Sorry, another gun control thread

[Paladin3]

Remember the wild west, even they knew enough was enough.

Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today. The real culture of violence on the frontier during the latter half of the nineteenth century sprang from the U.S. government’s policies toward the Plains Indians.

 

[soundforbjt]

Remember the wild west, even they knew enough was enough.

Lots of towns were gun-free.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lots of towns were gun-free.

 

[soundforbjt]

Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today. The real culture of violence on the frontier during the latter half of the nineteenth century sprang from the U.S. government’s policies toward the Plains Indians.

About the author of this piece:

Thomas DiLorenzo (born 1954) is an Austrian school "economist" and pseudohistorian who holds a post as a professor of economics at Loyola College, Maryland. DiLorenzo is a fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and formerly worked for the neo-secessionist League of the SouthInstitute. DiLorenzo's revisionist history has made him a popular "scholar" within libertarian circles and among some of the nuttier Teabaggers.

He is one of the foremost proponents of neo-Confederate thought. His body of work is something of a synthesis of the alternate universe histories put forth by neo-Confederates, laissez-fairefundamentalists, and libertarians, all in one package.

 

[ivwshane]

About the author of this piece:

Yeah, but it told him exactly what he wanted to hear.


Looks like someone has a case of confirmation bias.

 

[Thebobo]

Lots of towns were gun-free.

Yeah exactly that was my point

 

[Paladin3]

I just googled "violent wild west myth" and linked to the first article without reading past the portion I copied. If it's a slanted article, complete BS or entertainment then that's my bad. I've never even heard of that particular website.

That in no way changes the fact that the "wild west" was NOT full of constant gun battles and killings as so many would like to believe.

Anyway, it appears I misunderstood Thebobo's comment to begin with. So, if you want to address any of the many points I've made please do so, or just continue to jump on mistakes I might make that really don't have anything to do with the topic.

 

[MrSquished]

At the most fundamental level: personal responsibility. Some folks are just irresponsible, while others have mental health issues that render them violent or otherwise unsafe to own a weapon of any kind. There are always a small minority in any community to ruin things for the rest of us with their poor behavior. Guns are no different.

If guns are no different then there should be something else easy enough to use to dispense quick, portable lethal force while separating yourself almost totally from the event for self-defense and sport then.

 

[Paladin3]

If guns are no different then there should be something else easy enough to use to dispense quick, portable lethal force while separating yourself almost totally from the event for self-defense and sport then.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand your statement.

I was saying guns are no different than many other items or activities that are used or participated in quiet safely by the majority, but unsafely/criminally by a small minority of irresponsible users.

What does that have to do with finding something else to dispense quick, portable lethal force? It would still be a weapon open to misuse, intentional or otherwise.

 

[MrSquished]

I'm sorry, I don't really understand your statement.

I was saying guns are no different than many other items or activities that are used or participated in quiet safely by the majority, but unsafely/criminally by a small minority of irresponsible users.

What does that have to do with finding something else to dispense quick, portable lethal force? It would still be a weapon open to misuse, intentional or otherwise.

I'm not for a gun ban but to say that guns are no different than your other options, as far as physical items to deal or threaten death with, is a pretty misleading statement. Actually very misleading.

 

[Paladin3]

I'm not for a gun ban but to say that guns are no different than your other options, as far as physical items to deal or threaten death with, is a pretty misleading statement. Actually very misleading.

I never said they were the same. I simply said there are lots of items that the majority use quite safely and the minority misuse and that guns are one of these items. This is the fundamental problem we have with guns in America: that a small minority of gun owners use them for crime and/or otherwise irresponsibly. And my reply was to the question: What do you perceive the problem to be regarding guns in the US?"

If we could somehow control or shrink the minority who misuse guns, would you still be trying to put constraints on them for the law-abiding? A gun in the hands of a responsible owner almost never becomes a problem. It takes a nut/sick/evil/criminal individual behind the trigger to shoot up a school and those are by far only a very tiny sliver of the gun owning population. Over 99.9% of civilian owned guns are never used in a crime or to hurt anyone.

 

[MrSquished]

I never said they were the same. I simply said there are lots of items that the majority use quite safely and the minority misuse and that guns are one of these items. This is the fundamental problem we have with guns in America: that a small minority of gun owners use them for crime and/or otherwise irresponsibly.

If we could somehow control or shrink the minority who misuse guns, would you still be trying to put constraints on them for the law-abiding? A gun in the hands of a responsible owner almost never becomes a problem. Over 99.9% of civilian owned guns are never used in a crime or to hurt anyone.

Well you made a blanket statement that the were no different than

many other items or activities that are used or participated in quiet safely by the majority, but unsafely/criminally by a small minority of irresponsible users.

which is simply not true. No different than other items? How can we debate guns when we can't even agree that they are different than other means of killing/maiming a person. Pick the next most common ways of killing or harming a person from this list and tell me how guns are no different from it:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

 

[Paladin3]

Well you made a blanket statement that the were no different than


which is simply not true. No different than other items? How can we debate guns when we can't even agree that they are different than other means of killing/maiming a person. Pick the next most common ways of killing or harming a person from this list and tell me how guns are no different from it:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Again, I never said guns were no different than other items. I can differentiate a gun from a car or a chainsaw. They all have different purposes, are dangerous to different degrees, but can all be used unsafely and hurt someone. I'm sure you can grasp this concept.

Lots of potentially dangerous activities or items get misused by idiots and it ruins things for those of us who don't. A great example is Jessica Dubroff, the child pilot who was trying to fly cross-country with her instructor to set a record. When her instructor insisted she try to take off in a storm, she crashed and killed them both there was national outrage and calls for laws preventing such to be passed, which resulted in the Child Pilot Safety Act.

As silly as this mantra is, guns don't kill folks all on their own. Someone has to misuse that gun and intentionally violate many laws to commit a shooting spree. The huge majority of gun owners don't do that, but you want us to take the hit and accept what we believe are unreasonable restrictions to our constitutional rights to try and stop those who don't obey laws to begin with.

 

[mindless1]

Another thread was not required, except to highlight your vocals. Guns, knives, trucks, cars, or ropes do not kill people. It is the sick mind who wants to inflict death that does. When will you learn? The problem is a mental condition, not the hardware available. A discussion about weapons is futile. Those are not the problem. A hateful, motivated killer, is the problem. There will always be things that can kill people, if used the wrong way.

Lets focus on studying why people want to kill. Let's start putting blame where it really belongs...on the perpetrator. The shooter, the bomber, the truck or car driver, all had one thing in common. They had a motivated desire to inflict mass carnage.

You are on the right track, BUT, it goes back further. We need to address the factors that turned someone who was "supposedly" innocent at birth, into a killer.

It's the sum of many things. We excuse minor transgressions, like saying throwing one rock at someone is just an assault, yet if many people do it the person dies from that assault.

We need an economy where youth have some assurances, where if they work for something that they earn it. This was the way it used to be to "some" extent. Granted back then it wasn't every loser going to community college that felt entitled, but at the same time, society needs to have structure enough that if someone does what society implies a child should do, that the work is rewarded appropriately.

Chaos serves no purpose except for the 1%.

 

[MrSquished]

Again, I never said guns were no different than other items. I can differentiate a gun from a car or a chainsaw. They all have different purposes, are dangerous to different degrees, but can all be used unsafely and hurt someone. I'm sure you can grasp this concept.

Lots of potentially dangerous activities or items get misused by idiots and it ruins things for those of us who don't. A great example is Jessica Dubroff, the child pilot who was trying to fly cross-country with her instructor to set a record. When her instructor insisted she try to take off in a storm, she crashed and killed them both there was national outrage and calls for laws preventing such to be passed, which resulted in the Child Pilot Safety Act.

