Do you support more gun control?

[alkemyst]

I personally do, look at how easy it is for people to get a gun. The school shooting in California was done with a legally obtained gun. Same with the Arizona shooting, same with the VT shooting.

sadly you are the real problem with our country.

Make guns REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY
hard to get and then the poor just find those that own them and break in, grab the gun and exit.

easy peasy.

The rich just buy overseas or through legal means illegally.

 

[Moonbeam]

davmat787: Is there any proof or data to this theory that owning guns is somehow directly related to paranoia? Or is it simply accepted by some because it has been repeated here so many times?

M: None that I know of. I have more guns than I can count in my head and I'm not paranoid. Of course when I drop a box of stick matches on the floor I don't know how many there are there either.

d: Also, if everyone with a gun is so damn paranoid, where is all the gun violence that one would expect to have with hundreds of millions of paranoid gun owners on the loose?

M: The paranoia isn't why people have guns but about the hysteria that somebody is going to take them.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, not at all.

You took his remarks to mean that all we need to do is do away with laws and there would be no crime. But what he was, I believe, saying was, that the more laws that restrict citizens from having their own guns, just puts them at a greater risk of being a victim.

Sorry for being insulting to you about this. You did not deserve that. Sorry. That was wrong of me.

I took it in the context of 'if they ban guns then only criminals will have guns', more gun control, more criminals have guns, more crime, more victims.
But I think you are right about what he really meant.

 

[cybrsage]

I would be happier if anti-gun nuts would just admit their fear of the Constitution and need to violate it to make it so that no one can own a gun.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, not at all.

You took his remarks to mean that all we need to do is do away with laws and there would be no crime. But what he was, I believe, saying was, that the more laws that restrict citizens from having their own guns, just puts them at a greater risk of being a victim.

Sorry for being insulting to you about this. You did not deserve that. Sorry. That was wrong of me.

I took it in the context of 'if they ban guns then only criminals will have guns', more gun control, more criminals have guns, more crime, more victims.
But I think you are right about what he really meant.

 

[Rainsford]

When it comes to gun control, my overriding feeling about it is mainly that pro-gun advocates almost always seem to be INCREDIBLY irritating. The super classy insinuation that gun control means you're pro-rape is a great example, but far from the only one.

I don't really feel strongly any particular way about guns or gun ownership, which generally means I'd support fewer restrictions. But some gun advocates don't make that a very attractive position to take, to be honest. Toning down the rhetoric would help a lot, IMHO.

 

[Rainsford]

I would be happier if anti-gun nuts would just admit their fear of the Constitution and need to violate it to make it so that no one can own a gun.

That would be a MUCH stronger argument if it didn't often seem like pro-gun people thought the Constitution ONLY contains the 2nd amendment. The ACLU and the NRA shouldn't be polar opposites on the political spectrum while both claiming to support the Constitution. Both sides would be stronger for embracing the entire document, I think.

 

[cybrsage]

That would be a MUCH stronger argument if it didn't often seem like pro-gun people thought the Constitution ONLY contains the 2nd amendment. The ACLU and the NRA shouldn't be polar opposites on the political spectrum while both claiming to support the Constitution. Both sides would be stronger for embracing the entire document, I think.

I agree.

However, if group A does something wrong, this does not suddenly make it fine for group B to also do something wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

When it comes to gun control, my overriding feeling about it is mainly that pro-gun advocates almost always seem to be INCREDIBLY irritating. The super classy insinuation that gun control means you're pro-rape is a great example, but far from the only one.

Well, if one woman is not raped because she uses her legally owned gun to save herself, those who wish she did not have that gun to protect herself are dooming her to have been raped.

You are right, they are not pro-rape, but they are anti-rape defense if that defense is a gun.

 

[Rainsford]

I agree.

However, if group A does something wrong, this does not suddenly make it fine for group B to also do something wrong.

I wasn't really presenting it as an argument that one group doing something wrong makes it OK for another group to do something wrong, mainly because that would be a silly argument

My point was more that if a group is going to use a general principle to advocate a specific position, that argument doesn't work very well if the group does not appear to actually believe in that general principle.

 

[Rainsford]

Well, if one woman is not raped because she uses her legally owned gun to save herself, those who wish she did not have that gun to protect herself are dooming her to have been raped.

You are right, they are not pro-rape, but they are anti-rape defense if that defense is a gun.

Arguing general ideas based on specific cases is usually pretty suspect. After all, you could just as easily argue that if anyone has been the victim of a crime using a LEGALLY purchased gun, pro-gun ownership people helped that situation come about. That "works" for pretty much any position too, which is why it's a crappy argument. Throwing in the rape reference makes it a crappy AND tasteless.

For instance... If one drunk driver kills a bus full of nuns and orphans, those who wish alcohol to remain legal doomed the nuns and orphans. If one innocent person in Iraq was killed by the military, those who support the invasion doomed the innocent victim. If better education and welfare could have prevented one person from becoming a criminal, then those who oppose education and welfare spending doomed that criminal's victims. If ignoring the constitution would help stop one terrorist, then those who support the 4th amendment doomed the terrorist's victims. Etc, etc.

Obviously you can see why this is a problematic way to argue...

 

[blankslate]

In a hypothetical world where idiots like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8wZU7edaz8

could be kept from obtaining a firearm sure.

However, it's too difficult to do so it's impractical and really the toothpaste is out of the tube so to speak.

I'd support tightening up Stand your ground laws because sometimes judges make ridiculous rulings about what should be considered self defense.

 

[Rainsford]

In a hypothetical world where idiots like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8wZU7edaz8

could be kept from obtaining a firearm sure.

However, it's too difficult to do so it's impractical and really the toothpaste is out of the tube so to speak.

I'd support tightening up Stand your ground laws because sometimes judges make ridiculous rulings about what should be considered self defense.

Yeah, at this point the toothpaste really is out of the tube. And to be honest, I'm not convinced removing guns from the population, even if we could do it, would do much for crime either way. Guns may play somewhat of a role in crime when bad guys have them or when good guys do, but I think the other factors surrounding crime dwarf the impact of guns (either way). So might as well default to fewer rules, within reason.

Edit: I should clarify that I mean fewer rules than an outright gun ban. I support some gun control laws, mainly the ones interested in tracking guns to help with criminal investigations.

 

[xj0hnx]

Is there any proof or data to this theory that owning guns is somehow directly related to paranoia? Or is it simply accepted by some because it has been repeated here so many times?

Also, if everyone with a gun is so damn paranoid, where is all the gun violence that one would expect to have with hundreds of millions of paranoid gun owners on the loose?

Nope, that's just the progressive narative, if you support, or have guns you're a paranoid crazy person. They keep repeating it to themselves, thankfully, like most of the BS they spout, it's not based in reality.

 

[monovillage]

Nope, that's just the progressive narative, if you support, or have guns you're a paranoid crazy person. They keep repeating it to themselves, thankfully, like most of the BS they spout, it's not based in reality.

It's like the meme that was going around 10 or 15 years ago that the relaxing of carry restrictions would set off an OK corral bloodbath. They have trouble coming up with 5 or 6 suspect cases in Florida alone in the last 10 years. That's why they're trying to get all the mileage they can out of the dead body of Trayvon Martin.
They're really, really, really sad it was a Hispanic Democrat that shot him.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

For instance... If one drunk driver kills a bus full of nuns and orphans, those who wish alcohol to remain legal doomed the nuns and orphans.

No, the hypothetical government agency banning seatbelts on buses (or the government which purchases seatbelt-less buses for public schools) doomed them.

If one innocent person in Iraq was killed by the military, those who support the invasion doomed the innocent victim.

More or less, yes. How is that not the case? It's basically the same as those in support of the death penalty having some responsibility when one innocent man is executed.

If better education and welfare could have prevented one person from becoming a criminal, then those who oppose education and welfare spending doomed that criminal's victims.

There's a huge difference between forbidding a protection and not supplying one. That is an issue of government's obligation to provide certain essential services to promote a healthy country.

If ignoring the constitution would help stop one terrorist, then those who support the 4th amendment doomed the terrorist's victims.

Uh, I don't see any parallel here.

 

[Lalakai]

gun control is a highly valuable skill......you have to be able to fire and return to target with minimum time lost. Takes time and practice. Double taps are next step.

