The Gun Law Discussion

[orion877]

How many NRA-members do you need to change a light bulb?
The answer is: MORE GUNS!

 

[A.Nonymous]

That's not true. The fact that everyone except the intended target gets shot in the vast majority of gang shootings makes this crystal clear. Nor do they have the self-discipline of military and paramilitary personnel. When's the last time you saw a street gang wearing body armor, or with a full support network for communications, logistics etc.? Sorry but that excuse is an epic fail because there's absolutely nothing to it.

Criminals today are heavily armed in many cities. I know you don't like that fact, but it's still a fact.

Saying a single word isn't proof. Look at the history of the Chicago Police Department, and its ongoing ties to the Mafia. It's well documented and very true.

Got it. One department that may be corrupt = every police department being corrupt. Makes sense to me.

I wish that was the case. But the fact is that the self-proclaimed "good cops" are in fact criminal conspirators with the crooked cops who they don't turn in, arrest or otherwise honor their oath of office about. Those "bad apples" wouldn't be there if the majority that allows them to operate with impunity wasn't equally crooked.

By and large the people I work with at my current job are hard workers. There are a couple who are complete slackers. Do I rat them all out to management? No. Because the time I spend trying to gather evidence against the lazy co-workers is wasted time that I could spend actually doing my job. I love how you just blatantly condemn every single police officer because a handful of them are corrupt. There are soldiers who are also corrupt. How do I know this? Because every single organization of a significant size has people in it who are corrupt. It's how the world works. I suppose we should also condemn every single soldier for being corrupt as well. I'm sure there are people who work for Google who are corrupt and take kickbacks, cut corners, etc.... So everyone who works for Google is corrupt as well.

Yes you can. And you would be right to do so. They're supposed to keep the peace, not terrorize innocent people.

Got it. You get crucified in the media on a regular basis, but this is supposed to have no effect on you at all. I don't think police officers "terrorize innocent people" as a matter of course.

Sweeping generalizations about undefined bogeymen, insinuations and appeals to sympathy are not the things that truth is made of. But they are all logical fallacies. And fallacies aren't true. No sale.

So you just ignore all the examples I cited. Good times.

 

[pbf98]

I'm listening to a live stream of "by the fireside" hangout with president obama right now, and currently being discussed is his proposals on his gun bans, he says a reason for banning these "assault weapons" is they have no purpose in hunting, or in home defense and that they are primarily weapons of war.

No purpose? I have one of these "assault weapons" somewhere where I have quick access to it if there is a break in. I think that a burglar seeing me staring at them down my sights of my AR shouting commands at them would put a little more fear into them than a hand gun.

Now that said a gun is a gun and any sane person would have fear put in them in that situation with any gun. But to say there is no purpose is to me saying any gun serves no purpose in home defense.

Thats same AR I can legally use for hunting big game, and guess what... I DO!

No use in hunting or home protection? I think there is..

 

[sntaylor]

Now that is pretty much the very reason that we have a hand gun ban over here (it was when I was just a child.....)

Reason being that a hand gun is meant not for sport (hunting, target or any other types) but are designed for killing another human, close range killing...regardless of wether its done in the name of protection or for any other options, a hand gun is for killing people!

This is the same reason certain knives are banned, we live in civilised times (on the whole) and there should be no reason to carry any weapon!

Please give me any other intended use of hand guns?

(PS, I apologise for my worst than usual grammar etc, I'm typing this in a very sleep deprived position thanks to my 2.5 week old son!)

 

[kool kat2]

there should be no reason to carry any weapon!)

i would not walk in certain neighborhoods without some sort of protection, even if its a knife. now i know we dont all live in dangerous neighborhoods but some people do and fear to go to the store because of the people they meet along the way. some people may actually need to use a weapon as self defense or to scare away a potential mugger or rapist or some other kind of psycho. surely thats reason enough to have weapons available. im sure there are many examples of people getting out of a bind like that due to a weapon. had they not had said weapon, they would be in a very different situation than today.


i know they say if a ban results in one life being saved its worth it. what about any lives lost due to lack of guns or other weapons?

 

[sntaylor]

i would not walk in certain neighborhoods without some sort of protection, even if its a knife. now i know we dont all live in dangerous neighborhoods but some people do and fear to go to the store because of the people they meet along the way. some people may actually need to use a weapon as self defense or to scare away a potential mugger or rapist or some other kind of psycho. surely thats reason enough to have weapons available. im sure there are many examples of people getting out of a bind like that due to a weapon. had they not had said weapon, they would be in a very different situation than today.


i know they say if a ban results in one life being saved its worth it. what about any lives lost due to lack of guns or other weapons?

