Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all.

here are my initial thoughts/rants....
why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand.
-background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks.  on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people.  the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot.
-it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too.
-most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up.
-a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here.
a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc.
sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun.
-while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. (they actively raid people they think have guns)(there are cultural components too... i'm not sure we could ever get it down as far as japan just based on culture etc alone, but it's an idea, step in the right direction) i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder  of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns. 
sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun.
-in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.//
-so when people say "guns don't kill people people kill people" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway.
-i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least.
-i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights.
if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?

Edited January 10, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[fides' Jack]

Well, I can't say that I've read your whole post, and I can't say that I've been keeping up on the political points being made in the media lately.

 

I can say with absolute certainty that more control from the government is bad.  Of course there's the old saying, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns", and that's true to an extent, but I do believe that more control from the government can certainly bring that number down.

 

What's the answer?  I have no idea.  I believe we're in the middle of a bad cycle - the more the government controls, the worse the economy/society get, and the more we need more and more controls over our every day actions (in the interest of public health, saving lives, etc...).  At some point, though, it's got to stop, or it will implode.  At some point we'll realize that we've given up all these freedoms, and things have only gotten worse.

 

It's impossible to know at this point what other effects more gun control might have.  Yes, we might save lives in the immediate future, but the decision may have other repercussions later on - potential for civil war, etc...  Naturally, though, the uncertain future shouldn't have an impact on our decisions today.

 

Again, I don't know what the right answer is.  My own personal fear with more control is that the economy might collapse, and people will run rampant in the streets, and there will be riots and such, and I won't have an effective way to defend my family.  (Can't afford a gun now, or I would purchase one)

[Socrates]

Well, I can't say that I've read your whole post, and I can't say that I've been keeping up on the political points being made in the media lately.

 

I can say with absolute certainty that more control from the government is bad.  Of course there's the old saying, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns", and that's true to an extent, but I do believe that more control from the government can certainly bring that number down.

 

What's the answer?  I have no idea.  I believe we're in the middle of a bad cycle - the more the government controls, the worse the economy/society get, and the more we need more and more controls over our every day actions (in the interest of public health, saving lives, etc...).  At some point, though, it's got to stop, or it will implode.  At some point we'll realize that we've given up all these freedoms, and things have only gotten worse.

 

It's impossible to know at this point what other effects more gun control might have.  Yes, we might save lives in the immediate future, but the decision may have other repercussions later on - potential for civil war, etc...  Naturally, though, the uncertain future shouldn't have an impact on our decisions today.

 

Again, I don't know what the right answer is.  My own personal fear with more control is that the economy might collapse, and people will run rampant in the streets, and there will be riots and such, and I won't have an effective way to defend my family.  (Can't afford a gun now, or I would purchase one)

 

I didn't read the dairy post either, but the "answer" is a return to morality and personal responsibility.

 

Of course, that answer is not politically correct or popular, as it does not involve some easy handy legislation to increase the power of government over citizens or spend more of their tax dollars to "save" them from themselves.

 

 

Much more than the few high-media-profile murders touted by polemicists as evidence of a need for revoking second-amendment rights, guns regularly deter or prevent crimes many times every year.  (i recently read of a case where so-called "assault rifles" with high-capacity magazines were used to successfully defend against a violent murder attempt in one's home.)

 

You can't legislate away violence, evil, and depravity anyway, and there are many ways of killing without guns.  Sickos looking to indiscriminately kill crowds or buildings full of people (such as the Connecticut and recent Aurora, CO killings) can easily commit their carnage with home-made bombs and such.  Remember, the 9-11 slaughter, and many other deadly terrorist acts were committed without guns.  The one time I was nearly the victim of random violence, it was not with a gun, but some demented woman using simple gasoline and matches to commit arson and burn down an apartment building.

 

I just wrote on the right to bear arms and issues of defense here, so I'll give a link, rather than repeat myself - http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/126257-hello-pham/?p=2531309

Edited January 10, 2013 by Socrates

[Nihil Obstat]

Why would anybody ever need to own a gun for self-defense, amirite guise?

 

 

 

 

 

[4588686]

Again, I don't know what the right answer is.  My own personal fear with more control is that the economy might collapse, and people will run rampant in the streets, and there will be riots and such, and I won't have an effective way to defend my family.  (Can't afford a gun now, or I would purchase one)

 

I remember how all that over regulation made the economy collapse in 2008.  Oh, wait.  

[PhuturePriest]

Why would anybody ever need to own a gun for self-defense, amirite guise?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take it these are actual pictures and not just a movie? Where is this? Korea?

 

And also, why on earth are Asians fighting with guns? They don't need them! Karatemen can easily just deflect bullets with their hands, or with their minds for the more skilled masters.

[Fidei Defensor]

Guns were created to kill. There is no denying this or sweeping it under the rug. This is what illuminates my opinions on the matter. Guns are and will always be a tool used for death.

[Nihil Obstat]

I take it these are actual pictures and not just a movie? Where is this? Korea?

 

And also, why on earth are Asians fighting with guns? They don't need them! Karatemen can easily just deflect bullets with their hands, or with their minds for the more skilled masters.

Those are pictures of primarily Korean store owners during the LA riots, where police proved themselves to be unwilling and unable to keep them safe from rioters and looters.

The middle of Los Angeles.

[PhuturePriest]

Those are pictures of primarily Korean store owners during the LA riots, where police proved themselves to be unwilling and unable to keep them safe from rioters and looters.

The middle of Los Angeles.

 

The LA riots? I've never heard of them before.

[4588686]

The LA riots? I've never heard of them before.

 

Some white cops beat the hell of a black man and were acquitted which sparked race and class based riots in LA in the early 90's 

[PhuturePriest]

Some white cops beat the hell of a black man and were acquitted which sparked race and class based riots in LA in the early 90's 

 

Race and class-based riots? That's not news.

[Nihil Obstat]

When society breaks down and goes to hell all around you, in a city that is supposedly at the height of enlightened, western culture, it should be a wake-up call.

[PhuturePriest]

When society breaks down and goes to hell all around you, in a city that is supposedly at the height of enlightened, western culture, it should be a wake-up call.

 

Just so you are aware, I would be propping your posts had I the ability.

[Nihil Obstat]

:like3:

 

 

Luckily my outlook is not actually quite this dark. The light at the end of the tunnel here is what I was getting at originally, and one of the reasons that those pictures kind of resonate with me.

 

Even though society had fallen apart and self destructed all around them, even though the 'authorities' could not and would not help, even though left and right they were losing their livelihoods to violent people, they themselves on their own initiative maintained a certain level of sanity both for themselves and their family and friends. They brought order back, at least a semblance of it, in a situation where it should have been impossible to do so. They refused to let violence take over, so they resisted it. And I think they won an important moral victory in a landscape scorched by racism and thuggery. They defended their dignity and rights by supporting each other.

[ardillacid]

looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all.

here are my initial thoughts/rants....
why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand.
-background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks.  on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people.  the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot.
-it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too.
-most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up.
-a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here.
a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc.
sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun.
-while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. (they actively raid people they think have guns)(there are cultural components too... i'm not sure we could ever get it down as far as japan just based on culture etc alone, but it's an idea, step in the right direction) i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder  of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns. 
sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun.
-in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.//
-so when people say "guns don't kill people people kill people" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway.
-i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least.
-i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights.
if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?