• 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

ImaginalDisc said:
We already have such a system in place. It's not all that effective in preventing gun crime, it's just helpful in aprehending people sometimes. A gun that's illegally resold isn't going to be tracked that way.
Click to expand...

Theres the rub. I remember a post where someone said that most criminals got their guns from friends/family. Now if you track those guns and bad guy does bad with said gun, then freinds/family should also be punished. Soon enuff freinds/family wont be so eagar to turn over a gun cause theyll get in trouble if something bad happens.

Whats so wrong about that?
 
Tmy said:
Theres the rub. I remember a post where someone said that most criminals got their guns from friends/family. Now if you track those guns and bad guy does bad with said gun, then freinds/family should also be punished. Soon enuff freinds/family wont be so eagar to turn over a gun cause theyll get in trouble if something bad happens.

Whats so wrong about that?
Click to expand...

Cars.

I let my freind drive my car for a day, while he "goes to look for a job". Meanwhile, he robs a bank. Should I get busted for my freind's crime? He used my car to commit it. What about my friend using my phone and computer to commit wire fraud? Why should guns be special before the law?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Automatic weapons aren't a ulitiarian tool for civilians, and jeopordize the monopoly on force that governments depend on. Our police and military are the only two group authorized to use force, and they're both tightly regulated. Civilians with hardware of the magnitude those two have access to is a problem.
QUOTE]

Actually, police and the government are not the only ones allowed to use force in the USA. Armed civilians can and do use firearms to defend themselves. Do you actually want to live in a country where the no one but the government and the police can use force of any kind?

But I do have to agree that criminal ownership of automatic weapons is a problem. But it is not a big enough problem that would require a complete monopoly on the use of force by the government.

Ranb
Click to expand...
 
Actually, police and the government are not the only ones allowed to use force in the USA. Armed civilians can and do use firearms to defend themselves. Do you actually want to live in a country where the no one but the government and the police can use force of any kind?

But I do have to agree that criminal ownership of automatic weapons is a problem. But it is not a big enough problem that would require a complete monopoly on the use of force by the government.

Ranb
Click to expand...

The police and military have a monopoly on force, self defence is sort of a force cottage industry. It's force for personnal use only. You don't have any authority to, for example, hunt down the guy who mugged you last year, bash his door in, and arrest him. Only the cops have the authority to use that kind of force.
 
Apparently there are still people who don't understand the maxim "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns". Gun control is relevant to whether the protestors have guns, as presumably they are obeying the law. It's largely irrelevant to whether criminals have guns, because they, by definition, do not obey the law.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
The police and military have a monopoly on force, self defence is sort of a force cottage industry. It's force for personnal use only. You don't have any authority to, for example, hunt down the guy who mugged you last year, bash his door in, and arrest him. Only the cops have the authority to use that kind of force.
Click to expand...

Well, once again I have to agree with a portion of your post, but exactly what is your definition of the word "force" when you use the word on this forum? I was going with the general definition in my dictionary; capacity to persuade or convince, or compell. You seem to be using a more more narrow definition such as "military strength".

Ranb
 
MWare said:
Peace through superior firepower? Is this still valid in a civilized society? I grew up in the inner city surrounded by a lot of guns. I never saw or heard of one protecting anybody, though I saw a lot of damage inflicted with them. I don't go to protests (even for things I believe in) but the ones I usually see involve large amounts of police who are there specifically to maintain order. Are there protests where a tire-iron wielding group can "rumble" Outsiders-style with protesters thus justifying those (who apparently want to preserve life and the environment) protesters feeling the need to be armed? A lot of the initial anecdote doesn't really pass muster with me, but the cases of gun possession defusing rather than enflaming a situation are a minority in my personal experience.

I still haven't made up my mind about gun control in the US, but I sincerely hope that the debate isn't settled by quotes from "A Fistful of Dollars".
Click to expand...

Although I certainly agree that many people with firearms DON'T know what they're doing (as we can see by the many accidental firearm deaths) - there are some mature and responsible gun owners. I live in a concealed-carry state and there are stringent rules one must follow and submit to in order to carry a concealed firearm. Just before Christmas in Albuquerque (New Mexico) a woman was accosted by men armed with knives attempting to rob her (or rape her) in a parking lot. Luckily for her a person with a concealed-carry permit was nearby and killed her attacker while holding the rest for police.