I know the kind of areas, but I also find that over here at least, I can't think of many places if any that I would not go..... Surely going to an area with a weapon is not the answer, should it not be to focus on the problem and find a solution to making it a nicer area? To me saying, let's just carry a gun to protect myself, is the easy way out and it means there will inevitably be a death, this then creates a further downwards spiral where the shooter is effected mentally as are the families of both the dead and shooter.

There will always be bad places, bad people but again from an outside view, all I'm seeing is fear, and the thought that a gun is the answer!

I'm not for a complete ban on the things, hell I have an air gun myself that I enjoy shooting targets with, but certain guns that are purely designed for killing humans, wether on a mass or singular basis, should have no place in a civilised country, they are weapons of war!

A ban on these weapons would not solve everything as if course there will always be guns available on some black market or another, but the more taken off the streets the less available and that will steadily decline! During which of course there will be shooting of people and outrage saying if there was no ban it wouldn't have happened, but you gotta start somewhere!

How many on here, particularly those saying they would just shoot a shooter blah blah, have actually shot another human, and if those how many have killed the other....how would you feel if you missed and shot an innocent?

 

[Speed Daemon]

i would not walk in certain neighborhoods without some sort of protection, even if its a knife. now i know we dont all live in dangerous neighborhoods but some people do and fear to go to the store because of the people they meet along the way. some people may actually need to use a weapon as self defense or to scare away a potential mugger or rapist or some other kind of psycho. surely thats reason enough to have weapons available. im sure there are many examples of people getting out of a bind like that due to a weapon. had they not had said weapon, they would be in a very different situation than today.

That's a really good summary of the meat of the situation!

I'd like to point out that "bad neighborhoods" can come to you, so the illusion of a "safe place" has many flaws. There is always some quantifiable danger no matter where you live.

The bottom line is that humankind has never been able to create a Utopian society for any extended period of time. There will always be people with weapons of one kind or another, and hostile intentions. The most common "solution" for this perennial problem is, in essence hiring mercenaries to fight the bad guys, so that we can live hypocritically "above the fray". But this too has many unwanted consequences.

In the end, the ultimate responsibility for personal security always has been, and always lie with the person, and it doesn't matter if the weapon is a gun, a nuclear bomb or a board with a nail in it.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Reason being that a hand gun is meant not for sport (hunting, target or any other types) but are designed for killing another human, close range killing...regardless of wether its done in the name of protection or for any other options, a hand gun is for killing people!

Me thinks there are a few folks that might disagree with you. I bought my Ruger for target shooting and shooting at cans and bottles. Never had any intention of killing anyone.

 

[pbf98]

Where in the American second amendment does it say that the arms we have the right to keep and bear must be intended for sport and hunting?

Thats the thing, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing else to it but that doesn't matter what its made for, its the American way and it is how our country has been since the framework was written out. One problem is ignorant politicians that only look at the bad side of guns and think of all of them as evil killing machines. When really its not the gun, its the human behind it. Blaming the gun is like blaming a hammer for hitting your thumb and not the nail you were aiming for. They are both inanimate objects that have no brain, and can't do anything but sit there with out human interaction.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Where in the American second amendment does it say that the arms we have the right to keep and bear must be intended for sport and hunting?

Thats the thing, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing else to it but that doesn't matter what its made for, its the American way and it is how our country has been since the framework was written out. One problem is ignorant politicians that only look at the bad side of guns and think of all of them as evil killing machines. When really its not the gun, its the human behind it. Blaming the gun is like blaming a hammer for hitting your thumb and not the nail you were aiming for. They are both inanimate objects that have no brain, and can't do anything but sit there with out human interaction.

No where, that is where.

Heck, those passing assault weapons bans can't even describe an assault weapon or tell us what one is. From looking at the list, Pelosi apparently thinks it is all weapons.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Now that is pretty much the very reason that we have a hand gun ban over here (it was when I was just a child.....)

Reason being that a hand gun is meant not for sport (hunting, target or any other types) but are designed for killing another human, close range killing...regardless of wether its done in the name of protection or for any other options, a hand gun is for killing people!

This is the same reason certain knives are banned, we live in civilised times (on the whole) and there should be no reason to carry any weapon!

Please give me any other intended use of hand guns?

(PS, I apologise for my worst than usual grammar etc, I'm typing this in a very sleep deprived position thanks to my 2.5 week old son!)

If handguns are solely for "killing people" and there are MILLIONS OF THEM, why don't we have millions of gun deaths? And isn't personal protection a perfectly good reason to own a handgun?

Not too mention target shooting - which I happen to enjoy quite a bit.

 

[pbf98]

This is Diane Fienstein, one of the major role players in the gun ban making and look how careless she is holding the gun. She is violating every common sense gun safety rule there is short of looking down the barrel..

