I'm all for gun control

[jj]

It's stupid to just stop there. Think of all the damage and suffering that could be avoided if that policy were expanded to it's natural conclusion? Every single person should undergo periodic and extensive psychological evaluation, and their privileges adjusted depending on how they test. Anyone showing even the slightest affection for children should be prohibited from being allowed to work with them (actually, this would explain many of my teachers). Anyone who shows even the slightest tendency toward violence should be immediately sent to re-education camps. Anyone with who shows a prediliction for drug use should be subjected to weekly drug testing. Anyone with anti-authoritarian attitude should be prohibited from any sort of public expression of opinion. Anyone with homosexual tendencies should be institutionalized for proper therapy. Anyone with even the slightest tendency toward libertarianism should be hauled out into the streets and shot.

Thought Police FTW!

Of course, I said nothing of the sort, either.

It's amazing how people can't actually handle what's actually said, and have to run around in an obvious panic trying to "define the debate".

 

[jj]

You are obviously trying to provoke a hostile reaction from people or else you would have not used the language "murder and maim". Where I come from this practice is known as "trolling".

So, "trolling" in your lexicon means "something we can misinterpret in order to pick a fight with".

Gotcha.

 

[Ranb]

.....In fact, my point was that the bar should be very, very low, and what's funny is that it's the pro-gun people who are going ballistic here.

This may be a bit off topic, but how do you feel about the WA state ban on certain title 2 weapons; the kind legal owners of never commit violent crime with?

Ranb

 

[jj]

This may be a bit off topic, but how do you feel about the WA state ban on certain title 2 weapons; the kind legal owners of never commit violent crime with?

Ranb

OOOOgaaahh OOOOgaaahhh! LITMUS TEST INCOMING!!!!

Ok, tell me about it.

 

[kallsop]

I think everyone who wants to get a gun should have to watch a half-hour film on what guns do to people, and I mean up close, including the big exit holes, the blood, the crying relatives, etc.

Sounds good, followed by a video of a home invasion and murder of a family that didn't own a gun for self defense. If there's still time, show a partial birth abortion too.

 

[Ranb]

OOOOgaaahh OOOOgaaahhh! LITMUS TEST INCOMING!!!!

Ok, tell me about it.

Tell you about your feelings? I think not. I was looking for your version.

Ranb

 

[jj]

Tell you about your feelings? I think not. I was looking for your version.

Ranb

So, you don't want to inform me about this gun law that you're throwing at me as a litmus test?

Awww. Why not?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

In the US, where most of this gun-control stuff is centered, you are still innocent until proven guilty, right?

I drool (metaphorically speaking) when I look at steaks. I love steak, and I don't get it often, which kind of whets that particular desire to a pretty sharp edge.

I still never steal steaks.

While I suspect that the people who might be aroused or drool hungrily at people being shot, in fact, don't worry much about trying to possess firearms legally, until such time as someone does something illegal, they're weird and sort of... Eeeew... but still law-abiding. As long as they remain law-abiding, there's no reason not to allow them to have a firearm.

Now, perhaps if you were to propose a law against drooling and getting turned on at the movie, and then find some way around all those messy and awkward 'probable cause' and 'self incrimination' things, you might be on to something.

 

[Architect]

In the US, where most of this gun-control stuff is centered, you are still innocent until proven guilty, right?

My my, innocent until proven guilt, jings I bet all us pesky citizens of the likes of the UK and Canada wished we had an idea like that....


(yawn)

 

[gtc]

My my, innocent until proven guilt, jings I bet all us pesky citizens of the likes of the UK and Canada wished we had an idea like that....


(yawn)

Not everything is about you.

His claim is that A (US) implies B (innocent until proven guilty). That does not mean that he is saying that not A implies not B.

However, the 'not proven' verdict of Scotland is quite close to labelling people guilty without proof given the stigma attached to people who recieve a 'not proven' verdict.

 

[Architect]

If the Jury thinks that the chap really didn't do it, then they always have the "Not Guilty" plea. "Not Proven" means exactly what is says on the tin.

 

[gtc]

If the Jury thinks that the chap really didn't do it, then they always have the "Not Guilty" plea.

Yes.

"Not Proven" means exactly what is says on the tin.

Precisely. Which is why the concept of innocent until proven guilty does not really apply in Scotland.

Of course, Gagglenash wasn't talking about anywhere but the US so if you want to take this discussion further, you should start a new thread.

 

[Lothian]

I don't understand gun control. Why are innocent children, the mentally ill and felons who have served their debt to society not allowed the constitutional right to protect themselves against the legally armed nutters

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

My my, innocent until proven guilt, jings I bet all us pesky citizens of the likes of the UK and Canada wished we had an idea like that....

(yawn)

Gee - then I wonder why all the gun control guys want our government to treat all gun owners as if they were already criminals?

innocent until proven guilty, or you have a gun so you're a criminal. It's gotta be one or the other.

I suppose, though, that you could change the law so that having a gun at home would be against the law, and lock all the guns up in a central arsenal...

Oh... wait... King George tried that already. That's kind of why the Second Amendment is in there in the first place - to restrain the government from removing the people's ability to resist a tyrannical government. (That's that whole, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," bit.)

So with you guys, "innocent until proven guilty," just means you can change the law so having guns is illegal and take it from there. You didn't have your firearms owners... up in arms, as it were... about the change in law, so I suspect that you all did it to yourselves.

Over here, though, it means that I have to actually DO something criminal before I can treated as a criminal.

(And please don't shoot off that, "it's not punishment to not have firearms." It's one of the penalties we impose on convicted felons, and any penalty we impose on convicted felons is pretty much by definition a punishment.)

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I don't understand gun control. Why are innocent children, the mentally ill and felons who have served their debt to society not allowed the constitutional right to protect themselves against the legally armed nutters

Ummm... because they're children, mentally ill, and felons.

As it happens, a convicted felon can apply to have his removed civil rights reinstated. It's pretty arduous, but some do it. After that, they are allowed to have guns.

As it happens, there are very few, "legally armed nutters." Nutters, as a class of citizen, tend to live on the other side of the legal-illegal line.

 

[Lothian]

Ummm... because they're children, mentally ill, and felons.

I thought children were allowed to shoot. I am sure I have seen people say they teach their kids how to shoot. Wouldn't it stop school massacres if the children were armed?

Why should people with a controlled mental illness or who have been treated be denied the right to protect themselves or it is right that they are used as human shields for the sane.

I am pleased that felons are allowed to be armed. Given the violent nature of some prisons, do you agree with me that people who are in prison for civil law offences as opposed to criminal should be allowed to take their guns into prison (obviously they would keep them locked in a cabinet in their cell). However they should be able to protect themselves if a violent prisoner break in into their cell.

Likewise for prisoners on day work release. If the streets are so violent that the public need to be armed; a prisoner deemed safe enough to be allowed out to work should be afforded the same protection and be allowed to take a gun to his workplace.

 

[SisterSmile]

How valid is the argument of "I need a gun for protection" ?
Only in the case that the gun owner is well trained in the use of his weapon (member of shooting club or hunter) can he/she be a true match against a hardened criminal who is more likely to use a gun regularly.
Armed citizens trying to defend their homes often get wounded doing so.

Furthermore, research seems to indicate that having a gun in the house is more dangerous than protective :

• A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased.
• Other studies have looked specifically at the more narrow question of keeping guns in the home for self-defense. One study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family would be killed.
• The risk of firearm-related homicide is particularly high for women, who are most likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. A 1997 study in theArchives of Internal Medicine examined risk factors for violent death of women in the home. The study found that women who were killed by a spouse, lover, or close relative usually were killed in the context of a quarrel, physical domestic fight, or assault. Homicide was frequently followed by the perpetrator committing suicide, and a handgun was the weapon most frequently used. When looking at the risk of a woman being killed at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative, the authors found that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of such a homicide.

(source : www.consumerfed.org)

It is my personal opinion that a society should try to resolve conflict, not escalate it. Weapons only lead to escalation of conflict.
As a population arms itself, criminals will counterreact with more and heavier guns.

There are alternatives for protecting your home and family against crime, like electronic alarms, video surveillance, smart locks, etc...

 

[Francesca R]

I think a lot of 'gun control' intent could be achieved without direct government involvement by simply requiring that everyone who owns a handgun carry liability insurance for it. This is similar in principal to requiring that anyone who drives a car have insurance in case they injure anyone else with their vehicle--intentionally or not. Similarly, careless gun use can injure innocent 3rd parties, and the careless users should be required to have the means to compensate the victims / heirs of victims.
What this would do is get the major insurers involved in figuring out who would be a 'low-risk' versus a 'high-risk' gun owner, and further, it would get some good analysis of what kinds of trigger locks/gun safes/safety training actually works in terms of reducing risk. All without the government dictating how higher safety levels would be attained.

I agree with that, and believe that it is one of the most sensible practical proposals.

 

[Francesca R]

I think everyone who wants to get a gun should have to watch a half-hour film on what guns do to people, and I mean up close, including the big exit holes, the blood, the crying relatives, etc.

Or better yet, should have one of their nearest and dearest gunned down so they can experience it in "meatspace"

 

[GStan]

How valid is the argument of "I need a gun for protection" ?
Only in the case that the gun owner is well trained in the use of his weapon (member of shooting club or hunter) can he/she be a true match against a hardened criminal who is more likely to use a gun regularly.
Armed citizens trying to defend their homes often get wounded doing so.

Furthermore, research seems to indicate that having a gun in the house is more dangerous than protective :

• A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased.
• Other studies have looked specifically at the more narrow question of keeping guns in the home for self-defense. One study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family would be killed.
• The risk of firearm-related homicide is particularly high for women, who are most likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. A 1997 study in theArchives of Internal Medicine examined risk factors for violent death of women in the home. The study found that women who were killed by a spouse, lover, or close relative usually were killed in the context of a quarrel, physical domestic fight, or assault. Homicide was frequently followed by the perpetrator committing suicide, and a handgun was the weapon most frequently used. When looking at the risk of a woman being killed at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative, the authors found that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of such a homicide.

(source : www.consumerfed.org)

It is my personal opinion that a society should try to resolve conflict, not escalate it. Weapons only lead to escalation of conflict.
As a population arms itself, criminals will counterreact with more and heavier guns.

There are alternatives for protecting your home and family against crime, like electronic alarms, video surveillance, smart locks, etc...

They don't only lead to conflict escalation; they also lead to conflict termination, sometimes tragically, and sometimes justifiably.

ETA: I don't see the studies you quoted as being readily available at your link, but will try to find them. However, I'm sure you are aware that correlation does not equal causation.