Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[JamesBondo]

I think it might. In the heat of the moment it is easy to pull a trigger. If they had to exert a bit more energy perhaps more purposeful deaths could be avoided. I think it is wrong to assume that if one does not have access to a gun they will just find another way. That does not fit human beings from a psychological perspective. people go off but then they calm down...maybe just long enough for sanity to return. If people would all just kill the same without guns then we still don't need them.

Yes but there must be some kind of stats somewhere that have "more" impartiality than others no?

If availability made it easy for someone to kill who normally would not, why is this not supported thru stats on gun shows, shooting ranges, drunken hunting parties, off duty police officers. I would suggest that these above mentioned groups don't pull triggers because they aren't criminally mind.

So answer me this one question, if criminals are the only people willing to pull the trigger in the heat of the moment, then why would they be fine outstanding citizens without a gun?

 

[petros]

Put down that TV or I'll smoke!

 

[Sal]

If availability made it easy for someone to kill who normally would not, why is this not supported thru stats on gun shows, shooting ranges, drunken hunting parties, off duty police officers.

Because their agenda is not to limit guns, it is to prove how harmless gun ownership is.

How could one support it statistically anyways unless they did a study asking people to come forward and admit that they would have killed if they'd had access to a gun? There is no provability here. That's my point.

I would suggest that these above mentioned groups don't pull triggers because they aren't criminally mind.

I don't believe that psychology would support that stance, human beings are too complex. Would the guy who kills his girlfriend in a fit of rage do so, if he did not have easy access to a gun...that's what I am asking. I do not believe he would otherwise, why did he use a gun?

What about accidental deaths via guns...it sure would solve that.

So answer me this one question, if criminals are the only people willing to pull the trigger in the heat of the moment, then why would they be fine outstanding citizens without a gun?

I don't think criminals are the only people who pull the trigger in the heat of the moment...that is the point. opportunity makes a difference... I don't know if it makes enough of a difference to impact gun control or not... I want to know from some studies ... but apparently, and I believe this is likely true... all studies come with agendas

 

[JamesBondo]

Because their agenda is not to limit guns, it is to prove how harmless gun ownership is.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I asked why the above groups weren't riddled with hot heads pulling triggers. please go back and reread my post with that in mind.

 

[Sal]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I asked why the above groups weren't riddled with hot heads pulling triggers. please go back and reread my post with that in mind.

I apologize I did misread... I think one of the things those particular groups have going for them is ongoing training. Not everyone of course, but if guns are a sport for people I think there is "gun awareness". Someone like let's say Colpy in here has trained people in gun safety. His approach is quite even.

He is not the only one on here like that either, there are lots of them. Firearms have been a big part of their life and I believe if you want to own firearms their use and training has to be ongoing. I don't think the average Joe is going to do that and then home accidents happen, or emotions get the better of someone.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I think it might. In the heat of the moment it is easy to pull a trigger. If they had to exert a bit more energy perhaps more purposeful deaths could be avoided. I think it is wrong to assume that if one does not have access to a gun they will just find another way. That does not fit human beings from a psychological perspective. people go off but then they calm down...maybe just long enough for sanity to return. If people would all just kill the same without guns then we still don't need them.

First you have to assume that a person has a firearm in their hands in the heat of the moment, that's nonsensical, unless of course they have armed themselves because of a percieved immediate threat, for which I could not blame anyone. In such cases any sane person would arm themself with any weapon they could find. Under strict gun control it is far too often the bad guy who has the gun leaving the victim at his mercy. In your perfect world without guns, it would be the strongest who wins the fight whether good or bad. Firearms level the playing field, well trained 80 year old babushkas can put 20 something gangbangers in their place toot sweet, often without even firing a shot. In any case, those who have firearms at the ready are generally not pillars of the community and no amount of gun control is going to work on them.

Yes but there must be some kind of stats somewhere that have "more" impartiality than others no?

In a past life I had to take a rudimentary course on the art of spin, and no, stats may be gathered impartially, but not always, but they are always disseminated with partiality, or spin. That's the way of the world, its whose lies gain the most traction. Good thing I didn't take the whole course offered to professional spin doctors or I would be totally jaded, but fortunately it was just how to recognize and understand it for what it was rather than to actually practice it. It is a profession, and it is scary. BTW it wasn't called a spin doctor course, it had one of those banal euphemism names used to hide its real purpose, which has since escaped me, kind of like the Ministry of Love or Truth or Peace.

 

[Sal]

First you have to assume that a person has a firearm in their hands in the heat of the moment, that's nonsensical, unless of course they have armed themselves because of a percieved immediate threat, for which I could not blame anyone.

Not so. Look at that guy in Africa or the football player who recently killed his girlfriend and then killed himself in front of his team. I don't think it has to be in their hand...my anger used to last far longer than that in my youth. I easily could have gone to the cupboard, loaded and gone out to get them.

Under strict gun control it is far too often the bad guy who has the gun leaving the victim at his mercy.

Totally agree. So give me a scenario (for your average person) where having a gun would "work" because I can't think of one.

In your perfect world without guns, it would be the strongest who wins the fight whether good or bad.

No in my perfect world, things would be like they are in Britain where even the bobbies don't carry guns on a daily basis. Only in an escalated situation would guns be used. Their average criminal or cop does not have a John Wayne mentality. That would be the way I would like to see things.

Firearms level the playing field, well trained 80 year old babushkas can put 20 something gangbangers in their place toot sweet, often without even firing a shot. In any case, those who have firearms at the ready are generally not pillars of the community and no amount of gun control is going to work on them.

Firearms do level the playing field no question but they have to be at hand. How can that be on a regular kinda day?


And how Bob, I don't get it...how is this working for our benefit? How often has your gun saved your live? I truly want to know?

Also:

1. how many people carry firearms on their person?
2. do people have loaded guns at hand at home? or are they locked away?

In a past life I had to take a rudimentary course on the art of spin, and no, stats may be gathered impartially, but not always, but they are always disseminated with partiality, or spin. That's the way of the world, its whose lies gain the most traction. Good thing I didn't take the whole course offered to professional spin doctors or I would be totally jaded, but fortunately it was just how to recognize and understand it for what it was rather than to actually practice it. It is a profession, and it is scary. BTW it wasn't called a spin doctor course, it had one of those banal euphemism names used to hide its real purpose, which has since escaped me, kind of like the Ministry of Love or Truth or Peace.

lmao...damn but yeah you are right. In my last position I had to be able to juggle the stats to prove we placed people in jobs in order to gain government funding. At a time when unemployment was soaring and no jobs existed, I became quite adept at reaching a positive outcome...that's the term we used "positive outcome", didn't matter what kind of numbers I was working with, I could justify our numbers if not on one spreadsheet then on another. So yeah you are right.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

How could one support it statistically anyways unless they did a study asking people to come forward and admit that they would have killed if they'd had access to a gun? There is no provability here. That's my point. I don't believe that psychology would support that stance, human beings are too complex. Would the guy who kills his girlfriend in a fit of rage do so, if he did not have easy access to a gun...that's what I am asking. I do not believe he would otherwise, why did he use a gun?

What about accidental deaths via guns...it sure would solve that.

It takes more phisical action to shoot someone than you think, unless someone has a firearms at the ready, which in most cases they are not of upstanding status. Even easy access to a firearm means they first have to retrieve it, load it, (after loading the magazine if not already loaded), chamber a round, aim and fire. I know that if I have prepared for a bad situation I can do that from my bed in about 3 seconds, (back when I was under imminent threat, and practiced it as advised to do so by police). But mine was an unusual case, In the real world, it would take a normal person more than a couple of minutes to make a firearm "shootable", long after the other person could just grab the fireplace poker or a baseball bat, and actually use it, or just retreat post haste.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Colbalt Kid, murder requires both opportunity and desire. You've had thousands of opportunities to kill someone either by firearm, car, golf club, knives, clubs, poison, etc. But, you haven't killed anyone because you don't have the desire to kill.

It is simply not possible to get rid of all firearms, and all opportunity to kill. If someone is deemed to have the desire to kill, you need to look at alternative solutions like imprisonment or 24/7 supervision( ie mental ward, etc)

The difference here being that firearms are designed to kill, most of those other things aren`t.

And it may not be possible or even necessary to remove all firearms, the objective should be to reduce their presence to a point that provides the greatest benefit to society.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Not so. Look at that guy in Africa or the football player who recently killed his girlfriend and then killed himself in front of his team. I don't think it has to be in their hand...my anger used to last far longer than that in my youth. I easily could have gone to the cupboard, loaded and gone out to get them.

South Africa is a different place, they are wierd there, a good buudy was a cop there, I don't wish to elaborate, but you cannot even draw comparisons to any other places on earth, not even Russia.

 

[JLM]

Their average criminal or cop does not have a John Wayne mentality. That would be the way I would like to see things.



t.

Your arguments are generally sound, up until you denigrate my hero. - I've seen most of his movies, where he generally was pretty cool, calm and collected, at least in the role he played. What he was like in real life (Marion Robert Morrison) could be something different.-

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The inherent right to own and keep arms for defense of self and of the realm, has been affirmed and re-affirmed by British monarchs since the 13th century. I am curious as to what devine right you may have to detemine what is considered a valid reason for someone to own arms. NZ doesn't consider self defense a valid reason, but defense of livestock is valid, that is morally f*cked up. How does someone's ownership of arms, "because you [sic] need them to feel psychologically secure" differ from your wish to disarm them so you can feel psychologically secure?

Violence is a human trait, always has been, always will be, and there has always been one individual, ( but it was one after another after another) who has caused a devestating and lasting effect on thousands and millions, but they were the ones who disarmed the populace leaving them for the slaughter. I shouldn't need name them, there are many, and many more to follow.

The UK has some of the tightest gun control laws in the world and one of the lowest rates of gun homicides.

I have the same right as anyone in society to comment on issues that affect my safety and freedom, having people who don`t exercise the responsibility required to handle firearms safely in possession of them is a serious issue for many Canadians.

Just because violence is a human trait doesn`t mean that it`s one we should encourage or reinforce which is what the gun culture in North America seems to do. Guns are designed with one purpose, the projection of deadly force, people can use other means to kill other people besides firearms, but rarely with the same efficiency as guns.

I also disagree that having an armed but untrained populace preserves freedom in an open society, supporting the formal structures that maintain the system works far better than the threat of insurrection against a possible dictator.

 

[Sal]

Your arguments are generally sound, up until you denigrate my hero. - I've seen most of his movies, where he generally was pretty cool, calm and collected, at least in the role he played. What he was like in real life (Marion Robert Morrison) could be something different.-

lol...it's not John Wayne I have the problem with, it's the "aspiring" John Wayne types... , no one can be John Wayne except him and he be a molderin'

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Your arguments are generally sound, up until you denigrate my hero. - I've seen most of his movies, where he generally was pretty cool, calm and collected, at least in the role he played. What he was like in real life (Marion Robert Morrison) could be something different.-

I share a birthday with the guy and he was my hero when I was young, now not so much.

Draft dodger in WW II, wife beater and substance abuser. He made some good flicks but the real John Wayne was less than heroic.

 

[Sal]

It takes more phisical action to shoot someone than you think, unless someone has a firearms at the ready, which in most cases they are not of upstanding status. Even easy access to a firearm means they first have to retrieve it, load it, (after loading the magazine if not already loaded), chamber a round, aim and fire. I know that if I have prepared for a bad situation I can do that from my bed in about 3 seconds, (back when I was under imminent threat, and practiced it as advised to do so by police). But mine was an unusual case, In the real world, it would take a normal person more than a couple of minutes to make a firearm "shootable", long after the other person could just grab the fireplace poker or a baseball bat, and actually use it, or just retreat post haste.

3 seconds... I'd shoot my foot off just trying to load it...see it's the practiced thing too... could you do that now? you would probably say no...some idjit that has one in his cupboard and hasn't fired it or practiced with it would say yep...shure can... I can't get past the mentality thing...I just can't. I can for the people in this forum (for the most part) But for the people I see on my Facebook wall, it makes me quiver.

And most of those idjits would harm themselves or an innocent, they just would. They can't even make a logical argument but they want a gun, or worse yet...a weapon that can fire 100 rounds in under a minute. I can't see it.

South Africa is a different place, they are wierd there, a good buudy was a cop there, I don't wish to elaborate, but you cannot even draw comparisons to any other places on earth, not even Russia.

