Good argument for gun control

[EagleSmack]

I'm so torn! Where do I put the story about the Gifford's (Gabby Gifford and her husband Mark, now gun-control advocates) pit bull attacking and killing a baby seal? (All caught on tape)

Here or the sea lion thread?

 

[SLM]

I'm so torn! Where do I put the story about the Gifford's (Gabby Gifford and her husband Mark, now gun-control advocates) pit bull attacking and killing a baby seal? (All caught on tape)

Here or the sea lion thread?

Don't you think that deserves it's own thread?

 

[EagleSmack]

Don't you think that deserves it's own thread?

Hmmm... good idea!

 

[PoliticalNick]

I guess you're no big fan of the restrictions on machine guns and explosives, then?

I can easily make high grade explosives with a quick trip to the hardware store, feed-lot and a bulk fuel station. The ingredients for dynamite can also be readily acquired so restrictions are useless except for keeping the sheeple from full-scale rebellion.

As for fully automatic assault weapons...don't need them. They are traditionally very inaccurate and prone to jamming whilst a good marksman with a semi-auto can take out many more targets with less rounds just as fast if not faster.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I can easily make high grade explosives with a quick trip to the hardware store, feed-lot and a bulk fuel station. The ingredients for dynamite can also be readily acquired so restrictions are useless except for keeping the sheeple from full-scale rebellion.

As for fully automatic assault weapons...don't need them. They are traditionally very inaccurate and prone to jamming whilst a good marksman with a semi-auto can take out many more targets with less rounds just as fast if not faster.

But how do those restrictions square with your right to defend yourself "by any means" (your words)?

 

[EagleSmack]

As for fully automatic assault weapons...don't need them. They are traditionally very inaccurate and prone to jamming whilst a good marksman with a semi-auto can take out many more targets with less rounds just as fast if not faster.

Well semis are on the chopping block as well. The AR-15 is a semi-auto. I believe the military version has a three round burst. At least it did when I was in.

 

[PoliticalNick]

And given the fact that so many gun deaths have nothing to do with self defense, everyone else has the innate right to attempt to protect themselves, and their families as well, from gun toting nut jobs.

Now, that's not me coming down on either side of the argument, but recognizing that there isn't one side that's concretely right, no matter how hard you try to make it sound that way.

Of course one side is absolutely right. Without gun control you could arm yourself and easily protect your family from any 'gun-toting nut-job' as well as a tyrannical govt whereas without your own weapon you are at the mercy of 911. Do you realize how many shots I can get off before 911 arrives on the scene and do you think they will help you against the govt?

But how do those restrictions square with your right to defend yourself "by any means" (your words)?

I don't think there should be any restrictions other than a complete prohibition on sales to violent criminals and the mentally ill. Think of it this way....if everyone is armed and everyone knows everyone else is armed the idea of having the upper hand as a criminal because you have a gun is gone and crime would decrease drastically.

 

[karrie]

Of course one side is absolutely right. Without gun control you could arm yourself and easily protect your family from any 'gun-toting nut-job' as well as a tyrannical govt whereas without your own weapon you are at the mercy of 911. Do you realize how many shots I can get off before 911 arrives on the scene and do you think they will help you against the govt?

I have the right to not need to arm myself to protect myself from gun toting nut jobs.

And any government so tyrannical that you need to arm yourself against it, is not going to let this kind of discourse occur, and will have halted your access to conventional weapons without debate anyhow. The notion that you need to arm yourself incase you have to rise up against the government is so far fetched and out to lunch as to be laughable. If and when that were to ever occur, you'd better have more at hand than a mere gun.

So no, there still isn't one side that reads as 'right'.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Of course one side is absolutely right. Without gun control you could arm yourself and easily protect your family from any 'gun-toting nut-job' as well as a tyrannical govt whereas without your own weapon you are at the mercy of 911. Do you realize how many shots I can get off before 911 arrives on the scene and do you think they will help you against the govt?



I don't think there should be any restrictions other than a complete prohibition on sales to violent criminals and the mentally ill. Think of it this way....if everyone is armed and everyone knows everyone else is armed the idea of having the upper hand as a criminal because you have a gun is gone and crime would decrease drastically.

Why violent criminals and the mentally ill? Just curious.

Discharged felons (that is to say, those who have finished their sentences and are free and not on parole or probation) and the mentally ill who have not been adjudicated a danger to themselves or others (the standard for commitment) do not lose any of their other rights under the Bill of Rights. Why should they lose their Second Amendment rights?

I understand you're Canadian, but the principle applies. If you want to put it another way, why should discharged felons and the mentally ill whose mental illness falls short of commitment lose the right to self defence?

 

[petros]

There is a violent people problem.

 

[EagleSmack]

 

[L Gilbert]

Oh, cool. And yet one more fool thinks there's a need for another gun thread.

Meh. People kill people. Guns are just an expedient tool for doing so. If there weren't any, people would find other ways. UK has loads of gun control and a problem with knives.
Get rid of the wackos and there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I have the right to not need to arm myself to protect myself from gun toting nut jobs.

They are obviously out there so you can either rely on yourself or rely on 911. We know how well 911 works, we have seen it at colleges, high schools, movie theaters and most recently at an elementary school. 100's of people are dead because they thought gun control was a good idea and that the govt & police would protect them.

And any government so tyrannical that you need to arm yourself against it, is not going to let this kind of discourse occur, and will have halted your access to conventional weapons without debate anyhow.

That is why I am well prepped now, before it comes to that.

The notion that you need to arm yourself in case you have to rise up against the government is so far fetched and out to lunch as to be laughable. If and when that were to ever occur, you'd better have more at hand than a mere gun.

It has happened many times in the last 200 years and still happening today (Arab Spring ring a bell?).

So no, there still isn't one side that reads as 'right'.

Why violent criminals and the mentally ill? Just curious.

Discharged felons (that is to say, those who have finished their sentences and are free and not on parole or probation) and the mentally ill who have not been adjudicated a danger to themselves or others (the standard for commitment) do not lose any of their other rights under the Bill of Rights. Why should they lose their Second Amendment rights?

I understand you're Canadian, but the principle applies. If you want to put it another way, why should discharged felons and the mentally ill whose mental illness falls short of commitment lose the right to self defence?

Those with a history of using weapons in crime or those with a history of mental illness are prone to be 'gun-toting nut-jobs' as Karrie puts it. That is good enough for me to preclude them from access to weaponry....of course I am ready to deal with those people so it doesn't really matter. Now someone out to commit a crime using a firearm is a lot less likely to do it if they have every reason to believe their victim is armed and will shoot to kill. The mentally ill on the other hand are not likely to realize the ramifications of shooting somebody or getting shot themselves.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Those with a history of using weapons in crime or those with a history of mental illness are prone to be 'gun-toting nut-jobs' as Karrie puts it. That is good enough for me to preclude them from access to weaponry....of course I am ready to deal with those people so it doesn't really matter.

So, would it be fair to say that you believe the right of society generally to be free from the threat of people likely to shoot trumps the right of those people to effective self defence?

By the way, do you have any statistics on the likelihood of people who have used weapons in crime and people with histories of mental illness to use guns illegally? Anything to support yout "prone to be 'gun-toting nut-jobs'" statement?

Now someone out to commit a crime using a firearm is a lot less likely to do it if they have every reason to believe their victim is armed and will shoot to kill.

Sounds like an argument in favour of letting discharged felons and the mentally ill have guns. So they can defend themselves.

The mentally ill on the other hand are not likely to realize the ramifications of shooting somebody or getting shot themselves.

I'm not sure about that. In my experience, people with a history of mental illness that falls short of commitment are pretty aware of that.

Any stats or studies, just out of curiosity?

 

[CDNBear]

There is NO good argument for gun control.

I disagree.

People who openly advocate the cold blooded murder of unarmed civilians, or civil authorities merely doing their job, should not be allowed to own firearms.

 

[Nuggler]

Just look at our brave boys dressed in camo red, givin the rebs hell................more fodder looking on just WAITING for their turn to charge uphill against a dug in enemy.

Too rich.

 

[karrie]

I disagree.

People who openly advocate the cold blooded murder of unarmed civilians, or civil authorities merely doing their job, should not be allowed to own firearms.

I've even seen people advocate bringing a weapon out to deal with someone for being mentally unwell, like Kreskin's 'stalker'. Or advocating/endorsing shooting people in order to protect property, not lives.

When I say 'gun toting nut jobs', those are the kind of people I mean.

 

[CDNBear]

I've even seen people advocate bringing a weapon out to deal with someone for being mentally unwell, like Kreskin's 'stalker'. Or advocating/endorsing shooting people in order to protect property, not lives.

When I say 'gun toting nut jobs', those are the kind of people I mean.

That's pretty much how I took you.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I've even seen people advocate bringing a weapon out to deal with someone for being mentally unwell, like Kreskin's 'stalker'. Or advocating/endorsing shooting people in order to protect property, not lives.

When I say 'gun toting nut jobs', those are the kind of people I mean.

Well then I'm a proud 'gun-toting nut-job'. If I were in Kreskin's position I would try to deal with the guy through the police or mental health officials but the minute he became a real & serious threat to my own safety or my family he would have a permanent limp or worse. Same if you think I will stand by and let someone steal my car or rob my house....they will only try once and won't try it on anyone else too soon afterward if ever. Sorry if you find that attitude shocking or offensive.

 

[CDNBear]

Well then I'm a proud 'gun-toting nut-job'.

Admitting it is the first step to healing.

Good for you.

If I were in Kreskin's position I would try to deal with the guy through the police or mental health officials but the minute he became a real & serious threat to my own safety or my family he would have a permanent limp or worse. Same if you think I will stand by and let someone steal my car or rob my house....they will only try once and won't try it on anyone else too soon afterward if ever.

Just how exactly does an unarmed bylaw officer just doing his job, pose a serious risk to the safety of your property or your family?

Are you aware that shooting someone ex post facto, has no protection under the law? So that would put a damper on your hunting bankers.

Sorry if you find that attitude shocking or offensive.

The idiocy in your posts is neither shocking nor offensive.

It's just stupid.