• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Gun Ownership

guns handguns massacre shooting gun control security mass shooting rights us law gun law handguns gun law

  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

Poll: life extension and guns (75 member(s) have cast votes)

Private ownership of handguns should be..

  1. outlawed (10 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

  2. highly restricted (12 votes [16.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.00%

  3. restricted somewhat (16 votes [21.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.33%

  4. largely unrestricted (32 votes [42.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.67%

  5. other (5 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Vote Guests cannot vote
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#61 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 December 2012 - 10:27 PM

I again state the obvious; Guns are too easy to get in the US and having more guns or putting more guns in more hands will not work.
Actually, reducing gun control by allowing, even encouraging teachers to have firearms would probably work. Gun Free Zone? Victim Zone is more like it!

  • Lock your doors and stop being so paranoid. If someone breaks in, let them take what they want then allow the police to do their job. Because forbidding defense of property won't encourage burglars at all right? Of course not!
  • Work on building a better society instead of worrying about whether you can trust your neighbour’s kid or that Hispanic family down the block. I think our visions of a "better society" differ to a large extent. You're not American and it shows IMHO.
Shifter made a very good point when he said that the laws are outdated. You think the weapons you have today are the same as they were 50
years ago? It’s just a never ending arms race and it’s not healthy.
Just because something is old doesn't mean it's outdated. Just because the rest of the world wants to follow the latest trends in gun control doesn't mean that those actually make sense. Actually, yes, the firearms (rifles/handguns) are mostly the same as they were 50 years ago. There isn't much room for fancier small-arms.


  • like x 2

#62 scottknl

  • Guest
  • 420 posts
  • 325
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 18 December 2012 - 10:49 PM

Actually, reducing gun control by allowing, even encouraging teachers to have firearms would probably work. Gun Free Zone? Victim Zone is more like it!

Are you on crack or something? Why would you want more guns in any school, but especially in an elementary school? One defining characteristic of children is that they don't have a strong sense of what is wrong or right, and have to be guided until near adulthood. Children should be separated as far as possible from all guns.

How long do you think it would take for the first tragedy to occur when a student gets a teacher's gun?

I've never seen such an irresponsible suggestion.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#63 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 18 December 2012 - 11:04 PM

I again state the obvious; Guns are too easy to get in the US and having more guns or putting more guns in more hands will not work.
Actually, reducing gun control by allowing, even encouraging teachers to have firearms would probably work. Gun Free Zone? Victim Zone is more like it!

  • Lock your doors and stop being so paranoid. If someone breaks in, let them take what they want then allow the police to do their job. Because forbidding defense of property won't encourage burglars at all right? Of course not!
  • Work on building a better society instead of worrying about whether you can trust your neighbour’s kid or that Hispanic family down the block. I think our visions of a "better society" differ to a large extent. You're not American and it shows IMHO.
Shifter made a very good point when he said that the laws are outdated. You think the weapons you have today are the same as they were 50
years ago? It’s just a never ending arms race and it’s not healthy.
Just because something is old doesn't mean it's outdated. Just because the rest of the world wants to follow the latest trends in gun control doesn't mean that those actually make sense. Actually, yes, the firearms (rifles/handguns) are mostly the same as they were 50 years ago. There isn't much room for fancier small-arms.


So what is it exactly that “shows” that I’m not from the US? I’m guessing you (and others) view it as a “surreal vision of reality”. Perhaps it’s something of a blinding optimism or youthful ignorance which blinds one to the harsh realities of living in the US? This sort of “hope” you could say is not some silly thing you would be able to cling to had you lived your life in the US. Is this more or less your view?

So then is it my privilege to live a life free of violence and the need for attachment to weapons; while you, citizens of the US, must suffer through the insecurities that require you to bear arms?

Are you saying instead of encouraging change I should then pity the insecure lives of my neighbours to the south?

And rwac, you can’t just give a teacher a gun and expect that to improve things! They have to be trained on how to use it. They have to have good aim and good reflexes. More importantly they have to expect violence and be prepared for it.

You escalate; they escalate. This is human nature. How can you not see that?

Edited by Lister, 18 December 2012 - 11:06 PM.

  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#64 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:02 AM

I've never seen such an irresponsible suggestion.


Perry expressed his continued support for gun rights, according to the Dallas Morning News, saying he believed people with concealed-handgun licenses "should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” and elicited applause when he spoke positively about a Texas school system that allows some staff members to come to school armed.

Perry was referring to the Harrold Independent School District, which, in 2008, became the first district in the country to permit teachers and staff to carry concealed weapons. Those participating in the program must hold concealed-carry licenses and be approved by the school board.

In response to a reporter question about allowing guns on campus, Perry clarified that he thought local school districts should make their own policies. "Local control," he said.

Perry cautioned about a federal move to tighten gun laws. A number of pro-gun lawmakers have signalled a growing willingness to address gun control in the wake of the mass shooting.


http://www.huffingto..._n_2322185.html

Edited by rwac, 19 December 2012 - 12:16 AM.


#65 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:22 AM

So what is it exactly that “shows” that I’m not from the US? I’m guessing you (and others) view it as a “surreal vision of reality”. Perhaps it’s something of a blinding optimism or youthful ignorance which blinds one to the harsh realities of living in the US? This sort of “hope” you could say is not some silly thing you would be able to cling to had you lived your life in the US. Is this more or less your view?

So then is it my privilege to live a life free of violence and the need for attachment to weapons; while you, citizens of the US, must suffer through the insecurities that require you to bear arms?

Are you saying instead of encouraging change I should then pity the insecure lives of my neighbours to the south?

And rwac, you can’t just give a teacher a gun and expect that to improve things! They have to be trained on how to use it. They have to have good aim and good reflexes. More importantly they have to expect violence and be prepared for it.

You escalate; they escalate. This is human nature. How can you not see that?


I'm saying you're ignoring the historical context. America just has a better historical memory than most countries. Gun control in democratic states is relatively new all over the world, mostly beginning in the 20th century. It wasn't always so ...

There's and old latin adage: "If you wish for peace, prepare for war"

Nobody wishes for violence, it is thrust upon them. The question is, what options do you have at that point.

Nobody wants to "give a teacher a gun". Instead, people who are otherwise allowed to carry concealed (usually this means they have some training) should also be allowed to do so in schools.
  • like x 3

#66 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:03 AM

I thought this thread was getting weird when the massacre (or massacres in general) were being blamed on "Hollywood". (Why not Halo and Call of Duty?)

I don't hate guns. They have their place. I used to hunt when I was a kid. I've lived in some places that weren't exactly "low crime", though they weren't particularly high crime either, but I've never had much fear about it. I never lock my door at night, and these days I don't even lock my car very much. (It's not a "high theft vehicle...") I only lock it if I leave something in it that someone might actually want to steal. Needless to say, I just don't feel the need for a gun. I know the odds regarding having a gun in the house- I'm a hell of a lot more likely to use it on myself or a member of my family than on an intruder. I guess I could always arm myself with my framing nailer and mapp torch if I have to, or my chainsaw. They're good for scaring the shit out of people... ;)

I had a friend who carried, and he noticed a funny thing. Instead of feeling safer, he saw his paranoia rising. He said that he felt like if he was carrying, then that must mean there's someone out there trying to get him. He stopped carrying. I think there's something to that. Maybe you think my low security level is crazy; I like the way it feels, and figure some day I'll lose a few bucks over it, but it will have been worth it for the convenience and sense that I didn't need to be scared. And if the Hillside Strangler pays me a visit, well, that would suck, but so would getting hit by a meteorite.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#67 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,870 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:21 PM

Your friend is a classic example of someone that shouldn't own a gun Niner.


I thought this thread was getting weird when the massacre (or massacres in general) were being blamed on "Hollywood". (Why not Halo and Call of Duty?)



TV and video games cannot be blamed for violence because we are by far a less violent species than we were hundreds of years before they were invented. However, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that media and entertainment has affected how we respond to it as a society.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 19 December 2012 - 01:52 PM.


#68 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,870 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:51 PM

I again state the obvious; Guns are too easy to get in the US and having more guns or putting more guns in more hands will not work.

  • Having a gun will not always prevent a violent act.
Did that really need to be said? Of course having a gun will not always prevent a violent act. My wife could get raped while out walking the dog and my gun could be safely at home where it did no good.
  • When that Violent Act occurs it is much more likely to result in a death or many deaths (worse result than if increased violence had occured due to lack of guns)
Pure hogwash. The only time a violent act is more likely to result in death due to a firearm is when the person committing the act is armed. If the victim shoots and kills the person committing violence on them, GOOD for them.
  • Guns are too powerful on a community level to serve as a deterrent individually and too weak to serve as a deterrent against the government.
You are right on the second part, but you are blatantly wrong on the first. If a criminal knows he stands a good chance of being killed in the act of committing a crime against an individual, he will be far more inclined to seek an easier target.
  • Guns only purpose is to harm and to kill
Yup, and they do a good job of it. Come in to my home and put my family in danger and I will do my best to make sure you will get to know that first hand.
  • Lock your doors and stop being so paranoid. If someone breaks in, let them take what they want then allow the police to do their job.
Sorry, this is a stupid statement. I don't live in rural town USA where everyone knows everyone and its safe to leave your door unlocked. I would love to be able to count on both being able to notify the police and having them show up before harm could be committed to my family, but that just isn't reality.
  • If you think your legal system is flawed or too weak then work on strengthening it.
This is irrelevant. The legal system doesn't prevent crime. It enforced laws and prosecutes crime
  • Work on building a better society instead of worrying about whether you can trust your neighbour’s kid or that Hispanic family down the block.
Again, absolutely stupid statement. Not everyone is a xenophobe or a racist or is worried about their neighbors kid. A perfect society doesn't happen over night. In fact the human race has failed at it for thousands of years. I would love to live in a perfect society, but yeah... give me a call when it happens and I will gladly hand in my firearm.

It’s not just about whether you should have guns or not; it’s a great thing to feel safe enough to live without weapons. You seek to have guns because you desire to feel safe. That feeling, that safe feeling you feel because of your guns; my society grants me even more safety than that.

Where is this magic society you live in where violent crime doesn't occur and doesn't have a reasonable chance of occurring in the future? Answer: There isn't one. I don't feel safe because of my firearm. I feel prepared. There is a rather large difference.

Your lack of safety is because of too much guns, not because of too few.

Not really. Knives, strangling, blunt weapons, fists, rape, etc. could all do harm to my family. In fact, those things do harm to people every day.


See above for my responses.

I think you are kind of starting to go off the deep end here. Not everyone with a firearm is a gun toting lunatic with 50 automatic rifles preparing for urban warfare and not everyone with a firearm is hiding under the covers grasping their firearm all night long and every night waiting for someone to break into there house to hurt them.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 19 December 2012 - 01:51 PM.


#69 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:14 PM

This gun argument shouldn't be (and isn't) a contest between being armed to the teeth with military weapons or being totally defenseless. I think we could have a situation where it was pretty easy to have a shotgun for hunting/home defense without letting crazy people have such easy access to efficient mass killing devices.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#70 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,870 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:45 PM

This gun argument shouldn't be (and isn't) a contest between being armed to the teeth with military weapons or being totally defenseless. I think we could have a situation where it was pretty easy to have a shotgun for hunting/home defense without letting crazy people have such easy access to efficient mass killing devices.


No it shouldn't be, but it definitely isn't stopping people from trying to make it into that. Heh

Shotgun / Hunting Rifle / Pistol should be ok for people to own as long as they are sane.

And no ...an AR-15 is not a hunting rifle.

#71 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,446 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 19 December 2012 - 07:07 PM

I just want to say, good job keeping this discussion civil. Makes me proud of Longecity, as many other forums are a volcanic explosion of vitriolic flame wars.

Although you guys think I am a kook-fringe-person for being vigilant against totalitarian control (I hope I never have to say "I told you so"), I am not against deeper checks and longer waiting times for people who want to own guns. That would be a reasonable step in the right direction in attempt to prevent "passion-driven" or "lunatic" mass shootings.

As a practical matter of reducing the number of firearms in circulation, the federal government should amp up buy back programs. Ok now, I am serious here. The FED is printing gazilions trillions of dollars, the government is bailing out irresponsible people/businesses left and right, why not just print some money for a gun buyback program. "QE for peace". At $100 per gun, I'll bet 10% or 20% of the guns could be collected - a move in the right direction.

Also, in many states where "conceal and carry" is the law, the requirements are fairly stringent. Background checks, training, license fee, things like that. It is NOT all that much different than security guard or minimal police firearms training. No one is against police or security guards carrying firearms, even though they sometimes do use them for illegal purposes and even to unjustifiably murder people (yes there are a small number of corrupt cops). If I feel more comfortable and secure with more armed police around, I would feel the same about very responsible and trained armed citizens.
  • like x 1

#72 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:15 PM

I just want to say, good job keeping this discussion civil. Makes me proud of Longecity, as many other forums are a volcanic explosion of vitriolic flame wars.

Although you guys think I am a kook-fringe-person for being vigilant against totalitarian control (I hope I never have to say "I told you so"), I am not against deeper checks and longer waiting times for people who want to own guns. That would be a reasonable step in the right direction in attempt to prevent "passion-driven" or "lunatic" mass shootings.

As a practical matter of reducing the number of firearms in circulation, the federal government should amp up buy back programs. Ok now, I am serious here. The FED is printing gazilions trillions of dollars, the government is bailing out irresponsible people/businesses left and right, why not just print some money for a gun buyback program. "QE for peace". At $100 per gun, I'll bet 10% or 20% of the guns could be collected - a move in the right direction.

Also, in many states where "conceal and carry" is the law, the requirements are fairly stringent. Background checks, training, license fee, things like that. It is NOT all that much different than security guard or minimal police firearms training. No one is against police or security guards carrying firearms, even though they sometimes do use them for illegal purposes and even to unjustifiably murder people (yes there are a small number of corrupt cops). If I feel more comfortable and secure with more armed police around, I would feel the same about very responsible and trained armed citizens.


You should stop calling yourself a kook-fringe-person for your totalitarian worries. I would say that your view is vastly more common than our views on immortality. If your Fringe about anything is that you think you can live forever (though that’s another topic entirely and I’d be in the same boat). I think you’re right about holding your ground against a potential totalitarian threat but I’m not sure about the implementation…

Anyways, did you know it’s illegal for Contract Security Guards to carry firearms here in BC? It’s even illegal for them to carry flashlights that are over 3 cells (batteries) in length or any other potential weapon. The reason for that law is because a Security Guard patrolling a residential area came upon a husband beating his wife and tried to stop him by smacking the guy with his flashlight. Cracked his head and killed him. Just a thought...

Mike, I pulled extreme left so you pulled extreme right. Fair enough.

I will say though that where I live isn’t free of crime or violence. But I can walk down the worst part of Downtown Vancouver with a $20 sticking out of my pocket, no gun or weapon in sight and I don’t have to worry about a thing.

I voted (Oi! Who merged my thread!?) for handgun gun ownership to be restricted somewhat. I said that guns are too powerful on a personal level because they are. Like niner said “I'm a hell of a lot more likely to use it on myself or a member of my family than on an intruder.” How many kids kill themselves with their parent’s guns? How many needless deaths occur because of the light hearted view of guns?

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to own a gun for self-defense especially in the US. I just don’t think the purchase of a gun should be on the same level as an iPad. It shouldn’t be a light hearted decision.

When I walk down the street here in Vancouver I’m pretty sure that 99% of the people I walk past do not have guns. When I rode the street cars in downtown Phoenix, AZ, it was certainly an unsettling feeling knowing that there could be hidden guns on that car. When I was there I just felt like “How can you guys live like this?”

Honestly in all the times I’ve visited Mexico I can say I feel much safer there than I do in the US. Personal gun laws I feel have a lot to do with that. Mike you worry and prepare for the situation of people looking to do harm to you or your family; how many people really want that? Isn't it more true that they want your money, your TV, etc? And why do they want those things anyways? Preparing yourself for the worst is reasonable but where do you draw the line? Prepare for 1 invader? 2? 10? A whole military? Zombie attack? At what point are you abandoning reason and allowing fear to rule you and your family?
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#73 golgi1

  • Guest
  • 284 posts
  • 50
  • Location:Cloud 7

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:09 AM

Banning guns before a long term attempt to remedy the culture is culturally irresponsible, as well as unfair to those who have a legitimate need to protect themselves from those that are molded by said dysfunctional culture.

The culture of gratuitously violent cultural memes (gangster culture as it is presented through the music industry and television), violent video games that are often disprespectful to the dead and injured of even current wars, and general seemingly purposeful reduction of traditional morality, community responsibility and cohesiveness, individual responsibility, and individual mental hygeine needs to be addressed before we ban the mere tools that are used. Gun use is trivialized through the media, and killing is depersonalized. The results of such destructive cultural programming are utterly disgusting and sad, across the board. The current mayor of my city, who has politicized the recent tragedy toward the end of new gun legislation, would need to severely curtail the 400 largely impulsive homicides (which are multiplied by all other major cities) in my city per year before I would agree with his political motivation to restrict guns to ostensibly prevent a 26 person planned killing spree that occassionally happens randomly. In his city, he needs to make sure that I have no use for a gun to protect myself from the animals that live here, before he has any platform whatsoever to lecture me about gun laws. He would need to spearhead a significant cultural reform effort before his current response would not ring hypocritical. There are constant home break-ins, in-home hostage takings (to facilitate robberies), street stick-ups, and street murders here. These things barely make the news, if at all, and tally at an average of 400 per year for killings alone. The non-lethal incidents are many times this amount. I've been robbed, at gunpoint, twice. The people who robbed me wouldn't be the ones turning in their guns. There were two home robberies in my neighborhood this month. My cousin scared a burglar out of his house with a handgun last year. These crimes would occur whether or not guns were outright illegal. It's the culture that is to blame, and it is not showing signs of turning around. The big numbers (legal gun ownership numbers vs homicide hotspots, etc) tell the whole story.

Theoretically, I'd be for complete gun restriction, assuming that they are made completely unnecessary via a wholly successful universal cultural evolution. However, we've sunk into the pit of moral nihilism and, often, a certain vile brand of animalistic individualism. Ironically, just when guns would be completely fine for everyone to own, they would be the least needed. Currently, due to the fact that the human product has devolved so abysmally in certain respects, and therefore guns being risky in the hands of certain individuals, they are the most needed by others.

Edited by golgi1, 20 December 2012 - 03:37 AM.


#74 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:06 AM

How about this for a practical restriction. You may own 1 hand gun and a maximum of 6 bullets at any one time. You may carry it but it must be clearly visible at all times and there are restrictions where you can go when carrying like school are off limits etc.

This will provide you with basic protection but ensure no mass shootings (6 bullet limit) and no high power mega guns.

Full check, licensing etc as part of the package.

VERY heavy punishments (eg 5 year prison) for breaches eg. owning more than 6 bullets with strong enforcement and incentives for revealing cheats. (eg $1000 reward to dob someone in).
  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#75 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,870 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:20 PM

Mike, I pulled extreme left so you pulled extreme right. Fair enough.

I will say though that where I live isn’t free of crime or violence. But I can walk down the worst part of Downtown Vancouver with a $20 sticking out of my pocket, no gun or weapon in sight and I don’t have to worry about a thing.


In the US I would be considered moderate on gun control. In fact I am moderate on most things, heh. That is why my conservative friends call me a liberal and my liberal friends call me a conservative. ;)

I wish our society and the world as a whole was evolved enough where we didn't need weapons of any kind. I really do.

#76 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,870 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:28 PM

How about this for a practical restriction. You may own 1 hand gun and a maximum of 6 bullets at any one time. You may carry it but it must be clearly visible at all times and there are restrictions where you can go when carrying like school are off limits etc.

This will provide you with basic protection but ensure no mass shootings (6 bullet limit) and no high power mega guns.

Full check, licensing etc as part of the package.

VERY heavy punishments (eg 5 year prison) for breaches eg. owning more than 6 bullets with strong enforcement and incentives for revealing cheats. (eg $1000 reward to dob someone in).


That is too extreme to be honest. Shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles should be legal as well as muzzle loaders, etc., but nobody, and I mean nobody needs something like an AR-15. Regarding handguns: I purchased my Glock 19 during the the Clinton administration assault weapon ban period. The magazine was limited to 10 rounds under that policy. I have two of them, is that is quite sufficient for both target practice and protection.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 20 December 2012 - 01:29 PM.


#77 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:42 AM

Golgi1; though your post is a challenging wall of text you have some valid points. What do you think of PWAIN’s idea tempered with what mike said above? You get to keep your guns. I haven’t lived in violence like you clearly have so it’s tough for me to see things as they are for you.

I recognize that at the moment there are a vast amount of guns in the US. Even if Obama banned all guns outright tomorrow mass shootings could still occur with guns bought today, 10 years from now. But this doesn't mean change shouldn't start now. It is also a cultural thing; it’s so pronounced that it floods through our boarders constantly.

I feel as though that culture cannot change without first rejecting violence. You need to make a stand as a country and say that violence as a whole is not right. Now I don’t know if that’s a move towards gun control or communities taking a stand against violence or what; but I do know that more guns, more security, and more defense will only lead to more fear and ever more violence.

Before I forget; do you guys have Stickers on your windows and doors saying that there’s guns on the premises sort of like a Security System sticker? “This home defended by Guns! Beware!”

Seems like if you have a gun for protection you’re going to want thief’s to know that...

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#78 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:53 AM

Before I forget; do you guys have Stickers on your windows and doors saying that there’s guns on the premises sort of like a Security System sticker? “This home defended by Guns! Beware!”

Seems like if you have a gun for protection you’re going to want thief’s to know that...


The home isn't 'defended by guns' if no one is home, unless the guns are robotic killing machines. Burglars never want to encounter a person in the home. That's just messy and potentially dangerous. OTOH, if the burglar can figure out that no one is home, then such a sign is advertising that there's something valuable inside that would be easy to steal, easy to sell, and potentially useful to a criminal. Pretty bad plan, imho.
  • like x 1

#79 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:08 AM

Banning guns before a long term attempt to remedy the culture is culturally irresponsible, as well as unfair to those who have a legitimate need to protect themselves from those that are molded by said dysfunctional culture.

[video games, Hollywood...]


That's a Straw Man. NO ONE IS PROPOSING BANNING ALL GUNS. The most radical thing than anyone is seriously considering is curtailing assault weapons. Like Mike said, no one needs an AR-15. As for video games, Hollywood, and Rap being responsible for massacres... I think you're off the mark.

#80 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:13 AM

Before I forget; do you guys have Stickers on your windows and doors saying that there’s guns on the premises sort of like a Security System sticker? “This home defended by Guns! Beware!”

Seems like if you have a gun for protection you’re going to want thief’s to know that...


The home isn't 'defended by guns' if no one is home, unless the guns are robotic killing machines. Burglars never want to encounter a person in the home. That's just messy and potentially dangerous. OTOH, if the burglar can figure out that no one is home, then such a sign is advertising that there's something valuable inside that would be easy to steal, easy to sell, and potentially useful to a criminal. Pretty bad plan, imho.


“Beware! Robotic Killing Machine on Duty!” ...though you shouldn’t insult your wife like that. It’s just mean.

The uncertainty of whether there’s a gun or not seems moot if they’re trying to break in when no one is home. Personal protection though is all about having a gun to defend against others who have guns... Robbed at gun point... If you try and use your gun to protect yourself, isn’t there a chance that could end in a gun fight which may kill both of you and potential by standards? Seems like a worse result than having your watch taken...

The amount of times you scare off a criminal or threat of violence with a gun as compared to the amount of times you lose control of your gun (IE your kid takes it to school for show and tell or just gets curious and shoots him/her self) seems a bit off... Considering the majority of criminals are looking to take your stuff rather than harm you and the threat posed to your family from misuse of your gun...

Is it really worth it having guns for defense?

#81 golgi1

  • Guest
  • 284 posts
  • 50
  • Location:Cloud 7

Posted 24 December 2012 - 01:58 AM

That's a Straw Man. NO ONE IS PROPOSING BANNING ALL GUNS.


Not true. A lot of prominent individuals have proposed that, and at least one loud individual has even implemented it (Bloomberg in NYC), and that is definitely the end goal of many, many gun reform politicians and activist groups: as per their statements.

The most radical thing than anyone is seriously considering is curtailing assault weapons. Like Mike said, no one needs an AR-15.


I have a different take on this train of thought.

I believe that no one, short of law enforcement, really needs a handgun. On the contrary, if anything is going to be banned, the gun laws should allow for rifles and ban handguns. It's not even a choice. Why?

First, let's dismiss the current reasoning that banning assault rifles will stop mass killings. How short a memory we have. The Virginia Tech rampage was accomplished with only handguns and the death toll was significantly higher. Therefore, the reasoning behind this 'baby-steps' approach to ostensibly making our public places safer, by limiting magazine capacity or banning only assault rifles, is erroneous on it's face. Go ahead and make a case, gun control advocates, but use reasoning that can't be undermined by a very notable event that has happened in the past five years. What's going on is that gun control advocates are too politically afraid to demand the ban of all weapons, and are taking this small-step approach as a political tactic, in the hope that no one remembers events like Virginia Tech which render such reasoning for their incremental assault rifles only ban flimsy. They know that an all-or-nothing approach will fail, but unfortunately so does the real-world reasoning for banning only assault rifles. Gun advocates know, in part because of the gun control advocate's flimsy reasoning, that an assault rifles only ban is a trojan horse for greater restrictions down the road. Gun advocates, despite MSM portrayal, mostly are not politically ignorant people. Gun control advocates would have done better, in terms of real-world logic, to target handguns. To further support my claim: the vast majority of firearms killings are committed with handguns. This is undeniable, and further reduces the case for targeting assault rifles with a ban. When criminals choose to act, they overwhelmingly choose the handgun. This leads me to my main point...

You can't conceal a rifle. If you have an rifle with you, everyone will know it. It is very difficult (almost impossible) for the average criminal to be successful, in terms of gaining money, gaining rape sex, random senseless murder, etc., using an assault rifle and then to get away with it. Very few criminals are suicidal or wish to go to jail, at least on a conscious level. You cannot be sneaky with a rifle. Besides a fluke event that happens very sporadically (and most of the time features handguns) assault rifles are responsible for very few criminal deaths. Most of the 400 murders per year in my city (15.3 Sandy Hooks) are committed with handguns. Very rarely is one committed with a rifle.

Now, let's talk the use for which guns are ostensibly supposed to be good for. We are talking home defense, neighborhood defense, and country defense: handguns are largely ineffective. They are marginally okay for home defense, but a shotgun is best. For everything else, banning 'assault' rifles(i'm letting the loosely defined term go for the sake of conversation) is as good as disarming the population. Handguns are good for defense against other handguns and sub-handgun instruments of destruction, but true law-abiding, freedom-protecting (depending on your beliefs about the world - but there are recent historical precedents) defense is, for all real purposes, necessarily rifle centric. The only real exception being concealed carry handgun use for defense against criminals who are empowered with the innate mobility of handguns or knives.

In conclusion, I'd have a lot more respect for gun control advocacy is they were sensible about it. Going after 'assault' rifles in lieu of handguns makes zero sense statistically or practically and, in truth, that disconnect between real world applications of gun control and popular delusion is what disallows both sides from even beginning to understand one another. Most liberal individuals forget that they are trying to communciate with a large population of military veterans and others who have had real world experience with using weapons for their intended purposes, or who live in dangerous neighborhoods that require some type of armed defense be available. Until you gain their perspective, empathy for them, and learn about your subject matter, your cross-communciative efforts are doomed.


As for video games, Hollywood, and Rap being responsible for massacres... I think you're off the mark.


This is conjecture, and I didn't say that these three things were wholly responsible. That's an oversimplification of what I was trying to communicate. However, we can agree to disagree until forced to do otherwise. At a certain point, liberals unfortunately demand that others change their values for them. I demand that others give up their liberal social values before guns are banned - mostly becasue I feel the overall liberal social influence plays a large part in cultivating violent minds, statistically speaking. Those with liberal social values demand that I give up the right to own guns. See the impasse? It's not insiginificant, and this is the perspective of a very large portion of this country. The remedy for this disagreement is elusive.

Edited by golgi1, 24 December 2012 - 02:31 AM.


#82 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:20 AM

Friday, December 21st, 2012 was notable for three things:

1. Gangnam Style broke 1,000,000,000 views on YouTube.

2. The world did not end.

3. Wayne LaPierre proposed that we put armed guards in every school in America. George Zimmerman is ready to sign up. If there aren't enough volunteers to guard every school in America, forever, LaPierre thinks that hiring an army of guards would be a good way to spend your tax dollars.

I've ranked these from least to most bizarre.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#83 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:04 AM

In conclusion, I'd have a lot more respect for gun control advocacy is they were sensible about it. Going after 'assault' rifles in lieu of handguns makes zero sense statistically or practically and, in truth, that disconnect between real world applications of gun control and popular delusion is what disallows both sides from even beginning to understand one another. Most liberal individuals forget that they are trying to communciate with a large population of military veterans and others who have had real world experience with using weapons for their intended purposes, or who live in dangerous neighborhoods that require some type of armed defense be available. Until you gain their perspective, empathy for them, and learn about your subject matter, your cross-communciative efforts are doomed.


