me bananas, as well as posters I really wish weren't on my side, but I don't have any obligation to use some sort of Fairness Doctrine here.
Click to expand...

Well, both sides drive me nuts.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
You put that in quotes. Got a link?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

A quote for a theme that's been expressed over umpteen threads spanning thousands of pages going back for years? I'm not going to play games - you know exactly what I'm talking about.
 
Crossbow said:
What if the gun is being sold?
Taken out for repairs?
Being brought home from the gun store?
Being given to someone as a present?

All of these actions will require transport of some sort or another.
Click to expand...
Transport is by definition not carrying. All states (except maybe New Jersey) have laws that define what is legal transport and not carry. In Illinois it just has to be unloaded and in a case, no requirement that it be locked or even a gun case. A glove compartment fits the criteria. A loaded magazine is OK as long as it's not in the gun, and it can even be in the same case.

But as to the OP, it's blatantly unconstitutional and requires the repeal of the 2ndA.
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Gun owners frequently admit that they're right on the verge of lawlessness, "pry it from my cold dead fingers" mode, so the law would have to have teeth. Otherwise they'll disregard the law the way they disregard public safety.
Click to expand...


On the verge is not over it.

OTOH gunbanners have frequently used the Ken Ham: "If I owned a gun nothing would stop me from killing people"

Hence my gun control proposal: Anyone who thinks guns should be banned should not be allowed to have one
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
For many people they are toys, as evidenced by the childish way people treat them. Accidental shootings all too often come from "fooling around" with a firearm.1965, age 14, hand guns and long guns, under the supervision of a medically retired Marine.
I've using firearms in combat.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the M16 and M60 myself, but not in combat.

Combat eh? You definitely need a mental eval to own a gun then. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom