gun control

[Shrykull]

It's a ridiculous over simlification to think that simply banning guns will make gun crime go away.

Why not? It certainly would if you banned them, then whenever one was sighted simply confiscate it, but as I was saying you'd have to cut off manufacturing too, then there's imports, etc.

And it's also stupid to think that ever gun owner is just waiting for a chance to kill and maim.

Nope, but if the guns didn't exist it wouldn't have happened, plain and simple, a gun is a "spur of the moment" type thing and gives a person a lot more power than something like a knife would, which can be simply wrested away, but everyone will really be in fear of you if you have a gun, whether or not you have enough rounds to kill them all.

[Shrykull]

Let people keep hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, but limit access to military arms(read: M-16, M4-A1, etc)

I don't think that's any good either, I mean what's difference, all of those guns can be used to kill and do kill, the automatics and military arms, just let you do a faster and more efficient job of it.

[Exonerate]

Let people keep hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, but limit access to military arms(read: M-16, M4-A1, etc)

I don't think that's any good either, I mean what's difference, all of those guns can be used to kill and do kill, the automatics and military arms, just let you do a faster and more efficient job of it.

Exactly.

[Shrykull]

Oh please shut the fuck up. There is no difference between a semi auto
hunting rifle and a AR-15 except the AR-15 looks a lot meaner....

Of course there's a difference. two or three bullets hurt a lot more than one wouldn't you agree, and what does it matter anyway, I direct hit to the head of the neck except by some miracle will kill just about anyone, espescially three direct hits

[Perinquus]

I haven't weighed in on this one yet, even though I have some very strong opinions on the matter. Let me give you the average cop's perspective. Gun control, as promoted by Sarah Brady, and organizations like Handgun Control Inc, is pretty much not only a waste of time, but actually a step in the wrong direction.

This is not to say certain sensible restrictions are not warranted. For example: I agree convicted felons, people who have been certified to be mentally unstable, etc. should not have them. I am also in favor of very tough penalties for use of a gun in any crime. But banning guns will not solve the problem; it will make it worse. Allow me to appeal to authority for a moment (though the statement can be taken entirely on its own merit, because it embodies simple common sense, no matter who said it), and quote Thos. Jefferson.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

This is really the crux of the matter. Why will a criminal, who is by definition a law breaker, refrain from carrying a gun because it is against the law? Why will a criminal who is willing to risk the penalty for crimes like murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault, etc. refrain from carrying a gun because it against the law? Obviously, he won't; but his intended vicitim, the law-abiding citizen, will.

It is no accident that you can take a map, and stick a pin in the cities with the highest rates of violent crime, then take another map, and stick a pin in the cities with the strictest gun control laws, and you will have two identical maps. It is no accident that when 37 states made it easier for law-abiding citizens to get concealed weapons permits, they all experienced marked declines in their rates of violent crime. It is no accident that violent crime is on the increase in England and Australia now that those countries have enacted sweeping gun bans.

On his fallacies page, Mike pointed out that the NRA, when it says that each new gun law is just another step on the road to a total ban is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Technically, he's quite correct. It is. However, it is also true that leading proponents of gun control laws, like Senators Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein, and others have, in their more unguarded moments, actually admitted that they are indeed working toward that goal - a total ban of all handguns, and most long guns. Is it a fallacy anymore when your opponents admit your suspicions are well founded?

I can tell you that as a cop, I am not worried about honest citizens owning guns. And the statistics show I am right not to worry about them. I am, however, worried about criminals. Statistics also indicate that when more honest citizens own guns, fewer criminals are willing to risk commiting violent crimes. That makes my job both safer and easier.

[Shrykull]

The real purpose of gun control laws isn't Gun Control, it's Gun CONTROL! There's a reason all these laws have no impact on crime whatsoever, yet they SEVERELY fuck over Joe Citizen's rights to own guns/self defense/etc.

Yes, that can be a problem, when you can't own a gun legally yet the criminal gets his from the black market, but if guns were confiscated from everyone and the manufacturing was shut off you wouldn't need a gun for defense

We don't want what's happening to Britain to happen here. It's literally Orwellian there!

Guess that's your legal gun owner's worst nightmare, but I don't mind, since I don't hunt and don't own any guns, I remember someone told me that killing the Queen of England (not the Queen mother) would be impossible since they don't sell guns in Britain/England, guess they're hard to get on the black market there too, but I heard about a guy in Scotland who shot an intruder in his house after repeat intrusions (and he was still the one who went to jail) how did he get his gun?

[aerius]

The real purpose of gun control laws isn't Gun Control, it's Gun CONTROL! There's a reason all these laws have no impact on crime whatsoever, yet they SEVERELY fuck over Joe Citizen's rights to own guns/self defense/etc.

Yes, that can be a problem, when you can't own a gun legally yet the criminal gets his from the black market, but if guns were confiscated from everyone and the manufacturing was shut off you wouldn't need a gun for defense

Wrong again. Consider the case of small woman who a rapist is attempting to overpower and drag into a car. Without any weapons available to her she's probably fucked, with a firearm she has a chance of neutralizing the attacker and getting to safety. You want more situations? A mugger has snuck up on you and put you in a choke from behind. You have roughly 5-10 seconds before you pass out and you can't break the hold. You are fucked. With a firearm you can do something about it, and a method of dealing with this scenario is shown here in this thread. Read it through and look about halfway down the page.

http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums ... readid=822

[Alyeska]

It's a ridiculous over simlification to think that simply banning guns will make gun crime go away.

Why not? It certainly would if you banned them, then whenever one was sighted simply confiscate it, but as I was saying you'd have to cut off manufacturing too, then there's imports, etc.

And it's also stupid to think that ever gun owner is just waiting for a chance to kill and maim.

Nope, but if the guns didn't exist it wouldn't have happened, plain and simple, a gun is a "spur of the moment" type thing and gives a person a lot more power than something like a knife would, which can be simply wrested away, but everyone will really be in fear of you if you have a gun, whether or not you have enough rounds to kill them all.

You don't seem to realize that you can never ban guns and keep them out of the country. You also didn't adress the fact that banning guns punishes the law abiding citizens and prevents them from using their own property safely.

[Shrykull]

Wrong again. Consider the case of small woman who a rapist is attempting to overpower and drag into a car. Without any weapons available to her she's probably fucked, with a firearm she has a chance of neutralizing the attacker and getting to safety. You want more situations? A mugger has snuck up on you and put you in a choke from behind. You have roughly 5-10 seconds before you pass out and you can't break the hold. You are fucked. With a firearm you can do something about it, and a method of dealing with this scenario is shown here in this thread. Read it through and look about halfway down the page.

But why does it have to be a gun she needs to defend herself, what about martial arts, a knife, mace or a stun gun. Good martial artists can knock someone out with a a hold or lock etc, (I know a guy who was a bouncer and knocked someout out with a pen) though it takes some skill to learn. A stun gun would do nicely

[Alyeska]

But why does it have to be a gun she needs to defend herself, what about martial arts, a knife, mace or a stun gun. Good martial artists can knock someone out with a a hold or lock etc, (I know a guy who was a bouncer and knocked someout out with a pen) though it takes some skill to learn. A stun gun would do nicely

[/quote]

You would be surprised how tightly someone can be held, even skileld fighters.

[Shrykull]

You would be surprised how tightly someone can be held, even skileld fighters.

What's your point? If you could be held tightly enough so you couldn't reach your stun gun, you couldn't reach your gun either.

[Alyeska]

You would be surprised how tightly someone can be held, even skileld fighters.

What's your point? If you could be held tightly enough so you couldn't reach your stun gun, you couldn't reach your gun either.

There is a difference between being able knock someone out and just having a single hand free.

[aerius]

But why does it have to be a gun she needs to defend herself, what about martial arts, a knife, mace or a stun gun. Good martial artists can knock someone out with a a hold or lock etc, (I know a guy who was a bouncer and knocked someout out with a pen) though it takes some skill to learn. A stun gun would do nicely

Martial arts are overated, and few people are skilled enough to get any use out of them. Also consider that a 120lb woman is at a severe disadvantage against a 200lb man, she'd need the skills of Steven Seagal in his movies to even the odds.

Knives can work, but they have nowhere near the stopping power of a firearm. They work mainly by causing blood loss and if you're real lucky or good you can sever muscle groups and disable the attacker. It's better than nothing but it's still a crapshoot. The main problem is the attacker will take time to bleed out, and even if he recieves mortal wounds he'll have more than enough time to kill you before he dies.

Mace and stunguns are a complete crapshoot, some people are taken down by them the way you see in TV demos, others are completely unaffected. Trying to spray or stungun a guy while struggling with him in grappling range is also an incredibly risky thing to do. Chances are you'll end up getting sprayback all over you, and zapping him when he's got a hold of you will end up with you getting a jolt as well. These things are not the magic bullets that they're promoted to be.

[Shrykull]

Martial arts are overated, and few people are skilled enough to get any use out of them. Also consider that a 120lb woman is at a severe disadvantage against a 200lb man, she'd need the skills of Steven Seagal in his movies to even the odds.

Just what exactly does Steven Seagal know? someone told me Aikido, but Aikido is a very passive martial art (I've seen demonstrations at a school) which relies on using the motion of someone's body against them, like pulling their arm and throwing them to the ground which I've seen him do before, but a lot more often you see him break bones, which seems more like Judo.

Someone told me once that he saw a 90lb woman take down a 300lb weightlifter by a kick the crotch and a roll of dimes across the jaw. Someone else told me you should hit an assailant in the throat rather than the crotch to stun him.

[guyver]

Martial arts are overated, and few people are skilled enough to get any use out of them. Also consider that a 120lb woman is at a severe disadvantage against a 200lb man, she'd need the skills of Steven Seagal in his movies to even the odds.

Just what exactly does Steven Seagal know? someone told me Aikido, but Aikido is a very passive martial art (I've seen demonstrations at a school) which relies on using the motion of someone's body against them, like pulling their arm and throwing them to the ground which I've seen him do before, but a lot more often you see him break bones, which seems more like Judo.

Someone told me once that he saw a 90lb woman take down a 300lb weightlifter by a kick the crotch and a roll of dimes across the jaw. Someone else told me you should hit an assailant in the throat rather than the crotch to stun him.

I take it you have never used a gun? People (Lawfull people) should be able to own and carry guns. If a little old lady was at her house and a big bad guy came in to rob her, what would she do?

Hide under the bed and hope he goes away.
Sit in her bed holding a stun gun and hope she can hit him with it and it works.
Sit in her bed with a gun.

Remember if she shoots people are going to hear the gun go off and call the cops. Plus the bad guy will run away when he hears a gun or sees it.

[Falcon]

To the martial arts person ---> I can ride a bike to work, but a car is quicker, faster, better. If you are old, disabled, or just don't want to bother to learn self defense then martial arts arn't going to do you any good. People need guns, the criminals have them, the people need them to even the balance a bit, to make the criminal think twice about attacking someone (for fear they might be armed)

To the regulators ---> Here is a novel idea, instead of punishing gun owners why don't we punish criminals. If some casual moron is shooting someone over road rage then the penality he is incurring obviously isn't enough to detur his actions.


Bottom line, if we tried to ban all guns the criminals would still have them and crime would shoot ahead unabated. A few crackpots might be stopped from owning a gun, but the old saying of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' comes to mind when you consider how many more criminals there are in society than the so called 'casual moron'

[Coyote]

Criminals will get guns no matter what laws are passed.

If criminals can get them, citizens will find a way to get them too because they think their lives are important and worth protecting-- darn pesky citizens!

The only way to prevent that is to have police do frequent house searches in every neighborhood and do random street blockages and car searches. You will be addressed as "Comrade" and have to show "papers" at every turn.

Millions of innocent people will be sent to jail for the crime of wanting to protect their lives. What a paradise.

Will the trains run on time?

[Darth Wong]

They only have firearms in the first place because they're a bit too easy to get, even for morons.

That seems to be a common thread that runs through your gun control
arguments: the fact that guns make it easy for morons to kill anyone,
no matter how smart their opponent is...

