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

[Winchester]

we're not talking about any particular legislation. just the wisdom of gun controls generally etc.

even if we were talking about legislation... the most ive ever heard obama etc wants, is more checks, perhaps licences etc, and semi automatic bans. etc

(im sure you havent read the bill either per that point.... just a red herring on your part

 

i cite scientific studies and facts. you spew next to conspiracy theories about far fetched government intrusions, like so many delusional gun fanatics (reminds me of that guy who recently held the boy hostage, or the unibomber, just vague abstract grievances about the government, to give substance to your positions). and im the one who doesnt know what im talking about?

 

We are talking about legislation. That's what gun control uses to legalize aggression.

 

A ban will affect me. It's aggression. That's not a conspiracy theory. "Far-fetched". Go to http://www.copblock.org/ and read through, a little. Abuse by government officials occurs. Often, the victims are people marginalized by society. Like a rude girl who was thrown in a cage by a judge for giving him the finger. Somehow, that's supposed to make kidnapping okay. I don't see it. But then again, I don't believe in ubermensch, anymore.

 

I've explained that I reject aggression. You compare that to people who committed acts of aggression. My position is that no one may morally commit aggression. Your position is that government may morally commit aggression. Your side is winning. Be happy.

[dairygirl4u2c]

""

One killed 9 and wounded 4, and the other killed 2 and wounded 1.

guess which one did which?

Plenty of stabbings have killed fairly large numbers of people.
Plenty of shootings have killed nobody, or very few. But sure, lets just
pick two convenient ones and pretend it always works out like that.?"

 

the most youve shown is that sometimes a stabber does more damage and shooters less. we can be sure that if a stabber killed 9 people and was intent on killing as much as he can.... that the fact he didnt have a gun has in fact saved lives, probably almost usually.
as i said,

if all a person has is a knife, it's common sense they couldnt do as much damage.

if Joe was denied a gun and didnt go out to get one.... when he
decides to get violent and all he has is a knife, he wont do nearly as
much damage.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if it's any consolation, i acknowledge that we're using aggression to fight aggression. (and i note the irony) i have no problem w that. i dont think guns should be illegal (at least here and now) anyway. i acknowledge that you shouldnt ideally be subject to any restrictions, checks etc. but as a practical matter, that's just life. the good outweighs the bad. lives saved outweighs your inconveniences and perhaps some limitation in getting what gun you want when you want. if it's any consolation, im sorry it has to be that way if it means so much to ya... but it's just the way it is (or should be)

[Winchester]

if it's any consolation, i acknowledge that we're using aggression to fight aggression. (and i note the irony) i have no problem w that. i dont think guns should be illegal (at least here and now) anyway. i acknowledge that you shouldnt ideally be subject to any restrictions, checks etc. but as a practical matter, that's just life. the good outweighs the bad. lives saved outweighs your inconveniences and perhaps some limitation in getting what gun you want when you want. if it's any consolation, im sorry it has to be that way if it means so much to ya... but it's just the way it is (or should be)

 

I get what you're saying. It's morally repugnant, but I get it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i get your point too. the gov is the initial aggressor to you etc. i hope ya realize that it's a pretty uncommon position, final argument etc. almost none of my arguments would matter to someone with your premises etc. most of my arguments are very releveant to most pro gun arguments, though.

 

per my points, saving lives at the expense of basically inconvenience etc.. isnt morally repugnant.

 

even if there is current government abuse police judge abuse overreaching etc... and you feel you need a gun.... i hope you are content that you do have a gun or can get one. and be happy it's not hitler v us. it's more like individuals going too far (that even the "system" itself doesnt accept... usualy, minus your ideological differences) and your desire to be able to combat it.

Edited February 19, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

i get your point too. the gov is the initial aggressor to you etc. i hope ya realize that it's a pretty uncommon position, final argument etc. almost none of my arguments would matter to someone with your premises etc. most of my arguments are very releveant to most pro gun arguments, though.

 

per my points, saving lives at the expense of basically inconvenience etc.. isnt morally repugnant.

