Gun Control

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
So I just had an extensive debate with some of my more liberal acquaintances and I need to get this out. They seem to be of the opinion that severe gun restrictions will magically lead to fewer killings by virtue of the fact that there will simply be fewer guns to go around.

And that's what pisses me off. Alcohol kills more people/year then gun crime. Why don't we give alcohol prohibition another shot? Oh, right, that utterly failed. So instead we've accepted alcohol as a part of life (as it has been for thousands of years), and try to teach people to drink responsibly. When someone doesn't drink responsibly, they are likely to kill themselves if not others. Yet when we hear about an alcohol related death, everyone accepts it as a tragedy and moves on. Maybe MADD makes some noise no one cares about.

When someone uses a gun irresponsibly, suddenly it's OMG WE NEED MOAR GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!oneone1! Now I'm not saying we should teach firearm responsibility in schools or anything (although the idea has some merit), as guns aren't as ubiquitous as alcohol (hence the fewer gun crime related deaths); but I'm just pointing out the relative hypocrisy here. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible when it comes to their firearms. If they get drunk however... :p

Thus the issue of deaths due to gun crime as an argument for gun control is laid to rest.

What weapon control in general (from knives to guns to explosives) comes down to is control over the power to kill. How much power should the average person have in this regard? Here's my perspective:

A person should be able to defend their home and themselves from a home invasion/robbery with lethal force. Even assuming the unlikely case that there is only one assailant, the most efficient and SAFEST way for a person to do this is via a semi-automatic handgun or pump action/semi automatic shotgun. For the record I believe semi-automatic shotguns should be restricted, just stating a fact. I mentioned safety, because, well what's safer? Shooting the assailant from a distance or engaging them in a knife fight? Especially if there are multiple assailants.

As a side note, it is well established that among burglars and such, their greatest fear is not the police, alarm systems, or guard dogs. It's running into a homeowner with a gun.

Likewise I believe people should be able to defend themselves with lethal force outside of their homes. Very few people on this earth are so sheltered that they've never been in a bad neighborhood/otherwise at risk at some point. Thus I am a strong supporter of concealed carry.

I do not believe that an individual should have the power to mow down entire crowds. Thus I am against fully automatic weapons and semiautomatic shotguns being generally available.

Along the same line of thought, I am also against military-grade explosives being generally available, although that's a separate issue, as anyone with internet access can look up recipes for a DIY bomb.

Another thing I notice about most people I know who are for severe gun restrictions, they're scared. They don't like the idea of someone having the ability to threaten them with lethal force, and instead of adapting to their environment they try to make their environment adapt to them. Unfortunately in cases like this that mentality tramples the rights of others and punishes the responsible majority for the well-publicized acts of an extreme minority.

Suffice to say in a couple of years when I get my own place, (or possibly sooner as I'm looking into apartments), I fully intend to buy a gun and learn how to use it; as well as apply for concealed carry. If that scares you or alters your opinion of me, then you should get to know me a little better.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91

spikespiegal

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2005
1,219
9
76
A person should be able to defend their home and themselves from a home invasion/robbery with lethal force.

I agree, most people would agree, but the problem is there are a lot of lawyers and politicians that don't agree. Thankfully I live in an area where a burglar doesn't have more rights than a home owner.

The NRA figths any restriction on gun ownership while anti-gun-inner-city-liberals insist I leave my home if somebody breaks in. I'm scared of both parties and their retarded logic more than a crack-head beating on my door.

IMHO - having fired most type of guns available to civilians (and some not) I'm obliged to say that handguns are near worthless for home defense. They are horribly inaccurate in chaotic situations and have horrendous accident rates.

 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Hey spiegal, interesting you came to that conclusion. I'm not surprised you came to it, but I find handguns more manageable, and they have to be worth something, or else gun manufacturers wouldn't make them.

This leads me to think the problem may not be with the gun... ;)
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
There's nothing philosophical about the easy of gunrunning within and outside of the US. There's virtually no accountability on behalf of the buyers and sellers that make the 2nd amendment the least of our country's issues with guns.
 

eldorado99

Lifer
Feb 16, 2004
36,324
3,163
126
Here here OP. Thanks for being one of the good ones. Mind if I post this on the gun forum I frequent?
 

chalmers

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2008
2,565
1
76
Originally posted by: irishScott

When someone uses a gun irresponsibly, suddenly it's OMG WE NEED MOAR GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!oneone1!

Why do people type like that? I hate the internet.

 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Originally posted by: jjsole
There's nothing philosophical about the easy of gunrunning within and outside of the US. There's virtually no accountability on behalf of the buyers and sellers that make the 2nd amendment the least of our country's issues with guns.

That's another issue. Gun regulation and registration is one thing. Gun restriction is a different story.

Regulation = you can do this if *insert requirements here*
Restrictions = you are not allowed to do this under any realistic circumstances
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I wouldn't be against regulation, but something like a driver's license where you must pass a reasonable gun safety course before you can get the boomstick.
 

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,256
406
126
Originally posted by: chalmers
Originally posted by: irishScott

When someone uses a gun irresponsibly, suddenly it's OMG WE NEED MOAR GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!oneone1!

Why do people type like that? I hate the internet.
lurk moar

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I wouldn't be against regulation, but something like a driver's license where you must pass a reasonable gun safety course before you can get the boomstick.
Also agree with this.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I wouldn't be against regulation, but something like a driver's license where you must pass a reasonable gun safety course before you can get the boomstick.

Will I be able to get my gun license while I get my book-writing and religious-ceremony licenses? I'd like to take care of as many licenses as I can at one time. Time is money, you know.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
I do not believe that an individual should have the power to mow down entire crowds. Thus I am against fully automatic weapons and semiautomatic shotguns being generally available.

If someone has decided to commit mass murder what makes you think the fact that fully automatic weapons being "generally" unavailable would stop him?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,355
19,535
146
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I wouldn't be against regulation, but something like a driver's license where you must pass a reasonable gun safety course before you can get the boomstick.

What other Amendments in the Bill of Rights would you like to subject to licensing restrictions? Speech? Religion? Privacy? Fair trial?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
I do not believe that an individual should have the power to mow down entire crowds. Thus I am against fully automatic weapons and semiautomatic shotguns being generally available.

If someone has decided to commit mass murder what makes you think the fact that fully automatic weapons being "generally" unavailable would stop him?

No no, he's absolutely correct. Just look at all the crowds that have been mowed down over the years using automatic weapons. It's a freaking bloodbath out there. We can't sit back and allow this carnage to happen any more.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I wouldn't be against regulation, but something like a driver's license where you must pass a reasonable gun safety course before you can get the boomstick.

What other Amendments in the Bill of Rights would you like to subject to licensing restrictions? Speech? Religion? Privacy? Fair trial?

What other irrelevant topics would you like to suggest? Pizza? Canine dental work? Anti-bacterial soap?