Isn't it true? If you take Albert Einstein against a moronic thug with a gun, who's going to live and who's going to die?

I have no problem with intelligent, responsible people owning guns. I have a problem with morons, criminals, and deranged people owning guns. The fact that it is not necessarily EASY to stop this does not mean it's an unworty goal. The fact that many attempts to do this have been hackneyed, poorly conceived, and ultimately ineffective also does not mean it's an unworthy goal. First we must agree that the goal makes sense, and then try to take whatever measures are necessary to "raise the bar" for criminal firearms acquisition without unduly trampling on the rights of intelligent, responsible citizens.

All legal systems are a compromise between various competing goals, interests, and practical limitations; this situation should be no different.

[Knife]

They only have firearms in the first place because they're a bit too easy to get, even for morons.

That seems to be a common thread that runs through your gun control
arguments: the fact that guns make it easy for morons to kill anyone,
no matter how smart their opponent is...

Isn't it true? If you take Albert Einstein against a moronic thug with a gun, who's going to live and who's going to die?

I have no problem with intelligent, responsible people owning guns. I have a problem with morons, criminals, and deranged people owning guns. The fact that it is not necessarily EASY to stop this does not mean it's an unworty goal. The fact that many attempts to do this have been hackneyed, poorly conceived, and ultimately ineffective also does not mean it's an unworthy goal. First we must agree that the goal makes sense, and then try to take whatever measures are necessary to "raise the bar" for criminal firearms acquisition without unduly trampling on the rights of intelligent, responsible citizens.

All legal systems are a compromise between various competing goals, interests, and practical limitations; this situation should be no different.

I don't think you have to raise the bar. You have the laws but no one enforces them. Send the fuckers to jail and throw the book at them. Send the guy who sold the gun to the criminal(not the manufacturer) and didn't follow the law and let a criminal buy a gun. The laws are there, we just appearently want to make new ones instead of enforce the ones we have.

[ZAROVE]

Back home they have a gun ban, and a lower crime rate. Interstignly I am an immigrant and got shot.

[Sea Skimmer]

They only have firearms in the first place because they're a bit too easy to get, even for morons.

That seems to be a common thread that runs through your gun control
arguments: the fact that guns make it easy for morons to kill anyone,
no matter how smart their opponent is...

Isn't it true? If you take Albert Einstein against a moronic thug with a gun, who's going to live and who's going to die?

I have no problem with intelligent, responsible people owning guns. I have a problem with morons, criminals, and deranged people owning guns. The fact that it is not necessarily EASY to stop this does not mean it's an unworty goal. The fact that many attempts to do this have been hackneyed, poorly conceived, and ultimately ineffective also does not mean it's an unworthy goal. First we must agree that the goal makes sense, and then try to take whatever measures are necessary to "raise the bar" for criminal firearms acquisition without unduly trampling on the rights of intelligent, responsible citizens.

All legal systems are a compromise between various competing goals, interests, and practical limitations; this situation should be no different.

Worthy goal and possibul goals are not always the same.

In any case, the very problem with gun control is that some always leads to more. Thus making the argument very much black and white from the prospective of an anti control Supporter. Currently I won't support a single piece of legislature, even though I think quite a few proposals are worthwhile.

One concession leads to another, pass a law that sets requirements for ownership and then ext year someone tried to amend it to make the requirement stricter. This goes on until you have out right banning and confiscation.

Creating a database one year and the next year it's used to enforce a new a license requirement, the year after the licenses are revoked.

That has happened repeatedly. The finnal stages are happening in the UK right now with the last few types of guns still legal are being slowly strangled away from citizens.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I'm not legally allowed to own a gun where I live.

I am still very pissed off at my boss for what he pulled right before thanksgiving, (taking away my vacation request, after it was approved) cause I wanted to spend time with my family, and I do enjoy hunting. I am due to inhaireit a very old pistol and actually appreciate the firearm more for it's place in history, then for anything else.

Of course that particular Pistol, has been involved is events that provoked quite a bit of human misery, and some would suggest it should have long ago been melted down. Sorry, no way, not selling it, not shooting it, just going to keep it well preserved, the age that spawned it is gone, and it deserves it's retirement.