Bolt is closed
Finger is on the trigger
Pointing into the audience

And she claims she knows enough about this area to write laws about it? Yea I call BS on that..

 

[sntaylor]

Me thinks there are a few folks that might disagree with you. I bought my Ruger for target shooting and shooting at cans and bottles. Never had any intention of killing anyone.

Bad wording by me,I should have said primarily designed for killing.....which hand guns are, naturally I'm sure you could find someone who will use a machine gun or rocket launcher for target practice, this doesn't take away from their original purpose of design.

 

[sntaylor]

Where in the American second amendment does it say that the arms we have the right to keep and bear must be intended for sport and hunting?

Thats the thing, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing else to it but that doesn't matter what its made for, its the American way and it is how our country has been since the framework was written out. One problem is ignorant politicians that only look at the bad side of guns and think of all of them as evil killing machines. When really its not the gun, its the human behind it. Blaming the gun is like blaming a hammer for hitting your thumb and not the nail you were aiming for. They are both inanimate objects that have no brain, and can't do anything but sit there with out human interaction.

Where does it say in the second amendment what type of gun you must have?

As a foreigner in this debate I do find it hard to get behind the passion towards the constitution and truly understand it, there are obviously some human rights that must be protected, but in this day and age, I feel society has outgrown certain amendments/laws...... from what I can gather the second amendment is technically a law? And there are plenty of laws that will have changed over time, newer ones than those! Speed limits for a start!

"It's the American way"

I think this hits the nail on the head(forgot about your hammer thing already ), I'm looking at it from an outsiders point of view, adding a new dimension into the equation as you guys see it from a for or against argument and I'm actually in both camps and see both points!

Going back to your hammer point though.....of course it's not the hammers fault, but you wouldn't hit your thumb if you didn't have the hammer in the first place!

So let's save everyone's thumbs and ban hammers!

 

[copestag]

Im inclined to believe your premise that handguns were designed for killing......... but you have to accept that maybe they were designed for wounding

but assuming your premise is correct that handguns were designed for killing then you must also recognize that EVERY gun is designed for killing...every weapon of every type ever designed was designed for killing.... every slingshot is also designed for killing........ baseball bats were designed for killing (orignally other cavemen)..... knives were designed for killing..... etc etc etc .... you get the point..... oh and lets not forget... the javelin.... whos only modern day useage is at track and field events such as the olympics.......... designed for killing

 

[sntaylor]

If handguns are solely for "killing people" and there are MILLIONS OF THEM, why don't we have millions of gun deaths? And isn't personal protection a perfectly good reason to own a handgun?

Not too mention target shooting - which I happen to enjoy quite a bit.

Then why won't we allow other countries to have nuclear weapons? Protection is a perfectly good reason after all!

Again I'm going for a more utilitarian view point, and I feel our countries are hypocrites when telling Iran they can't have nuclear weapons but we hold them....Scotland wants rid of them( snp which is current party in power!) And I feel that's the stance we should all go for, this stands true with guns!

As for target shooting, I've already stated that I to enjoy it and would love to have a shot with a proper gun(not going to lie!)hell I'd love to shoot all kinds of guns in a safe environment, and this I'm sure is something that could still be arranged..of course if say there was a ban on guns but an exception for target ranges, the first incident would cause uproar.

It's got to be about balance and finding a way to deal with the criminal element, then many people would feel they didn't have to have a gun for protection(imo a wrong reason to have one, but I can understand!I just don't feel the need for any protection where I stay nor anywhere I visit!) And all guns would be used responsiblyand the anti gun campaign wouldn't have an argument!

 

[sntaylor]

Im inclined to believe your premise that handguns were designed for killing......... but you have to accept that maybe they were designed for wounding

but assuming your premise is correct that handguns were designed for killing then you must also recognize that EVERY gun is designed for killing...every weapon of every type ever designed was designed for killing.... every slingshot is also designed for killing........ baseball bats were designed for killing (orignally other cavemen)..... knives were designed for killing..... etc etc etc .... you get the point..... oh and lets not forget... the javelin.... whos only modern day useage is at track and field events such as the olympics.......... designed for killing

I do, and I acknowledged that guns also have other uses at shooting ranges etc, I would say that some of your examples may be very far fetched!

Primarily though, hand guns wether used for protection or not, are designed for maiming, I'm sure I've read on this forum, similar topic that aiming for limbs, although ideal, not practical, so generally they are for killing! But groups of people may use them differently, a hammer is primarily for hitting nails, but some use them for killing!

Another key point would be that hand guns were designed for killing humans, your examples although used in killing of humans, were designed for killing animals for food!

 

[copestag]

in that line of thinking one could also argue that the internet was invented for killing humans as well

after all the military didnt invent it to schedule tea parties

 

[ElasticNinja]

Then why won't we allow other countries to have nuclear weapons? Protection is a perfectly good reason after all!