Well, golgi1, I am in complete agreement with you on this. It would make a lot more sense to "ban" handguns, as you call it, or to take some commonsense steps to keep them out of the hands of criminals, as I'd describe it. Politically, however, it seems to be a nonstarter. I think a hell of a lot of those military veterans would prefer that guns be available for people who have a need for them and know how to use them. The vast majority of those vets are not criminals, and probably don't like the idea of criminals having easy access to guns.

At a certain point, liberals unfortunately demand that others change their values for them. I demand that others give up their liberal social values before guns are banned - mostly becasue I feel the overall liberal social influence plays a large part in cultivating violent minds, statistically speaking. Those with liberal social values demand that I give up the right to own guns. See the impasse? It's not insiginificant, and this is the perspective of a very large portion of this country. The remedy for this disagreement is elusive.


Is it seriously your "value" that criminals should be able to buy and sell guns like candy, and our gun laws be a patchwork quilt that holds water like a sieve? I'm not asking you to give up your guns. You are making that up. Can you produce the huge network of liberal bogeymen that are trying to disarm you? I call bullshit on that. I don't mean find a college professor or a crazy cat lady somewhere who thinks all guns should be banned. Find us the organized, politically powerful group, anywhere in America, who has even a remote chance of bringing laws like that to pass. Find us the anti-NRA. Find us the majority in the Senate, the House, and a President who would sign such a law. I don't think they exist.

#84 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:57 AM

So Gun Ownership (based on households reporting owning guns) is steadily decreasing whereas gun sales have doubled. True this is a left wing source but the decrease in gun ownership isn’t exactly benefiting lefty gun control advocates.

Putting aside the question of “Who’s buying all the guns” I have to ask why gun ownership is down. Is it immigrants importing their social views? Social Media?

FYI lots of good info on Gun control Here.

#85 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:14 PM

I did some blogging on the topic and will use the opportunity to advertise my superb & terrific blog:

Do guns kill? If, yes, the only rational response would be to implement very tight laws on ownership.
Gunownership and gun-related mortality?

After the Newtown killings and post-Breivik, I would like to add to the discussion something above the evidence-free back and forth we often see in the media and elsewhere. In this case I have simply taken a very superficial look at the academic literature to see what the consensus on gun issues might be.

My working hypothesis is that societal dysfunction and lax gun regulation are both contributors to the composite endpoint of gun-related homicides, suicides and other crimes like armed robbery....


What do you think?

Edited by kismet, 24 December 2012 - 02:23 PM.


#86 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,945 posts
  • 1,618
  • Location:New York

Posted 24 December 2012 - 03:34 PM

Support gun control or I'll shoot you dead.
  • like x 1

#87 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 25 December 2012 - 03:02 AM

After the Newtown killings and post-Breivik, I would like to add to the discussion something above the evidence-free back and forth we often see in the media and elsewhere. In this case I have simply taken a very superficial look at the academic literature to see what the consensus on gun issues might be.

My working hypothesis is that societal dysfunction and lax gun regulation are both contributors to the composite endpoint of gun-related homicides, suicides and other crimes like armed robbery....


What do you think?


You're using data, facts, and logic to make decisions? What a strange concept. Must be something they do in Europe. Here in America, such things have no place in the political discussion. Our Republican Lawmakers even went as far as forbidding the CDC from collecting data on gun-related morbidity and mortality. Data, after all, has a Liberal Bias.
  • like x 1

#88 golgi1

  • Guest
  • 284 posts
  • 50
  • Location:Cloud 7

Posted 25 December 2012 - 05:15 AM

Well, golgi1, I am in complete agreement with you on this. It would make a lot more sense to "ban" handguns, as you call it, or to take some commonsense steps to keep them out of the hands of criminals, as I'd describe it. Politically, however, it seems to be a nonstarter. I think a hell of a lot of those military veterans would prefer that guns be available for people who have a need for them and know how to use them. The vast majority of those vets are not criminals, and probably don't like the idea of criminals having easy access to guns.


In this discussion, I'm trying to stay as real as possible. Give me some credit for that. I say "ban" to keep it real and to be flexible, even though I think that social values overhaul is the only truly socially responsible first step, because I know what they already go through to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I challenge you to describe some realistic steps that could be taken to further keep handguns out of the hands of criminals. What can they do? They already do a background check. If you have any significant criminal history, or mental health history (sometimes as little as anxiety or depression), then no gun. They also have gun task forces (my uncle heads one) that go door to door and check on new gun purchasers that they suspect might be making straw man purchases. They do keep some guns out of the hands of criminals with these steps in place, but the truth is that true criminals will find a way. One of the most common ways that handguns find their way onto the black market is through theft. How can you stop that? You can't unless you want to give out high-security door-locks to all gun owners -oh, and free installation. People lock up their guns, sure, but safes actually aren't much of a challenge for professional home burglars. Many commonly sold small safes can be cracked with a rubber mallet. Besides, most people are stupid and irresponsible, despite not being criminals, and don't properly secure their guns., Guns will always, always, always get stolen and the most determined, murderous criminals will always, always, always obtain a gun if they want one - ban or no ban.

Is it seriously your "value" that criminals should be able to buy and sell guns like candy, and our gun laws be a patchwork quilt that holds water like a sieve? I'm not asking you to give up your guns. You are making that up. Can you produce the huge network of liberal bogeymen that are trying to disarm you? I call bullshit on that. I don't mean find a college professor or a crazy cat lady somewhere who thinks all guns should be banned. Find us the organized, politically powerful group, anywhere in America, who has even a remote chance of bringing laws like that to pass. Find us the anti-NRA. Find us the majority in the Senate, the House, and a President who would sign such a law. I don't think they exist.


C'mon dude, don't make me respond to hyperbole. That's insulting at this point. Let's keep it within the bounds of what I actually said. You know this isn't my value. However, again, I ask what can be done? I'd be for anything that truly had a chance at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. However, I'm dubious. Hell, do you know how many little Johnny criminal murderers have access to their non-criminal father's sock drawer or even his gun safe? Sandy hook is a prime example of someone, who was about to be committed for mental instability, having access to a perfectly normal non-criminal's guns. Not getting him help in time, or removing gun access in time, is what led to his gun access. Time management is what failed, in terms of getting what needed to be done, done. Time will always be a factor. Sometimes, these people will be identified and dealt with, or their environment modified, in time. Sometimes they will not. Granted, insane people are likely harder to identify and predict than are classic sociopath criminals who are less likely to fly under the radar, and therefore mental illness induced snaps will likely never be stopped. Although, marginalized kids should probably be given lots of social help and support in the future, as an institutional priority. Perhaps such intervention can mitigate some of these social pariah facilitated mass slayings. Until the social fabric is overhauled toward more traditional conservative family values, my opinion is that the law of large numbers dictates that the high murder count will continue, especially in urban areas, ban or no ban. However, as far as trying to get handguns out of the hands of murderers, have at it. I'd be interested in reading a proposal that details how you can preserve firearms ownership as well as keep guns out of the hands of criminals or, for the sake or argument, even just the latter with a reasonable measure of effort and within a reasonable time-frame that justifies disarming everyone else and leaving them vulnerable in the interim. In short, lay out your solution - whatever it is.

As far as politics are concerned, of course the power isn't there yet. Otherwise, guns would be controlled or commonly debated to a greater degree than they are. I spoke to the will of the people who introduce irrational, impractical beginning steps like a ban on assault rifles. Such a ban would be political in nature only, leading to little to no real world reduction in the overall small arms homicide rate. Therefore, such an action is strategy. I believe that the ultimate motivation is a complete gun ban. Political strategy is everything in hotly contested long-term debates, and I cannot be faulted for pointing out the political strategy that I predict gun opponents to be using given that their current focus is irrational in light of the nature of small-arms violence statistical reality.

I also spoke to my perception of the appropriateness of this type of political action being relative to the type of society in which we live and will live in the future. So, you can't pigeon hole me, nor what I believe, as being wholly irrational or inflexible. It's not, and I'm not. People like me see a violence obsessed, completely self indulgent individualistic society as breeding individuals who are more likely to not only commit high-profile mass killings, but more significantly who are going to be more likely to walk up and execute you on the street for ten dollars and not think a thing of it. It is these latter people who, statistically speaking, are the real problem. Their family lives, their influences, and their warning signs being consistently ignored or forgiven are the real problems. As I before stated, there are the equivelant of 15.3 Sandy Hooks in my city every year, commited by an amlagam of individuals that mostly fit the long-term criminal sociopath profile that our society is proficient and ever-getting better at incubating. It is offensive to many Americans that you tell us that this liberalization of society (and the necessarily parallel reduction in family values and reduction in emphasis on the traditional family in general) is something that we have to accept, and then turn around and tell us that the obvious effect of an increasing homicide rate is also the fault of the tools that we own that were before never such a problem in the hands of a better formed, more traditional society. We see you as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. It can not be ignored that people who belong to the NRA or identify with those who do, overwhelmingly, are not the source of the violence problem. If guns are the true problem, then why the difference in violence rates between demographics? Guns aren't the problem, people are, and more specifically the culture is. I already laid out my case for the importance of gun (rifle) ownership, and will only follow up by stating that it is well known that once given up, gun rights will never return. Therefore, the plea for an objective, rational assessment of the casue of the real problem.

Edited by golgi1, 25 December 2012 - 05:23 AM.

  • like x 2

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#89 golgi1

  • Guest
  • 284 posts
  • 50
  • Location:Cloud 7

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:57 PM

As far as no-one planning a complete ban, here you go:

http://www.ips-dc.or...bby_not_a_right

The Institute for Policy Studies is quite influential.
  • like x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#90 aznmonky

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 9
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 February 2013 - 01:24 AM

i believe we should have the right to have arms it allows for control in the people , things happen , people are stupid but we cannot punish the masses for small occurrings
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: guns, handguns, massacre, shooting, gun control, security, mass shooting, rights, us law, gun law, handguns, gun law

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users