Gun Lovers, You're Screwed.

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
Oh. A big one.
Police are civilians. They should be subject to the full weight of local gun law. If I cannot carry, neither can they.
No more SWAT. That becomes an exclusive FBI franchise. I’m tired of uniformed civilians prancing around with actual full-auto assault rifles.
Click to expand...
Does that get us to the point where gun homicides become as low as Canada's?

I mean, we lose 15,000 people a year due to non-suicide gun deaths. Canada gun-homicide is about 1/6th ours, so, maybe 12,500 men women and children would be alive at the end of the year who would not at our current rates. Don't those people have the right to live? Why does your belief rate higher than their lives?
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Does that get us to the point where gun homicides become as low as Canada's?

I mean, we lose 15,000 people a year due to non-suicide gun deaths. Canada gun-homicide is about 1/6th ours, so, maybe 12,500 men women and children would be alive at the end of the year who would not at our current rates. Don't those people have the right to live? Why does your belief rate higher than their lives?
Click to expand...
I prefer the lowest mortality rates.
But adjusting police armament to that of the typical law-abiding civilian will have as a positive effect the de-mythologization of the firearm. So I believe that is a fertile field of endeavor.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
You're being a stickler. The general point is clear, he's talking about ease of access and support for ease of access.
Click to expand...
The implication that I reject is that, after some basic safeguards, ease of access is inherently bad. He is relying on visceral association.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Nothing to do with guns is inherently bad, same with religion, or any other medium. It's always a game of freedom relative to the quality of people. We're not that great and even if we were working on being better people, which we probably never will because our egos prevent us from picking up a mirror, it would take decades to manifest. In which case, the discussion moves to what can be done now, which translates to a conversation about hardware and access to hardware.

There's an important perspective difference. If you think we're awesome, then it looks like people are restricting guns/access because they think inanimate objects are evil, which you know is not true, so it's confusing. If you think we're not awesome and since we can't make people be awesome, then you have no choice but to focus on guns/access.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
Nothing to do with guns is inherently bad, same with religion, or any other medium. It's always a game of freedom relative to the quality of people. We're not that great and even if we were working on being better people, which we probably never will because our egos prevent us from picking up a mirror, it would take decades to manifest. In which case, the discussion moves to what can be done now, which translates to a conversation about hardware and access to hardware.

There's an important perspective difference. If you think we're awesome, then it looks like people are restricting guns/access because they think inanimate objects are evil, which you know is not true, so it's confusing. If you think we're not awesome and since we can't make people be awesome, then you have no choice but to focus on guns/access.
Click to expand...
I’m confused. I don’t think we are awesome, but I still want a uniform and not overrestrictive access to guns and ammo nationwide.
So I don’t see your argument that awesome and guns are somehow connected. Please elaborate. Awesomeness is not a valid condition for getting armed.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Regarding the argument about awesomeness and guns, I can boil it down easily, which is that a society would never even think to create laws against murder, of the people weren't murdering. You would never even think to create laws against stealing, if people weren't stealing. So, something not-awesome is happening and then you have a response.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
Regarding the argument about awesomeness and guns, I can boil it down easily, which is that a society would never even think to create laws against murder, of the people weren't murdering. You would never even think to create laws against stealing, if people weren't stealing. So, something not-awesome is happening and then you have a response.
Click to expand...
At which point it becomes important to treat the cause and not the symptoms. Gun control as discussed the last 30 years is symptomatic. The failure to close the gun show loophole Federally makes this hard to dismiss.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Yes, except if you're saying that a gun show loophole is a cause, that wouldn't be accurate. Trying to restrict hardware/access is also a symptom.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Would you agree that trying to restrict hardware/access is trying to treat a symptom? If yes, then we can bring it full circle, which is that half the country is fervently against treating a symptom. We're not interested in treating the cause, or even admitting the cause, and we're not interested in treating the symptoms. That's a helluva mountain to climb.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Ease of access is a cause. Johnny shot Fred “because” Johnny was able to buy a handgun with out any checks and poor Johnny has a profound mental illness that would have been discovered with a background check. Marty shot Billy by accident “because” Marty was not required to take a intensive safety training course, poor Billy. So many causes that they can’t all be named. But a shit load of symptoms as well. My best suggestion is make gun laws a federal jurisdiction and make licensing and training mandatory for everyone. Get rid of handguns as well. But that won’t happen so good luck with it :(.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
Would you agree that trying to restrict hardware/access is trying to treat a symptom? If yes, then we can bring it full circle, which is that half the country is fervently against treating a symptom. We're not interested in treating the cause, or even admitting the cause, and we're not interested in treating the symptoms. That's a helluva mountain to climb.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with the first sentence. Without addressing the cause of violence, restricting the outer signs, like gun access, seems like scapegoating to me. I would like to find an effective way to limit violence without punishing the people who never set a foot wrong.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
Ease of access is a cause. Johnny shot Fred “because” Johnny was able to buy a handgun with out any checks and poor Johnny has a profound mental illness that would have been discovered with a background check. Marty shot Billy by accident “because” Marty was not required to take a intensive safety training course, poor Billy. So many causes that they can’t all be named. But a shit load of symptoms as well. My best suggestion is make gun laws a federal jurisdiction and make licensing and training mandatory for everyone. Get rid of handguns as well. But that won’t happen so good luck with it :(.
Click to expand...
Keep handguns. They are invaluable for personal defense. There is no concealed carry option for long arms.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
Keep handguns. They are invaluable for personal defense. There is no concealed carry option for long arms.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard a word about how to reduce deaths, just a fixation on rights.