Okay fair enough...I don't know many south African's and the ones I met were from years ago and were fleeing and had left their crystal behind if ya get my meaning.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

No in my perfect world, things would be like they are in Britain where even the bobbies don't carry guns on a daily basis. Only in an escalated situation would guns be used. Their average criminal or cop does not have a John Wayne mentality. That would be the way I would like to see things.

If you knew your history you would know that Bobbies were only paid to do what was already incumbent upon those who paid them, the citizens. Citizens were armed, bobbies weren't, which is why the penalties for killing a bobby was so severe. The name "bobby" was for Sir Robert Peel who developed the idea. Read his 9 principles for consentual policing, most peace officers have either never heard of him or even know the 9 principles, go figure. BTW, John Wayne, (Marion Morrison) was an actor/producer, he was not his character, he was far more than that..

Totally agree. So give me a scenario (for your average person) where having a gun would "work" because I can't think of one.

I dunno, you wake up to someone busting into your home, there are three of them, they want to rape and pillage, you point your, (my) trusty .45 at them and tell them to get the hell out, it works, end of. Lots of such cases anonymously reported, no harm no foul.

And how Bob, I don't get it...how is this working for our benefit? How often has your gun saved your live? I truly want to know?

Also:

1. how many people carry firearms on their person?
2. do people have loaded guns at hand at home? or are they locked away?

lmao...damn but yeah you are right. In my last position I had to be able to juggle the stats to prove we placed people in jobs in order to gain government funding. At a time when unemployment was soaring and no jobs existed, I became quite adept at reaching a positive outcome...that's the term we used "positive outcome", didn't matter what kind of numbers I was working with, I could justify our numbers if not on one spreadsheet then on another. So yeah you are right.

And how Bob, I don't get it...how is this working for our benefit? How often has your gun saved your live?

Our benefit? I don'treally care about yours, you want to be a vicitm, be my guest. I has worked four times for me, potzelueetya mayoo zadneetzu, suka, blyat.

 

[JamesBondo]

The difference here being that firearms are designed to kill, most of those other things aren`t..

I'm going to leave this statement for someone else to disagree with.

Let's assume that you are correct, and firearms are designed to kill...

well considering that only 0.0022% ( about 127 firearms) per year are used to kill.....the other 99.99% are used for 'OFF LABEL' purposes without leading to a murder.


A

And it may not be possible or even necessary to remove all firearms, the objective should be to reduce their presence to a point that provides the greatest benefit to society.

Don't you mean increase or reduce?

. I don't think the average Joe is going to do that and then home accidents happen, or emotions get the better of someone.

Realistically, with 127 gun homicides and less than 50 accidents per year, how many more lives do you think we could save by ensuring that all gun owners go through annual training and healthy gun culture indoctrination?

 

[bluebyrd35]

no, I supplied a link to disprove your rant that mandatory reporting was not necessary. That's as far as I'm willing to take this.


I also believe in gun control and don't believe it's necessary to own a gun except for hunting. I am unwilling to do your homework for you to help you support your side, especially when it is so painfully obvious that you don't do your own homework before posting.

Sorry, that link doesn't cut it. I, like most people, know and are aware of mandatory reporting but they are not compiled or integrated in a reputable central bureau, organization, or department able to publish those stats.

Why would you even think Homeland Security would ever publish such stats. It is not Homeland Security's reason d'etre to compile stats for publication. PS, I do not rant. I state facts, and why would you think I hadn't already tried to find those "reports/stats".......I did,.of courrse, to no avail.

 

[Colpy]

Sorry, that link doesn't cut it. I, like most people, know and are aware of mandatory reporting but they are not compiled or integrated in a reputable central bureau, organization, or department able to publish those stats.

Why would you even think Homeland Security would ever publish such stats. It is not Homeland Security's reason d'etre to compile stats for publication. PS, I do not rant. I state facts, and why would you think I hadn't already tried to find those "reports/stats".......I did,.of courrse, to no avail.

I already showed you the FBI stats.

But on your planet, who knows?? You might be correct.

Not that it has anything to do with reality on THIS planet.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I already showed you the FBI stats.

But on your planet, who knows?? You might be correct.

Not that it has anything to do with reality on THIS planet.

You're missing the point, Colpy. Birdie specified a "reputable" agency. Apparently the FBI doesn't qualify. Only the Centre for Health and Disease Control does. Which ain't surprising, really, seeing as how the Centre for Health and Disease Control don't exist.