Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We like it enough that we've continually exercised it and protected it throughout our national history.

Come on, don't pretend like the huge debates and controversy around it don't exist. And stop acting like a change to this social contract is a punishment for you. It's a change in the social contract that you don't agree with. And maybe you are right in disagreeing with it. But don't make this into a bigger issue than it is.

It's not a major issue. The discussion of gun control waxes and wanes depending on whether or not there's a shooting in the national news cycle. On any given day gun control doesn't register on most people's radar, polling doesn't show it as a priority and exit polling of voters on election days shows it's far down on the list of issues when it is mentioned at all. The last major piece of gun control legislation was the Assault Weapons Ban that was passed with an expiration date and not renewed. We've also had multiple states become more permissive with gun ownership in the meantime. I'm not making it a big issue. I'm happy with the status quo. You're making arguments that the status quo is barbaric lunacy.

Plus, in the last decade or so, it's a LOSING issue for the gun control crowd.

We've actually had congressional critters fething recalled over gun control measures.

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's not a major issue.

From what I saw on Dakka, it is.
From, say, the very existence of the NRA, it is.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You're making arguments that the status quo is barbaric lunacy.

I'm not.

 Vash108 wrote:
[
I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.

There is no requirement of any kind of testing or licensing to own a car, not even an age minimum. So this argument is moot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document. I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.

If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.

As it currently stands there is MUCH more regulation on firearms than there are automobiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.

I usually agree with you on a lot of things, whembly, but you're wrong on this, and worst of all, you're forgetting your own nation's history.

Martin Luther King, and others like him such as Rosa Parks, brought down Jim Crow laws, a tyranny against African-Americans, but King didn't use firearms to achieve this goal.

Gandhi gained India's independence from Britain, and the man probably never touched a firearm in his life.

Freedom can and has been won with the gun, but it can be won and has been won without the gun.


.

Gandhi wasn't all that important to India's Independence. At best he was an over-hyped face man made important by the media. Let's not continue this fallacy that he was some kind of saint. He was an extreme racist, had some kind of weirdo fetish relationship with his niece, and had an obsession with enemas. He also wasn't totally opposed to violence if it got the job done.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's not a major issue.

From what I saw on Dakka, it is.
From, say, the very existence of the NRA, it is.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You're making arguments that the status quo is barbaric lunacy.

I'm not.

The NRA existed long before nation-wide pushes for gun control became a thing.

TIL age is the most important factor in a fight. Not physical capabilities or training in dealing with aggressive people. It is age.

Mike Tyson has a decade on me, so I'm pretty sure I can kick his ass. Why, he might break a bone just from pivoting towards me.

Stallone was born in 1946 but Lundgren was born in 1957. How did Stallone win?!?!?!?!

I have read this whole thread. Up front I believe that the former cop is whole heartedly in the wrong, however he does have a lame defense from SYG.

SYG is important and necessary and is in no way a license to do whatever you want. So is castle law. No one enters my home illegally and takes advantage of my years of hard work. Wrong house dude.

On a philosophical note, this thread has got me thinking. Put aside the occasional well gene'd person with great physic up to the 90s, however your average senior citizen is slower, has less muscle mass, is not as "spry" as they once were, and could in very easily conceivable circumstances feel a threat far and above what the average 20-30 year old might feel is a threat. I am 38, I have beat my body to hell for 20 years, running, trying with all my will to keep up with the young new Soldiers to show them I am not as weak and still able to kick ass. I go home after and I hurt, I ache, and it takes days to recover. Now fast forward 20 years. I make no illusions I could effectively stave off someone younger, faster, stronger than me in a "fair fight". I carry so I don't have to fight a fair fight, because there shouldn't be a fight in the first place.

Ignore the people break bones walking gak that has been tossed around, when I was 18 I took punches and gave punches back, now I would probably take a punch, and hit the damn ground. So yea, in my opinion being elderly is a defense to escalate a little faster, but not shoot someone in the face in a theater over texting faster.


to all the non firearm countries out there. Lets make one thing clear, the desire, the ability to pull the trigger on another human being is rarely found in 99% of mentally competent people. I promise you its hard when you do it, and its harder to deal with after the fact. Many people who say they would have no issues pulling the trigger have never been actually put in that situation, they have and they haven't learned how to turn that switch off, or they have issues. Just my perspective. Gun ownership does not create a desire to use said gun to end human life at all. period.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You post here more frequently than I do so I'll take you word for how hostile the threads get. That's a shame because the debate really boils down to people who are content with the status quo and people who want to change it. In my experience the content people tend to remain steadfast and the people advocating more restrictions tend to become more emotional and heated as their frustration increases.