As you might imagine, he was arrested and later cleared for justifiable self-defense. Another instance (here in NM) involving firearms saved the life of a four year old girl who was being attacked by two stray dogs (one a pit bull). A neighbor ran inside for a rifle and shot both dogs before the girl was killed although she was severely mangled and will undoubtedly undergo many years of plastic surgery.

There is an obvious difference between guns in the inner-city and guns in wide open spaces (like New Mexico). Here, there is a long tradition of gun ownership and because guns can be so prevalent in family life/culture, most responsible "gun families" handle all firearms with respect. I'll definitely assert that there are mature, responsible gun owners in the inner-city, but I'll have to admit that their firearms are likely more geared toward self-preservation and home-defense than long distance target shooting or hunting.
 
Last edited:
Mephisto said:
There's an old saying here in the Wild West, "It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one."
Click to expand...
"God didn't make men equal. Samuel Colt did."

One of my all-time favorite sayings. :)
 
ImaginalDisc said:
The police and military have a monopoly on force, self defence is sort of a force cottage industry. It's force for personnal use only. You don't have any authority to, for example, hunt down the guy who mugged you last year, bash his door in, and arrest him. Only the cops have the authority to use that kind of force.
Click to expand...
No, but I do have the authority to use force as necessary to prevent immediate harm to myself or others.
 
Freakshow said:
No, but I do have the authority to use force as necessary to prevent immediate harm to myself or others.
Click to expand...

Yes, your authorization of force is highly restricted. The government controls the application of force. All governments do to some degree.
 
Tricky said:
But there's another saying:

"When you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail."
Click to expand...

I agree, but only to those who believe every nail must conform and be flush with the surface - most gun owners I know can tell the difference between a hammer and a firearm, and most know that you can't just shoot someone because their head is flat!
 
Mephisto said:
I agree, but only to those who believe every nail must conform and be flush with the surface - most gun owners I know can tell the difference between a hammer and a firearm, and most know that you can't just shoot someone because their head is flat!
Click to expand...
:eek: We can't? Geez, and I was planning on going out and shooting a bunch of flat-headed people today. Bummer. :(
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Yes, your authorization of force is highly restricted. The government controls the application of force. All governments do to some degree.
Click to expand...
Yes, but your post implied that no one but the government every has any authorization to use force. I might have been reading it incorrectly, so that might not have been your actual meaning.
 
What worries me is the way that in the US dad`s like to bond with their sons by taking them into the woods to pop the heads off a few inoffensive furry animals. Where I live, we`re more likely to buy them a pet rabbit to teach them resbonsibility and caring skills, instead of teaching them how to blow a bunnys` brains out at 20 paces.
Just a thought.
 
Miggins said:
What worries me is the way that in the US dad`s like to bond with their sons by taking them into the woods to pop the heads off a few inoffensive furry animals. Where I live, we`re more likely to buy them a pet rabbit to teach them resbonsibility and caring skills, instead of teaching them how to blow a bunnys` brains out at 20 paces.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
How about going out to shoot at paper targets, instead?

And what if they eat the animal they kill?
 
Miggins said:
What worries me is the way that in the US dad`s like to bond with their sons by taking them into the woods to pop the heads off a few inoffensive furry animals. Where I live, we`re more likely to buy them a pet rabbit to teach them resbonsibility and caring skills, instead of teaching them how to blow a bunnys` brains out at 20 paces.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Your gross generalization about Americans hasn't been experienced by this American, and in an area where hunting is popular. I would be surprised if 20 percent of folks hunt, heck 5 percent in the US.


Edited to add I'm surprised

from: http://federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html

Hunting — Six percent of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, over 13 million people, hunted in 2001. They spent an average of 18 days pursuing their sport. The number of all hunters declined by 7% from 1996 to 2001 and there was a 12% drop in expenditures (not a statistically significant change).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious if there's anyone out here who isn't either a serious left-wing anti-gun person or serious right-wing pro-gun person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom