• 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.

Why Gun Control Works

Tony

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
15,410
Full Article http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29588


Why gun control works
Posted: November 8, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Gun enthusiasts aggravated with liberal gun-control politicians in Washington and the states need to understand that they who seek to stifle your constitutional right to keep and bear arms are only interested in your safety.

It's true. We all realize that deep down our politicians care about us and don't want to see us gunned down in our prime, leaving behind loved ones who depend on us for nurturing, livelihood and parenting.

So it's important for as many of us as possible to support gun-control initiatives designed to disarm law-abiding Americans ? you know, because they make us safer and because they're so successful. The socially responsible site Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed has compiled some persuasive reasons why gun control works so well.

After all, reasonable people know that police officers in New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C., need to carry firearms because total gun bans in those cities are so effective.

And isn't Washington, D.C.'s low murder rate of 69 people per 100,000 due to strict gun control, while Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 people per 100,000 due to a distinct lack of gun control?

It's true, isn't it, that statistics showing high murder rates justify more restrictions, while statistics showing increasing murder rates after strict gun control is imposed are "only statistics."

Yes, gun control has an exemplary record of achievement in public safety. Everybody realizes that the more helpless you are, the safer you are from those who mean you harm. That's why a woman who is strangled is morally superior to a woman holding a smoking gun with a dead rapist at her feet.

There is also much to be said about the various experts who trumpet gun control ? experts like the New England Journal of Medicine, which of course is filled with as much authoritative gun advice as Guns & Ammo is with theses on heart surgery and bowel resections.

And naturally, gun control is legal because the Second Amendment ? ratified in 1787 ? doesn't refer to "the people," it refers to the "National Guard," which was created in 1917, 130 years later.

That's because the National Guard ? partially funded with federal tax dollars, stationed on bases owned by the federal government, using federal weapons and vehicles, and bearing uniforms with "United States" nametapes ? is a "state militia."

We must also realize that gun rights are also not constitutionally protected. That's because these constitutional phrases ? "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and, "the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" ? all refer to individuals, while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a collectivist, states-only right.

........
 
Tony,

You posted an article yet forgot to comment on it.

Why did you post it ?

Do you agree that the points listed indicate gun control is good ?
Do you find it funny and think it points out how silly gun control is ?
Do you see an article that could have very easily been written the other way round pointing out where allowing every one a gun has failed ?
Or perhaps you find it ironic that most Americans do not favour gun control yet are about to go to war over someone exercising the international equivalent of the second amendment……………………

No, I know you want to start a gun debate thread because there hasn’t been one for 5 minutes.
 
Benjamin Franklin said it best: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
 
Tony said:
I wasnt aware of that, Ill take this into account in the future.

No sweat... I've made the same mistake in the past. :)
Just wanted to let you know.

You may wish to edit your post accordingly; the mods will ask you to do so when they see it. ;)
 
Gun control is not banning guns

A commonly used straw dog

Gun control is and could be a wide variety of methods and processes. To say that it does or will mean the banning of all guns is simply too simpleminded and the connection should be dropped in any serious exchange.

I am sure that there are those that would advocate that as the ultimate gun control but that would be an extreme. There are others who would opt for moderate gun control.

The question "What, if any, gun control would you advocate" has been posed to Firearm Advocates (for lack of a better term) on this board and I have yet to see anyone answer that. I have seen a lot of conflicting anecdotes about criminals and conflicting statistics.

Gun control could exist without banning anything. It could be that people would have to be trained and qualified for certain weapons.

Gun control may not be desirable in any form, yet I haven't seen anyone step up to that bar either. Does anyone want to speak to this.

Are there acceptible methods of gun control?

Bentspoon
 
I am supposedly pro gun control for my views. I believe that unless you are a current LEO (law enforcement officer) or military/veteran, you should be required to take a class to be able to purchase firearms.

In general, a hunter's safety class should be required to purchase long guns and a tactical pistol class should be required to purchase a handgun.

I don't believe that the "militia" part of the second amendment is a condition. However, I believe that in the spirit of the founder's intent, we shouldn't let people own firearms if they are have no safety or usage training and therefore would be of no use to a militia.

With freedom comes responsibility.
 
Gun control...

...means hitting what you aim at.
I can't wait to get new glasses!
 
The question "What, if any, gun control would you advocate" has been posed to Firearm Advocates (for lack of a better term) on this board and I have yet to see anyone answer that.

Ok, I'll bite. ;)

All citizens 18yrs old or older (under 18 with adult supervision) can purchase a firearm, with the exception of the following:

Violent felons
Mentally ill

All firearms up to and including .50 caliber are legal, with no restrictions on cosmetic features, magazine capacity, cyclic rate, etc.

Nationally recognized shall-issue CCW permit law. You must take a class and pass an exam (maybe another background check) to qualify for the permit, which will be legal in every state.
 
John Harrison said:

Nationally recognized shall-issue CCW permit law. You must take a class and pass an exam

We know a lot more about guns that during the revolution. I would prefer a class to be able to purchase period. Without safety and usage training, you would be of no benefit to a militia should there ever be need to form one.
 
John Harrison said:


Ok, I'll bite. ;)

All citizens 18yrs old or older (under 18 with adult supervision) can purchase a firearm, with the exception of the following:

Violent felons
Mentally ill

All firearms up to and including .50 caliber are legal, with no restrictions on cosmetic features, magazine capacity, cyclic rate, etc.

Nationally recognized shall-issue CCW permit law. You must take a class and pass an exam (maybe another background check) to qualify for the permit, which will be legal in every state.


Okay, that's all perfectly fine. I agree completely that there are folks out there who under no circumstances should be allowed to have guns. I'm sure that we'll be as successful in keeping weapons out of their hands as we are in keeping drugs out of our prisons.

This is my ONE big beef with gun-control laws: they are most effective only in keeping weapons from those people who are inclined to obey the law, and not be a problem in the first place. Criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get guns, without a thought about legality.
 
This is my ONE big beef ...........

This is my ONE big beef with gun-control laws: they are most effective only in keeping weapons from those people who are inclined to obey the law, and not be a problem in the first place. Criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get guns, without a thought about legality.

This is my ONE big beef with (Pick from list A) laws: they are most effective only in keeping (Pick corresponding from list B) from those people who are inclined to obey the law, and not be a problem in the first place. Criminals will ALWAYS find ways to (pick correspondingb from List C), without a thought about legality

List A
=====
1) pedophilia
2) meth lab
3) Marijuana
4) minimum age for cigarette
5) speed limit
6) hate laws

List B
=========
1) naked children
2) meth manufacturing paraphernalia
3) pot
4) cigarettes
5) high speeds
6) incivility

List C
=========
1) ◊◊◊◊ children
2) manufacture meth
3) smoke or sell
4) get cigarettes while under age
5) drive too fast
6) burn crosses


I could have a hundred more tomorrow. Why have laws at all. They will only be broken by the bad guys while the good guys will be perfect.


why have laws at all?? I think this line of reasoning is flawed.

Bentspoon
 
We need laws becasue they can both protect and facilitate our lives, our freedoms and our property. However when laws do preform this simple task, or when they interfre unduly with any of the three above, they must be branded unjust, and cast aside like any broken or useless tool.
 
Re: This is my ONE big beef ...........

Bentspoon said:




I could have a hundred more tomorrow. Why have laws at all. They will only be broken by the bad guys while the good guys will be perfect.


why have laws at all?? I think this line of reasoning is flawed.

Bentspoon

Okay, I understand what you're saying. BUT...

I would draw a distinction between a tool and any possible illegal act that anyone might perform with it. Murder is illegal, and I recommend that it remain so, but should all instruments that could be used to inflict death be restricted? Making kiddie porn is illegal, and I'd use one of my controversial guns on anyone I catch doing it, but in the effort to eliminate it should we limit who gets to own video recorders? And on and on. My point is, a gun is a thing, a tool of very specialized purpose, and we have many laws against the abuse of that purpose. But I think it's an insult to a person's integrity to, in effect, presuppose criminal activity by responsible adults simply on the basis of their ownership of a dangerous item.
Listen, I have an anecdote:
A couple months back, a young girl in town was shot and killed by her older brother. He'd gotten in trouble for packing earlier; this time he had his dad's pistol, and was goofing around with it. He got the gun from where it was on a shelf, unsecured.
The thing is, their dad is a sherriff's deputy; the gun was his backup service piece. A person who is expected to posess a weapon and use and keep it responsibly acted in terrible negligence, and his cute little daughter died for it.
Yes, a trigger lock would have prevented a tragedy. They were available to this officer free of charge from his department.

Laws alone will never force responsible behavior from fundamentally irresponsible people.
 
Actually Kiri .....

If you're still reading these posts:

I think you were quite generous with me. The analogies in my last post had problems that could have been pointed out. However, I appreciate that you saw through the flaws in the analogies to see my point

For one thing, nobody could claim a right to molest children or that molesting children could be used to legitimately protect yourself. Firearms would possess these characteristics, making the analogy flawed.

However. I still think I made the point and it was a good one. Thanks for addressing the point and not the flaws.

Bentspoon
 
Re: Actually Kiri .....

Bentspoon said:
If you're still reading these posts:

I think you were quite generous with me. The analogies in my last post had problems that could have been pointed out. However, I appreciate that you saw through the flaws in the analogies to see my point

For one thing, nobody could claim a right to molest children or that molesting children could be used to legitimately protect yourself. Firearms would possess these characteristics, making the analogy flawed.

However. I still think I made the point and it was a good one. Thanks for addressing the point and not the flaws.

Bentspoon

You're quite welcome, and thank you in turn!
This is a complex and divisive issue, so I appreciate the opprtunity to discuss it without rancor. I don't know if we managed to change anyone's mind, but I'd say that any debate that doesn't end in a screaming match can be called successful.

(I've been married for a LONG time to an intelligent and perceptive woman: I know how to argue like a gentleman! ;) )
 
Everyone had a gun!

The only solution to this, is that all adults be issued a .22 caliber pistol and ammo on their 18th birthday during a mandatory fire arms safety course. That way, everyone will have a gun, and if they don't thats because they broke the law. That way, lawbreakers won't have guns, and family disputes can be settled immediatly!
 
Re: Everyone had a gun!

NullPointerException said:
The only solution to this, is that all adults be issued a .22 caliber pistol and ammo on their 18th birthday during a mandatory fire arms safety course. That way, everyone will have a gun, and if they don't thats because they broke the law. That way, lawbreakers won't have guns, and family disputes can be settled immediatly!

Hey, I got mine already!
This would create a rather Darwinian weeding-out of all who would turn first to violence for conflict resolution... Remember, you're far more likely to be shot by a family member!
 

Back
Top Bottom