 

[LunarRay]

It has been determined that American Citizens have the right to own firearms by the Supreme Court.
Some States allow weapons to be concealed.

I don't own any weapons nor do I have any need or desire to own or carry one.

I do support y'alls right to do what the law permits.

I have but one comment and that would be that Americans should own American made weapons and not all those foreign ones.

 

[davmat787]

It has been determined that American Citizens have the right to own firearms by the Supreme Court.
Some States allow weapons to be concealed.

I don't own any weapons nor do I have any need or desire to own or carry one.

I do support y'alls right to do what the law permits.

I have but one comment and that would be that Americans should own American made weapons and not all those foreign ones.

I agree that for almost any type of good, gun or not, we should try to buy domestic manufactured. However, does it bother you when US LEO's and their deptartments purchase foreign made arms? For example, I believe the standard sidearm of the US Secret Service is a SIG P226, which is of Swiss origin.

If it does bother you, I think as a whole we export considerably more weaponry than we import.

But as a general rule, liberals (and of course a liberal buying a gun must be way confused, stats be damned) buy cheap foreign knock-offs, and conservatives forge their own AR-15's and 1911's from the finest Pennsylvania steel and aluminum. This is fact, write it down.

 

[LunarRay]

I agree that for almost any type of good, gun or not, we should try to buy domestic manufactured. However, does it bother you when US LEO's and their deptartments purchase foreign made arms? For example, I believe the standard sidearm of the US Secret Service is a SIG P226, which is of Swiss origin.

If it does bother you, I think as a whole we export considerably more weaponry than we import.

But as a general rule, liberals (and of course a liberal buying a gun must be way confused, stats be damned) buy cheap foreign knock-offs, and conservatives forge their own AR-15's and 1911's from the finest Pennsylvania steel and aluminum. This is fact, write it down.

I don't know much about Sig Saur or what ever they are but think S&W, Colt, Winchester, Ruger and other US companies have some that USSS could use...

It is about the US Government buying foreign made anything... Set a dang example...

IF I could have my way legislation ought to include some provision regarding Made in the US... Of course, we have these treaties and all that but my desire overlooks that.

 

[FoBoT]

the only gun laws should be at the city and county level, there should be no federal or state limits

 

[BladeVenom]

Bad logic.

Brilliant argument.

We've all heard the anti-Second Amendment politicians. They all swore that if people were allowed to carry guns that it would be like the wild west, and crime would skyrocket. They have all been proven to be liars and idiots. No one who isn't completely retarded should believe what they have to say.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

With more states than ever allowing concealed carry more people are carrying guns now. Handguns sales skyrocketed when Obama became President, crime is down.

Mexico has tough gun control laws, crime is high. All the drug cartels are well armed.

Bad logic.

Canada just got rid of their long registration database and it has a lower rate of violent crimes then the US and way lower then Mexico by a 100 miles. Furthermore guns are just a prevalent in Canada as they are in the US. Also statistically according to the FBI and Justice Department violent crime has been taking a overall nose plunge despite the rise of firearm ownership in the US. All of that is not "bad logic" it is just spiting in the face of the hyped up propaganda by whacked out anti-2nd Amendment gun grabbers in this nation.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's like the meme that was going around 10 or 15 years ago that the relaxing of carry restrictions would set off an OK corral bloodbath. They have trouble coming up with 5 or 6 suspect cases in Florida alone in the last 10 years. That's why they're trying to get all the mileage they can out of the dead body of Trayvon Martin.
They're really, really, really sad it was a Hispanic Democrat that shot him.

+1

LoL Remember the liberal media says he is "WHITE.......hispanic".

 

[Sunburn74]

Personally I am for more gun control. However, I am not for simply eliminating weapons from the general population. There are positive externalities from a few individuals owning guns that are passed on to the rest of us. However, if everyone owns a gun, those externalities will probably be lost.

I think it is a fallacy to assume arming large percentages of the population results in crime reduction. I think it is a fallacy to assume that criminals will not change tactics to an increasingly armed population. I also think its a fallacy to assume that stopping crime at the final step is the best way to reduce crime (the results of Roe V Wade has probably contributed more to reduction of crime than gun use in civil defense).