I think typically the opposite is true - people get more emotional when faced with the chance of losing something. For instance, look at Obamacare - 8 years ago Republicans were filling townhalls getting angry about the idea of their healthcare changing. Now that ACA is part of the status quo and Republicans are talking about changing it we see Democrats filling townhalls getting angry about stuff.

When it comes to guns though, I think there's enough emotion on both sides that I find it hard to pick out which side is being more emotive.

I agree with your calculus on the pros and cons of gun ownership and I think the benefits outweigh the costs.

Cool. I'm not as certain but (a) I'm not American, and (b) even if it does cause more harm than good that doesn't mean banning it - you have to be convinced that new laws would actually minimise the harm in some way. I haven't seen any plausible legal proposals that I could say with any conviction would actually reduce the death rate.

I think you overstate the desire for change in the US. It's true that every time there's a mass shooting there is national news coverage of it and the debate over gun control becomes a national story as well but that only lasts for a few weeks. There has yet to be any long lasting impetus to make any real change to the status quo. After the Newtown shooting the state of Connecticut passed a law requiring "assault rifles" to be registered but few people are complying with it and the authorities in CT aren't enforcing it. In NY you had the SAFE Act get passed but some of it has been overturned in court already and it primarily dealt with magazine capacity which really doesn't affect gun ownership or proliferation. While differences remain between states, California and Massachusetts have more restrictive gun laws than Montana and Florida, on a national level we're trending to a more permissive than restrictive society. More states are shall issue states for concealed carry permits than ever before, there are less restrictions on where you can carry concealed weapons, there are more concealed carried permits being issued and more guns being purchased. Permissive states are becoming more permissive and restrictive states are facing more court challenges. Obtaining a concealed carry permit is a very simple process in 35 states and we're not seeing any concerted effort to push back against that. Gun control can be a hot topic in the news cycle but it hasn't been a big issue at the ballot box in my lifetime.

It never shows up as being a priority in polling.

Most wedge issues don't. The economy, health and foreign policy will always rule the day, but we still get laws passed on other stuff all the same.

And I think you took my point on unhappiness about guns as the unhappiness being purely on the anti-gun side. I think there's a reasonable amount of unhappiness on both sides. Anti-gun people have reasonable complaints to be made about little being done despite the deaths, and pro-gun people have reasonable complaints to make about existing gun laws that add difficulty and expenses to gun ownership while doing nothing to prevent deaths. I see it as a situation in a state of flux.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Two people in a room together are going to behave how they want to behave regardless of the presence of firearms. If the two of us were ever in a room together there's a good chance I'll be armed but that doesn't instill any desire in my to do you harm. Likewise if for some reason we were in the same room and for some reason I desired to try to harm you I could successfully attempt to do so even if I wasn't armed. Carrying a gun didn't change the ex cop's temperament or his willingness to commit violence against another person, it just increased the lethality of the violence. That's the point.

Yeah, that sums it up nicely. A gun doesn't change the likelihood of violence, it changes the potential severity of violence once a situation devolves in to violence.

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, that sums it up nicely. A gun doesn't change the likelihood of violence, it changes the potential severity of violence once a situation devolves in to violence.

Would definitely agree. I think people who carry need to be very careful about not inserting themselves, or exposing themselves needlessly, to situations they would avoid if they were not armed.

Or, in some instances, it provides that violence isn't a one-way street.

I'm reminded of this old Biblical tale. A king was duped into scapegoating Jews and making it legal to assault and kill them. Quickly realizing the error he just made (and due to legal technicality unable to repeal his decree) said, "Sure you can attack a Jew, but I'm giving them the right to defend themselves with deadly force."


Now, don't get me wrong, this old guy killed without sufficient reason. He is a problem. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Maybe your neighbors own guns, maybe they don't. Are you afraid of your neighbors? Are they bad people?

