Thoughts on gun control

Quote:

- I don't understand the disproportionate (relative to other nations) passion that resonates in the US against gun control.

I haven't really lived in any other country, and have only heard peripherally about how they feel about gun control, but I agree that it sure seems like the level of passion both pro and con are too intense here.

Quote:

- I believe that gun control only works on a macroeconomic scale. Only through starving the market does it result in effective reduction of crime.

I've seen people use stats that proved both sides of the argument. My guess has always been that making the purchase of handguns any easier surely isn't going to help crime go down. I've never been able to fathom those that say more arms = less crime.

Quote:

- I think culture is a greater control than is mere law. A gun-lovin' nation won't be easily rid of guns through law.

And this is the gun-lovingest. I got no problem with that - I like 'em myself. It's just the linking their love of guns and all the notions about patriotism and freedom that cause the subject to get murky to me.

- I think "protection against tyranny" as a pro-gun argument is bankrupt in the modern realm of weaponry. The destructive power of the most awesome weapons no sane person (except me, I think any legitimate government should have nukes and that I deserve one of my own to play with)
sure would've made me feel better if you'd had an emoticon here going "LOL"

wants in the average citizen's hands. The existence of said weapons in the government's hands negates any protection against government tyranny that sidearms may have provided citizens in an age of the gunman.

but your point here is excellent and well taken, and it refers to what I mention above - linking having a handgun to "standing up for freedom" always sounds a little loony to me.

Quote:

- I think the "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" argument is a worthless rhetorical flourish. The statement is true by definition of the terms (e.g. "if chewing gum is made illegal only criminals will chew gum", "if doing x is made illegal only criminals will do x") involved and is merely wordplay.

but isn't it funny how that mumbo-jumbo wordplay is so popular among the fans of bill o'Reilly and Sean Hannity?

- I believe guns can be enjoyed responsibly by responsible individuals.

as can almost everything. I agree.

- I don't really care what the constitution says about guns, and how people try to interpret it. I don't formulate my opinion after what the constitution says.

and that isn't blasphemous, or anti-american, or traitorous (cjhsa is far too fond of that word)

The only influence the constitution has on me is the furtherance of the realization that gun control is not gonna happen anytime soon due to the majority needed to amend it.

- I really like guns (and all other use of aim and projectiles).

This is the line that made me smile, Craven. I think that a lot of gun enthusiasts are sort of loony in the kind of zealousness that believes there is a government plot to rob them of their pistols behind every effor to legislate anything about firearms. BUT, I really, really enjoy shootin shitt, too. I like shooting rifles and pistols. I like shooter games so much that I don't own an X-Box or PS2, for fear I'd neglect so much else. I think I'd like to learn to use a bow, but wouldn't know how or where to start, and don't really have time.

Quote:

- I think that owning guns can be restricted while still allowing for the sporting use of guns (done in many places).

And I don't see anything wrong with that reasoning, although the idea seems to strike panic into the heart of the Ted Nugents of the world...

0 Replies

There would be a lot less crime if it wasn't illegal to shoot someone.

(It might help alleviate overcrowding and reduce our dependence on foreign oil too.)

0 Replies

Parados, you need to go back and read the letter to the Omaha councilman I posted.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

There would be a lot less crime if it wasn't illegal to shoot someone.

(It might help alleviate overcrowding and reduce our dependence on foreign oil too.)

still looking for that smiley emoticon......

Shocked

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

ineteresting, i have owned guns since I was 12 yrs old, I am not rabid about it, I would be disappointed if guns were outlawed but i would comply.

Finally! Sense comes to the thread.

0 Replies

If they outlawed guns completely, I'd be as rabid about that as some of the gun zealots are already. But for the life of me, I can't see that happening...

0 Replies

Snood,
How would you propose that some guns be outlawed and some not? How would the decisions be made?

Maybe they should leave guns as they are and outlaw bullets. Confused

0 Replies

I think there are laws on the books in some states at least, outlawing certain kinds of guns that are near artillery. But that's about the only kind of gun (huge, armor piercing guns, artillery, nukes, bombs or crew-served size) that I can see getting outlawed. It has to be a very narrowly-defined group of weapons that can't in any way be construed by a reasonable person as for recreation or hunting.

0 Replies

Several people here have alluded to my association of guns with power.

This is true. When in the middle of nowhere in the woods, which I often am, and often with my wife and kids, all it takes is one mean SOB with a bad agenda to ruin your whole day, if not your life.

While staying aware is your first line of defense, being armed is a great equalizer and wonderful deterrent to criminals.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

oralloy wrote:
McTag wrote:
I believe he shot that robber in the back, after setting an ambush.

Ambushing and shooting in the back is also illegal in most parts of the US.

But it is legal in Texas last I knew.

I recall about 10 years ago when some guy in Texas was late on his payments and got his truck repossessed, and he set an ambush and killed the repo guy.

I think he lost his truck to the bank, but was not charged with killing the repo guy on the grounds that he thought he was ambushing a car thief.

I'm surprised that's legal, even in Texas.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or [b](B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and[/b]
(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.41.00

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

California banned .50 BMG weapons, so the only U.S. manufacturer selling to the public, Barrett Arms, has designed a gun of slightly smaller caliber, and they're heading west with it. Sure, the cartridge is unique and thus expensive, but it sure makes their point, that gun control is almost always created by and for people who don't understand guns.

I don't think Barrett are the only ones selling to the public, unless things have changed since I last looked at the .50 cal industry.

Glad to hear that Barrett is looking out for Californians who want to defend their homes though.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
California banned .50 BMG weapons, so the only U.S. manufacturer selling to the public, Barrett Arms, has designed a gun of slightly smaller caliber, and they're heading west with it. Sure, the cartridge is unique and thus expensive, but it sure makes their point, that gun control is almost always created by and for people who don't understand guns.

Safe handling of firearms and shooting skills should be taught in school, just like sex education and PE. The rules in school right now, where kids are expelled for having a plastic knife in their lunch, or a squirtgun in their backpack, have been created by retards. Just more miserable failure on the part of public schools (they like to blame parents, but remember, they taught those parents).
[/b]

Sure. Why not create another Columbine et al. You don't have to understand guns to understand that their sole purpose is to kill.

Hard to see how safety classes would cause another Columbine.

If you understood guns, you might have realized that self-defense guns are primarily designed to incapacitate rapidly. Target shooting guns are designed to hit inanimate objects.

It is true that hunting weapons are designed to kill, though.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

msolga wrote:

I'm just imagining the scene as they defend themselves, McTag! On the other hand, if the killer/s didn't have such easy access to guns in the first place ........

I don't see anyone having "easy access" to guns. Plus, kids are ingenious, and those killers would have just made fertilizer bombs, or maybe bows and arrows, to achieve their goals, if their drugged out non-parents had secured their guns properly.

In fact the Columbine attackers did make large bombs to set off in their attack.

The bombs failed because they made a simple mistake.

Had they had to rely on bombs only, they may well have tried to test one beforehand, discovered, and then fixed their error.

Or, had their bombs failed, they could have withdrawn them with no one the wiser, fixed the problem, and then tried again with improved bombs.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Maybe they should leave guns as they are and outlaw bullets.

Unconstitutional.

0 Replies

IMO, If you need a 50 cal to defend your house you probably think you need a billy club in a fistfight.

Overkill, and something else that's not as nice to say.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Several people here have alluded to my association of guns with power.

This is true. When in the middle of nowhere in the woods, which I often am, and often with my wife and kids, all it takes is one mean SOB with a bad agenda to ruin your whole day, if not your life.

While staying aware is your first line of defense, being armed is a great equalizer and wonderful deterrent to criminals.

I thought you lived in the greatest country on earth. God help those in less fortunate places if it is that unsafe where you live.

0 Replies

Your inability to be prepared isn't my problem.

0 Replies

What should I be prepared for? You live where it is unsafe, not me. It would seem that there is a serious problem if people are expecting to need a gun to protect themselves. I guess we are more civilized where I live. Sure, there are shootings etc., but they are usually drug related with the illegal handguns that are imported from the U.S.

If a gun is the only way you have of defending yourself I would have to assume that you are either a wimp or incapable of defending yourself. Whatever happened to living where men are men and fisticuffs settle problems?

0 Replies

Ever beat up a bear?

Wrestle a cougar?

Be surprised by a burgler?

You're a shmuck. In fact your whole country is a giant bunch of shmucks.

There, I said it.

0 Replies

Your shmuck comment shows that you are getting frustrated and probably would shoot me if I was within distance.

Never fought a bear. Never saw a cougar close up. Staying away from them usually results in not having the need for confrontation.

It seems that you would get great joy in shooting a burglar. Where I live it is illegal to shoot somebody.....even a burglar. We came out of the dark ages years ago.

0 Replies

Thoughts on gun control

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know