I don't care what gun owners do to reduce gun deaths, but they are part of the problem so they will be part of the solution. I'm not hearing any interest from gun owners to bring gun deaths down. I don't own a gun and most people who do are less safe, so the "self defense" argument seems silly. But gun owners are a minority group and their numbers have been steadily declining for the past 50 years (went from about 50% to about 33% today). So the tactic of saying no to any changes is a losing one. We outnumber you guys. Eventually we will just do what we want and I'm pretty sure gun owners won't like what non gun owners will do. Its in gun owners interest to reduce the harm guns are doing in the US.

You are absolutely right about your right to carry. I have no interest in that. The thing is, with power comes responsibility. What measures do you support to reduce gun deaths? Personally, I think a good start is to add resources into background checks. I also think that funding research into ways to reduce gun deaths. Our lawmakers are just guessing right now because funding research into ways to reduce gun deaths by the CDC was banned. I'm not interested and don't care about "taking yer gunz". I just want the death rates due to guns go down.

Regarding suicide by gun. I'm fine with that.
 
Last edited:
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
Yes, I agree with the first sentence. Without addressing the cause of violence, restricting the outer signs, like gun access, seems like scapegoating to me. I would like to find an effective way to limit violence without punishing the people who never set a foot wrong.
Click to expand...
For some people, I'm sure it is scapegoating. For some others, it's trying to work on a problem and having extremely limited in options. There are only two core elements involved; people and guns. If you can't fix people, there's only one other thing to look at. And you do it while knowing that you're not actually fixing anything, only sticking a finger/toe in a leaky dam, hoping to slow things down long enough until a proper repair can be done. It's a futile effort, but sometimes it's tough for people to sit idly by while really bad things are happening.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I haven't heard a word about how to reduce deaths, just a fixation on rights.

I don't care what gun owners do to reduce gun deaths, but they are part of the problem so they will be part of the solution. I'm not hearing any interest from gun owners to bring gun deaths down. I don't own a gun and most people who do are less safe, so the "self defense" argument seems silly. But gun owners are a minority group and their numbers have been steadily declining for the past 50 years (went from about 50% to about 33% today). So the tactic of saying no to any changes is a losing one. We outnumber you guys. Eventually we will just do what we want and I'm pretty sure gun owners won't like what non gun owners will do. Its in gun owners interest to reduce the harm guns are doing in the US.

You are absolutely right about your right to carry. I have no interest in that. The thing is, with power comes responsibility. What measures do you support to reduce gun deaths? Personally, I think a good start is to add resources into background checks. I also think that funding research into ways to reduce gun deaths. Our lawmakers are just guessing right now because funding research into ways to reduce gun deaths by the CDC was banned. I'm not interested and don't care about "taking yer gunz". I just want the death rates due to guns go down.

I don't care about gun related suicide. I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the illegal gun possession statistics look like? I’m assuming it’s gone up? This right to carry is IMO bullshit and that in it self would, I’m sure, save a few lives ‍♂. Their seriously talking about banning handguns here but it seems there is quite a backlash asking people to give up what is basically a hobby unless your possessing it illegally.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
I wonder what the illegal gun possession statistics look like? I’m assuming it’s gone up? This right to carry is IMO bullshit and that in it self would, I’m sure, save a few lives ‍♂. Their seriously talking about banning handguns here but it seems there is quite a backlash asking people to give up what is basically a hobby unless your possessing it illegally.
Click to expand...
Only a fraction of gun owners actually fire their weapons in self defense or intent to harm somebody else. Probably more rifles are used for hunting but as with hand guns, most showy, bad ass assault rifles that chuds like to display are used for show and false sense of security.

I see no reason for bothering a peaceful person about their hobby/obsession/false security blanket/gun. An exception would be the majority of gun owners who won't follow the NRA's own guidelines for the safe storage of their guns. I would bother them until they either lock it up according to safety protocol or give it up. Honestly, if you can't maintain and store your guns in a safe manner maybe you shouldn't own it.

Otherwise, I want to see some research done. We are just blundering about in a fog without it.
 
Porky1982

Porky1982

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
I have heard that the primary effect is the disappearance from the records in Britain, Germany and France of about a hundred million guns each.
So your moral superiority plays not so well.
Click to expand...
Show some proof of this because no cares about "what you heard"!!
 
Porky1982

Porky1982

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
Oh a scathing rebuttal.
Still you seem to be saying “guns bad” but making no real case. Guns aren’t bad just because someone says so.
Click to expand...
Guns are an inanimate object!!
When they are easily accessible by people who have mental health issues they become dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top