It's not about being afraid of them. Do you trust all of your neighbors to be 100% vigilant and safe with their guns at all times? For them to be rational and never be startled into using them? For them not to escalate anything too quickly? Do them having guns make you feel safer?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Were you planning on murdering children with the shotgun you owned? If not then no children were saved from taking away your right to own that shotgun so what was gained? You hadn't done anything wrong, you weren't a threat to anyone and you lost a right because somebody else with no connection to you committed a heinous crime. I don't see any benefit to that kind of collective punishment that lumps the innocent in with the guilty based on faulty logic. If you do something wrong you can be punished if you don't do anything wrong the govt doesn't have the right to punish you.

That's quite the strawman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the vast majority of your school shootings (of which we've had exactly one, about 20 years ago), the shooter isn't actually the registered owner of the gun, no?

Beyond school shootings, the vast majority of guns deaths are accidental, no?

We hear a lot about toddlers killing parents with guns, normally found in handbags or loose in houses (fun fact; your toddlers kill more people by accidental discharge than our murders do deliberately).

So it's not a case of what my intentions are with the gun, but the intentions of anyone who may ever need to have access to it. Since my reasons for owning the shotgun and air rifle were essentially target shooting / coolness, I lost almost nothing by giving them up (I'd rather have sold them to buy some plastic crack, but that's not the point), and I gained the security of knowing that at no point in the future can my guns be responsible for any deaths, whether deliberate or otherwise.

I don't feel like I've lost any rights to own a killing machine I rarely use. If I do want to go do some shooting, I can go to a range and hire one.

The fact that guns are illegal here makes it a lot easier to police - possessing a gun is a custodial offense, so you don't need to deal with all the nuances of whether that guy with the gun is allowed one or not., because with very few exceptions he's not. It also means there's not the same level of escalation you have. Since anyone can have a gun over there, you kind of need to assume they've got one, which is why a man was shot dead over some stray popcorn. Over here, almost no-one has a gun, so that argument would have likely only resulted in a few traded blows before they were pulled apart.

I know which situation I'd rather be in. But then that's the issue with the worlds understanding of the US gun situation - we've got irreconcilable differences of opinion, because they've been ingrained in our culture for so long.

And it's not just the US constitution that protects our right to own firearms, most state constitutions also protect that right and many municipal and county authorities are also required to protect that right. It's quite the difficult task to get all of those laws repealed, counteract generations of accepted gun ownership and hundreds of years of social norms all in the name of creating a false sense of security.

Your constitution also protected your right to own slaves, but you don't see many people defending that any more. Just because it's enshrined in law doesn't make it a good idea or valid anymore.

How many people need to die because of misuse of guns before the pro-gun crowd think that something needs to be done? You've even relaxed the rules on people with registered mental illness from buying guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.

Not necesarily. The young guy was texting a babysitter, and the old guy was an ex-cop. Odds are the young guy wouldn't have killed the old guy, most likely the young guy would have fended off a couple of blows and then got on with his life.

In this situtation, the old guy literally killed the young guy, by escalating a conflict beyond rationality, and we're somehow arguing that allowing that sort of thing to happen is OK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The two were in a verbal exchange. Supposedly the Deceased then threw popcorn at him (technically battery) and then a cell phone (battery) then stood up.

At this point legally the old guy has not "started the fight." in contrast, he is the victim at this point, although what could be termed a "dickbag."

Do you think that's worth being shot dead over?

Also, why do you assume that the young guy would want to beat the old guy to death? Isn't it more likely that he'd walk away from it knowing that the old guy is of no threat?

I like how you took bits of my posts and refused to read the rest fo them. You'll find your answers there.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, that sums it up nicely. A gun doesn't change the likelihood of violence, it changes the potential severity of violence once a situation devolves in to violence.

Would definitely agree. I think people who carry need to be very careful about not inserting themselves, or exposing themselves needlessly, to situations they would avoid if they were not armed.

A very good point.

In many respects, I think it's too late for the USA when it comes to gun control, even if everybody agreed to it. Your population is what? 300 million people or something, and I think there's 400 million guns in the country.

Even if the 2nd was scrapped tomorrow, it would still take years to dispose of those guns.

With that many guns around, a tipping point has been reached, and law abiding citizens need guns, because the odds are everybody else will have them.

My sympathies with gun owners are on record all over dakka, but I could never get used to the idea of taking a gun to a cinema or shop or whatever, or being near people who are armed...

No offence to gun owners here, but it feels weird.