 

even if there is current government abuse police judge abuse overreaching etc... and you feel you need a gun.... i hope you are content that you do have a gun or can get one. and be happy it's not hitler v us. it's more like individuals going too far (that even the "system" itself doesnt accept... usualy, minus your ideological differences) and your desire to be able to combat it.

No. The aggressor is the aggressor, whether government or not. That's not up for debate. It's not aggression to put a pistol grip on a rifle. It is aggression to assault, kidnap, or kill someone for doing so. And that is what is proposed with an "assault weapons" ban.

 

 

You view such threats as inconvenience. I view them as what they are.
 

[stevil]

OOOOH OOOH, lets play the cherry picking game.
 
In China a teenager with a knife goes crazy and starts stabbing a whole load of people in a residential area.
 
in the USA a 22 year old steals an AR15, and shoots off several loaded magazines at a crowded mall in Oregon.
 
One killed 9 and wounded 4, and the other killed 2 and wounded 1.
 
guess which one did which?
 
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/241709/chinese-teen-kills-9-in-knife-attack-reports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting
 
Plenty of stabbings have killed fairly large numbers of people. Plenty of shootings have killed nobody, or very few. But sure, lets just pick two convenient ones and pretend it always works out like that.

Do you not think that it is easier to kill with a gun than a knife?
Why do we give our armies guns when knives seem to be more deadly?

[dairygirl4u2c]

it shouldnt be considered aggression to put a grip on a rifle. i agree. most ARs are just fancy pistols. i agree. they dont need banned either. the people who do ban them mean well though, they are just misinformed usually. if you at least agree automatics should be banned... you should at least be able to follow their reasoning. it's not fair if they end up being banned.... but it's not like ya cant get a gun otherwise etc. it's not the end of the world. it's not just an act of aggression.... it's an unjust act of aggression

[dairygirl4u2c]

good question. Why do we give our armies guns when knives seem to be more deadly?

or why do we not give them knives when knives supposedly do as much harm?

i understand... ya dont bring a knife to a gunfight. but... thats illustrating the point.... it's just the point that it's obvious guns do so much harm comparitively. too much, from the wrong ppl

Edited February 20, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Romans 13:3]

Hey and Hello, this is my first post on Phatmass.  I registered just to jump in on this.

 

I come at this from maybe from a different point that many of you.  I am a former high school teacher but have been a detective for over the last 15 years.  To me, the thing that must be remembered is the reason for our 2nd Amendment.  It is about the people always being a viable threat to the government.  Jeffereson said that periodically liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  That said, what can be done?

 

As other stated, personally responsibility, I believe, is the core.  The issue is a sin problem more than a gun problem.  We are required to defend ourselves and the undefended by whatever means justified.  Removing the ability to defend the weak does nothing for the underlying sin problem.  Controlling something that many see as a relaxing hobby does nothing to build a culture of morality. 

 

The research seems pretty clear.  If society wants to reduce violent crime the way to do it is to be agressive in the enforcement of petty crime and quality of life issues.  

[dairygirl4u2c]

id address some of your points more but im not sure mostly that you are arguing against the same things i am, and i wonder if you have read much of the things posted. but i will humor ya. (im reminded of how win says my points are morally repugnant..... all i want to do at a minimum is have 100% background checks.... how is that possibly considered repugnant?even if ya disagree reougnant is strong. hes prob assuming i want all the bad things others want per anti gun folks)

no one has said to take guns away from peope, so it's not like the people arent viable threats to the gov. plus, anyways we should be focused more on teh present day and problems than far fetched hilter coming back scenarios. sure as win said specific individuals in gov are problems some.... but u have guns.

 

i ight agree its more a sin prob than a a gun prob. just as ive said it might and prob is more cultural. but that dont mean we dont try more control too.

you say it's clear it's about petty crime and economic issues.... but how do you know? ive shown studies that show controls they make a differemce, eg australia, and that gun possession leads to violence etc. even if we do stress ur points more... it dont mean we cant have gun control too.

 

it's strange conservatives who normally dont want to address mental issues and poverty suddely do. we talk about crime reduction, and those issues are backburner at best. we talk about gun control, and suddenly yhey are high and mighty issues.