Again I'm going for a more utilitarian view point, and I feel our countries are hypocrites when telling Iran they can't have nuclear weapons but we hold them....Scotland wants rid of them( snp which is current party in power!) And I feel that's the stance we should all go for, this stands true with guns!

The main hypocrisy with regard Iran is that we are sanctioning them despite them not having nukes (yet), while Israel has as many nuclear weapons as the UK, and no sanctions (not to mention they are involved in an illegal occupation etc but that is for another day).

Scotland wants rid of them but also wants 'more Europe', which means Scotland will never be free of nuclear weapons, lets be honest. There will be people in submarines underwater for months at a time carrying hundreds of warheads to protect Scotland anyway.

 

[sntaylor]

in that line of thinking one could also argue that the internet was invented for killing humans as well

after all the military didnt invent it to schedule tea parties

Flawed as it has never physically killed anyone, but it has aided in the death of many.

I wouldn't say it was designed to actually help kill anyone, but aid in defence and attack etc which does obviously involve killing people (although there could be an argument regarding where individual targets are concerned!)

 

[chrlswltrs]

Where does it say in the second amendment what type of gun you must have?

As a foreigner in this debate I do find it hard to get behind the passion towards the constitution and truly understand it, there are obviously some human rights that must be protected, but in this day and age, I feel society has outgrown certain amendments/laws...... from what I can gather the second amendment is technically a law? And there are plenty of laws that will have changed over time, newer ones than those! Speed limits for a start!

"It's the American way"

I think this hits the nail on the head(forgot about your hammer thing already ), I'm looking at it from an outsiders point of view, adding a new dimension into the equation as you guys see it from a for or against argument and I'm actually in both camps and see both points!

Going back to your hammer point though.....of course it's not the hammers fault, but you wouldn't hit your thumb if you didn't have the hammer in the first place!

So let's save everyone's thumbs and ban hammers!

First off... The second amendment is not a law, it is part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of basic human rights that every person is entitled to and can not be taken away by the government.

Yes it is correct that it doesn't say what type of guns you must have or can have. It says you can have ANY gun of your choosing. That is what the phrase "shall not be infringed" means. Technically laws that do things like ban automatic rifles are unconstitutional.

And, since you brought up hammers... If semi automatic rifles get banned then hammers should definitely be banned. More people are killed every year with hammers than rifles.

 

[sntaylor]

Is there not a law that already breaks most of those rights (patriot act or something?) And as there are restrictions on criminals or people with mental health issues does that not go against it?

One of my points was that times change, and so do bills etc!

 

[A.Nonymous]

The main hypocrisy with regard Iran is that we are sanctioning them despite them not having nukes (yet), while Israel has as many nuclear weapons as the UK, and no sanctions (not to mention they are involved in an illegal occupation etc but that is for another day).

Scotland wants rid of them but also wants 'more Europe', which means Scotland will never be free of nuclear weapons, lets be honest. There will be people in submarines underwater for months at a time carrying hundreds of warheads to protect Scotland anyway.

Israel is an ally though while Iran is openly hostile towards pretty much the entire world.

 

[copestag]

I wouldn't say it was designed to actually help kill anyone, but aid in defence and attack etc which does obviously involve killing people (although there could be an argument regarding where individual targets are concerned!)

wait its impossible to tell here......... are you talking about handguns or the internet....... because your statement accurately describes both

Is there not a law that already breaks most of those rights (patriot act or something?) And as there are restrictions on criminals or people with mental health issues does that not go against it?

One of my points was that times change, and so do bills etc!

so what youre saying is that because some laws have yet to be stricken down by a political supreme court...... then rights can be infringed?

so... just curious.... you would have the same opinion in regards to voter ID I assume?....... after all we have many laws that already infringe on the right to vote..... registration in general being the most glaring example

or the right to free speech.... we can certainly limit that however we want...... since there are some laws in place that restrict that one

or any other right for that matter......... theres laws in place that somehow limit every one of them....... does that mean they can be trampled?

times change....... rights do not

 

[sntaylor]

Well hand guns were designed for the purpose of that kill shot the internet was not!

And as for rights changing....I'm sure there are many people that would disagree, actually probably well over half of America.... Womens rights to vote, black peoples rights as a whole?

But if course rights do not change so let's go back to the days if slavery!
As to voter id, I'm not sure if the current systems in place over there, we in Britain have to register to vote, we are then sent a card out in the post with polling details, its quicker and easier to bring it, if you don't, you can still vote without giving any proof..... I don't see anything wrong with this system, as the people who work at the polling stations etc are vetted and I think are volunteers, though I could be wrong as there may be a nominal pay!