It's a cultural thing, I respect that, but something I wouldn't want in Britain. We had all that long ago with our civil wars, armed populace etc etc, but in our history, it was mostly swords, castles, shields, and semi-automatic cross-bows

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/02/27/body-cam-video-officer-pushing-86-year-old-woman-ground-tucson-immigration-protest/98494002/?hootPostID=0c94cc96980d13bbc69053ff9eeffcd1

86 years old.

He's swift with that spray too eh ?

This is not related to the topic and seems more appropriate to the Politics thread yes?

No.

The frailty of old people has been discussed much more in this thread.

 reds8n wrote:
No.

The frailty of old people has been discussed much more in this thread.

I agree, once you hit a certain age, you may not be made of glass, but few could argue you are gonna take the same amount of punishment as you did when you were decades younger. that video shows what would clearly not have been a push that caused a fall to a younger person, but was clearly a painful fall for an elderly person. Once again do not agree with the shooting being discussed here, however there come a point where you could recognize an elderly person might escalate a bit faster based on frailty. If I had a cane, I would have been wacking some youngster before I attempted to get in a fist fight for instance.

The frailty of old people has been discussed much more in this thread.

Ok gotcha now. I thought you were complaining about the PoPo.

 redleger wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
No.

The frailty of old people has been discussed much more in this thread.

If I had a cane, I would have been wacking some youngster before I attempted to get in a fist fight for instance.

Cane thwacking is definite perk!

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/02/27/body-cam-video-officer-pushing-86-year-old-woman-ground-tucson-immigration-protest/98494002/?hootPostID=0c94cc96980d13bbc69053ff9eeffcd1

86 years old.

He's swift with that spray too eh ?

Can't let any of them help the lady out, it could be dangerous, imagine if he wasn't quick on the pepper spray, someone could have died or something.

I guess that's why I could never be a cop, don't have the right stuff to pepper spray an overweight middle aged lady after knocking over an 70lb geriatric lady.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
No.

The frailty of old people has been discussed much more in this thread.

Well the old lady got up by herself and wasn't injured, so I guess she's pretty tough. She was knocked over easily, but anyone can be caught off balance, if she was younger she might have had the balance and coordination to stumble back instead of being toppled, though I'm sure there's a few uncoordinated young folks who'd just topple over as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
The fact that guns are illegal here makes it a lot easier to police - possessing a gun is a custodial offense, so you don't need to deal with all the nuances of whether that guy with the gun is allowed one or not., because with very few exceptions he's not. It also means there's not the same level of escalation you have. Since anyone can have a gun over there, you kind of need to assume they've got one, which is why a man was shot dead over some stray popcorn. Over here, almost no-one has a gun, so that argument would have likely only resulted in a few traded blows before they were pulled apart.

I know which situation I'd rather be in. But then that's the issue with the worlds understanding of the US gun situation - we've got irreconcilable differences of opinion, because they've been ingrained in our culture for so long.

I think in general cultures in other countries are more likely to say "hmm, yeah, I'd like my guns, but I can see they seem to cause more deaths so I'm willing to give them up". I wouldn't necessarily say one approach is better than the other, but one seems to result in less dead people than the other.

Whether it's accidental shootings, massacres from mentally unstable people, increased chance of a suicide attempt succeeding, cops being more likely to accidentally shoot a suspect or an argument over texting in a theatre ending with someone being shot and killed.... guns make the general population as a whole seems more likely to be killed. I understand some people argue that having guns is a crime deterrent, I'm not overly convinced, where I lived in the US there seemed to be heaps of crime in spite of every 2nd person I spoke to saying they at the very least had a gun in the house. I moved after someone tried to kick down my door and successfully kicked down my neighbour's door.

Can't let any of them help the lady out, it could be dangerous, imagine if he wasn't quick on the pepper spray, someone could have died or something

Some of them might've had popcorn or similar.

Probably all had those dangerous phones too.

Ok gotcha now. I thought you were complaining about the PoPo.

I'm not defending or approving of what happened here -- especially with regards to the pepper/whatever spraying that's proper gban.

.. One would hope also that no one is ever gonna try and argue that SYG should apply with regards to uniformed police either.

 redleger wrote:


to all the non firearm countries out there.

Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).

It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.

Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.

 redleger wrote:
to all the non firearm countries out there. Lets make one thing clear, the desire, the ability to pull the trigger on another human being is rarely found in 99% of mentally competent people.