Edited February 20, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jesus_lol]

""

One killed 9 and wounded 4, and the other killed 2 and wounded 1.

guess which one did which?

Plenty of stabbings have killed fairly large numbers of people.
Plenty of shootings have killed nobody, or very few. But sure, lets just
pick two convenient ones and pretend it always works out like that.?"

 

the most youve shown is that sometimes a stabber does more damage and shooters less. we can be sure that if a stabber killed 9 people and was intent on killing as much as he can.... that the fact he didnt have a gun has in fact saved lives, probably almost usually.
as i said,

if all a person has is a knife, it's common sense they couldnt do as much damage.

if Joe was denied a gun and didnt go out to get one.... when he
decides to get violent and all he has is a knife, he wont do nearly as
much damage.

 

 

it doesnt work out as easily as you think. All i had to do in response to that post was show that it is not universally true, and that in fact knife attacks have been WAY more deadly than that simplified generalization based off a single case.

 

Considering WAY WAY more people are killed with knives than ANY kind of rifles(of which AR15's are a small subset), it makes me wonder why you are so for them being heavily restricted. If you want to parrot the "if it only saves one life" bull, then its pretty easy to show many many many easier ways to accomplish that, rather than just going after the lightening strike events.

[Romans 13:3]

The problem with background check is that they, by their nature, set the stage for a governments know where the guns and by whom they are held.

 

New York, NY crime rate studies are probably the best place to look for validation as to how quality of life issue enforcement effects crime rate.  Also, the community oriented police philosophy is based in part on the premise that people will be more satisfied with their police protection when police enforce quality of life issues.

 

The research done in America will be generalizable to America where as for cultural reasons, the Australian studies may not be.  That said, my understanding is that recent data from Down Under indicates a rise in violent crime since the addition gun legislation. If you have a different study, post the citation and I will take a look.   I may have to back up on the Australian thing.

 

As for a Hitler-like person coming back, remember even the Jews in Baltics would not believe the Holocaust was happening when it was going on.  One of the first thing Hitler did was to control access to weapons.

[God the Father]

it's one of the easiest google searches ive done (search words = having gun home more likely) but here is some info....

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine
whether having a firearm in the home increases the
risk of a violent death in the home and whether
risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the
home.
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater
risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in
the
home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence
interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a
firearm
homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the
person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying
from
a suicide in the home was greater for males in
homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds
ratio
= 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).
Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from
suicide
committed with a firearm than from one committed by
using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence
interval:
19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of
storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having
a gun
in the home was associated with an increased risk
of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

 

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.

And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

If
you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your
non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related
accident, suicide or homicide.

Furthermore, there is no credible
evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a
victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a
home break-in.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership.

What he found was sobering, to say the least.

read more on findings there great article

and more here
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

i could go on and on
 

 

These stats measure accurately, but they aren't measuring what I'm trying to measure.

 

Losing your temper or being an idiot is a lot more dangerous when there's a gun in the home. Since lots of people are idiots and/or temperamental, having a gun in the home is statistically a dangerous prospect.

 

Most gun crimes are not committed spontaneously by individuals who simply lose their temper. Banning stupid, temperamental, but otherwise well-behaved individuals from having guns lying around will prevent those types of people from killing themselves and loved ones, reducing many of the stats cited here to zero. But it will not prevent most gun crime, which is committed in gangland altercations by recidivous individuals.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the reason we focus on guns is because they have the ability of causing mass deaths instantaneously. knifes do not. the guy who killed 9 would have killed many mre had he had a gun.

 

knives kill more perhaps but that doesnt mean they are more dangerous per se. guns kill more per gun that exists v knife that exists... and as said guns kill many at once that couldnt occur with knives.

as said before... hammers might kill as much as ARs do... but theres at least 350 million hammers, only a million hammers. that means even if the same in number, ARs are more dangerous. same could be said about knives.

 

knives serve too much practical purpose to ban over some guns. no one wants all banned, again. just like cars arent banned even though they cause so mch death because they serve so muc practical purpose.

Edited February 20, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c