1 in 100 is pretty bad odds

But the non-firearm countries don't think all Americans are crazy enough to go shooting up the place.... at worst the non-firearm countries think Americans are selfish and/or callous for wanting to keep their guns when getting rid of them would result in less deaths. Not saying I think that way, but I reckon it's probably the most commonly held thought rather than "Americans want to blow everyone away".

jouso wrote:

 redleger wrote:


to all the non firearm countries out there.

Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).

It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.

Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.

Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.

Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.


I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's not a major issue.

From what I saw on Dakka, it is.
From, say, the very existence of the NRA, it is.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You're making arguments that the status quo is barbaric lunacy.

I'm not.

Using Dakka posts as a determiner of how important something is strikes me as an odd metric to use. Going by the number of posts on Dakka the greatest calamity facing the human race is GW price increases.
The NRA was created in 1871 and it's current membership of 5 million gun owners accounts for something like 10% of gun owners at best.
I got a different impression from your posts.

jouso wrote:

 redleger wrote:


to all the non firearm countries out there.

Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).

It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.

Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.

Good point. In the UK you can have a firearm (mostly shotguns/rifles as most others are completely banned with a few exceptions), provided you:

1. Pass a background check (no criminal record)
2. Have a valid reason for owning one (farmer, vet, pest control, member of gun club, etc)
3. Pass a site security check (police will come out to confirm you have somewhere secure to store it, like a locked safe within a cupboard)
4. Consent to random compliance visits to confirm (3). Police will turn up unannounced and ask to see the gun cabinet with massive penalties for non-compliance.

So those that actually need them have access, and everyone else doesn't. Part of the reason I gave mine up was because I didn't want the hassle of the random compliance visits, and not actually having a valid reason to keep it (beyond target shooting), it just didn't seem worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redleger wrote:

Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Initially, but since it'd become illegal to possess or trade guns without a license, and you visit the registered-but-unlicensed gun owners, then the number of guns in circulation will drop fairly quickly, as any unregistered or stolen guns are taken out of the system and not replaced. Give it maybe 5-10 years after repealing the 2nd ammendment with an amnesty, and you'd find that gun possession is in a vast minority.

 redleger wrote:

jouso wrote:

 redleger wrote:


to all the non firearm countries out there.

Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).

It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.

Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.

Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.

Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.


I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.

Connecticut has an "assault rifle" registry and a large majority of owners of "assault rifles" have ignored the law requiring them to register the rifles and the Connecticut authorities aren't trying to enforce compliance.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 redleger wrote:
to all the non firearm countries out there. Lets make one thing clear, the desire, the ability to pull the trigger on another human being is rarely found in 99% of mentally competent people.

1 in 100 is pretty bad odds

But the non-firearm countries don't think all Americans are crazy enough to go shooting up the place.... at worst the non-firearm countries think Americans are selfish and/or callous for wanting to keep their guns when getting rid of them would result in less deaths. Not saying I think that way, but I reckon it's probably the most commonly held thought rather than "Americans want to blow everyone away".

Americans-selfish and callow? Excellent, maybe the rest of the world will quit asking us for our help.

Herzlos wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Maybe your neighbors own guns, maybe they don't. Are you afraid of your neighbors? Are they bad people?

It's not about being afraid of them. Do you trust all of your neighbors to be 100% vigilant and safe with their guns at all times? For them to be rational and never be startled into using them? For them not to escalate anything too quickly? Do them having guns make you feel safer?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Were you planning on murdering children with the shotgun you owned? If not then no children were saved from taking away your right to own that shotgun so what was gained? You hadn't done anything wrong, you weren't a threat to anyone and you lost a right because somebody else with no connection to you committed a heinous crime. I don't see any benefit to that kind of collective punishment that lumps the innocent in with the guilty based on faulty logic. If you do something wrong you can be punished if you don't do anything wrong the govt doesn't have the right to punish you.

That's quite the strawman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the vast majority of your school shootings (of which we've had exactly one, about 20 years ago), the shooter isn't actually the registered owner of the gun, no?

Beyond school shootings, the vast majority of guns deaths are accidental, no?

We hear a lot about toddlers killing parents with guns, normally found in handbags or loose in houses (fun fact; your toddlers kill more people by accidental discharge than our murders do deliberately).

So it's not a case of what my intentions are with the gun, but the intentions of anyone who may ever need to have access to it. Since my reasons for owning the shotgun and air rifle were essentially target shooting / coolness, I lost almost nothing by giving them up (I'd rather have sold them to buy some plastic crack, but that's not the point), and I gained the security of knowing that at no point in the future can my guns be responsible for any deaths, whether deliberate or otherwise.

I don't feel like I've lost any rights to own a killing machine I rarely use. If I do want to go do some shooting, I can go to a range and hire one.

The fact that guns are illegal here makes it a lot easier to police - possessing a gun is a custodial offense, so you don't need to deal with all the nuances of whether that guy with the gun is allowed one or not., because with very few exceptions he's not. It also means there's not the same level of escalation you have. Since anyone can have a gun over there, you kind of need to assume they've got one, which is why a man was shot dead over some stray popcorn. Over here, almost no-one has a gun, so that argument would have likely only resulted in a few traded blows before they were pulled apart.

I know which situation I'd rather be in. But then that's the issue with the worlds understanding of the US gun situation - we've got irreconcilable differences of opinion, because they've been ingrained in our culture for so long.

And it's not just the US constitution that protects our right to own firearms, most state constitutions also protect that right and many municipal and county authorities are also required to protect that right. It's quite the difficult task to get all of those laws repealed, counteract generations of accepted gun ownership and hundreds of years of social norms all in the name of creating a false sense of security.

Your constitution also protected your right to own slaves, but you don't see many people defending that any more. Just because it's enshrined in law doesn't make it a good idea or valid anymore.

How many people need to die because of misuse of guns before the pro-gun crowd think that something needs to be done? You've even relaxed the rules on people with registered mental illness from buying guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.

You getting this?

But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.

Not necesarily. The young guy was texting a babysitter, and the old guy was an ex-cop. Odds are the young guy wouldn't have killed the old guy, most likely the young guy would have fended off a couple of blows and then got on with his life.

In this situtation, the old guy literally killed the young guy, by escalating a conflict beyond rationality, and we're somehow arguing that allowing that sort of thing to happen is OK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The two were in a verbal exchange. Supposedly the Deceased then threw popcorn at him (technically battery) and then a cell phone (battery) then stood up.

At this point legally the old guy has not "started the fight." in contrast, he is the victim at this point, although what could be termed a "dickbag."

Do you think that's worth being shot dead over?

Also, why do you assume that the young guy would want to beat the old guy to death? Isn't it more likely that he'd walk away from it knowing that the old guy is of no threat?

I trust my neighbors to be responsible gun owners. Having other people in the neighborhood own guns doesn't make me feel more or less safe because I don't think it makes a significant difference to the safety and security of my household.

Our kids play with other kids in the neighborhood. Some of the other kids live in houses that have firearms and I'm not bothered by it. I trust the other kids' parents to be responsible and homes are full of dangers to kids, knives, scissors, medications, cleaning products, power tools some of the homes have yards with tree houses, zip lines, creek beds, trampolines and swimming pools all of which could harm, maim or kill my kids if used in an unsafe manner.

I wasn't constructing a strawman argument. You country decided that it was a logical to confiscate your shotgun as part of a response to a school shooting that you played no role in at all. How is that logical? Why were you such a threat to public safety that the govt had to remove that shotgun from your residence?

Were you planning on letting a toddler have access to your shotgun? Like I mentioned above, there are a lot of things that are dangerous if used in an unsafe manner in a house and I have confidence in my ability to prevent accidents with those and I have confidence in my ability to prevent negligent discharges with my firearms too. Will some gun owners have accidents and negligent discharges? Yes. Do I believe that the possibility of accidents and the reality of a few accidents warrants more restrictions on firearms than what we currently have? No, I don't.

Not anyone can own a gun here. I haven't seen any reporting that suggests that the ex cop in the movie theater thought that the man who threw popcorn at him had a gun. The man was shot because the ex cop was of a temperament that made him willing to commit a violence response to somebody using harsh words and throwing popcorn.

The US constitution doesn't allow us to own slaves anymore because we amended the constitution in 1865. If we don't like something in our constitution we can change it and we've done so several times. If we wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment we could but there isn't anything close to the amount of support needed to make it happen so we haven't.

Depending on what exactly was proposed it would likely take an exponentially more massive incidence rate of misuse or crimes to make me think that more draconian gun control laws should be considered or passed.