As silly as this mantra is, guns don't kill folks all on their own. Someone has to misuse that gun and intentionally violate many laws to commit a shooting spree. The huge majority of gun owners don't do that, but you want us to take the hit and accept what we believe are unreasonable restrictions to our constitutional rights to try and stop those who don't obey laws to begin with.

But a gun does change a situation, and it changes the person holding it. Sometimes a violent attack is going to happen, no matter what. But introduce a gun into that situation and it becomes that more lethal. The likelihood of death or maiming becomes far higher. It's also far different than a knife or a blunt item - it separates you from the violence. Just stand away from your victim, point and gently squeeze the trigger. Surgical, neat, not fussy. It's really fucking easy. It does feel like playing a video game until it's too late. Using a knife or hammer - dirty, messy, organic. Total opposite.

Guns will give people balls. Balls to inject themselves into situations they otherwise wouldn't. Think Zimmern on the micro level, think any school shooter on a macro level. No gun = no balls to be a small-time killer or a big-time killer. So they do change people. They don't kill people on their own but they empower people who otherwise think they can't act, to act.

I'm not saying ban guns but understand them.

 

[mikeymikec]

At the most fundamental level: personal responsibility. Some folks are just irresponsible, while others have mental health issues that render them violent or otherwise unsafe to own a weapon of any kind. There are always a small minority in any community to ruin things for the rest of us with their poor behavior. Guns are no different.

Exacerbating the issue is that America is supposed to be a "free society" where we cherish the concepts of due process, innocence until proven guilty and guaranteed constitutional rights for all. Not to mention certain inalienable human rights.

So, if we can't suspend a persons constitutional right to own a gun until they commit a crime or otherwise have their gun rights revoked by a judge via due process under the law, the how do you stop someone with no criminal record from shooting up a school?

And, if we attempt to ban the tools, it simply won't work, IMHO. Government has never, ever been able to prohibit any object or substance or activity if the demand exists. But we could try real hard, convince law-abiding gun owners to give up their guns, outlaw more and more types of guns, and those who are willing to ignore the laws will still be armed.

Like I keep trying to remind folks, there are already tons of laws against murder, but that doesn't seem to stop folks who are intent on killing. How would any degree of a gun ban be any different? Especially considering how many guns are already in the hands of civilians.

Many developed societies consider themselves to be "free societies" (and in every case that is arguable, including the US) where the things you talk about are also cherished. Can you please stop talking as if the US's principles make it unique? You're pretty much the youngest developed nation in the world and sometimes the way you talk sounds a teenager who's telling their parents that they don't know what growing up is like. The fact that you have a Constitution does not make you unique, your history has already demonstrated that the Constitution can be changed which makes it just like anything else made by man.

I agree with you entirely on what the ('fundamental') problem is, but you haven't answered my question of what the ideal solution would fix. Also, you keep talking about bans, but frankly using the word 'ban' carries a lot of absolutist baggage that most countries have not adopted, including the UK.

Furthermore, the way you describe the 'fundamental' problem to be (the kinds of problematic people that have easy access to guns), you even go on to portray the Constitution as being a barrier to solutions. So do something about it? In your response to Pipeline 1010 you even cite the constitution as the only reason why you don't like his idea.

IMO your problem is that you describe a fundamental issue and yet can't recognise the fundamental cause of it: the default being that everyone then has easy access to obtaining firearms. The solutions you proposed earlier often revolved around the idea that you can catch problematic situations (such as worsening mental health) just in time (that's an argument I could drive a steamroller through), and even worse from your perspective I think: On one hand you talk gun ownership being a Constitutional Right (implication: set in stone, no-one can take my guns away, yadda yadda yadda), and in your earlier solutions, it very much sounds like you're treating it as a privilege that can be taken away.

If you want to continue to use the Constitutional Right argument, then I think you ought to accept that fundamentally you have to treat 2A like 1A which in America AFAIK has exceptions that are so few and minute in scope. I don't think it's a realistic view to put 1A and 2A on equal footing when you then talk about classes for gun owners. Can you imagine having mandatory classes to facilitate proper use of freedom of speech?

 

[SP33Demon]

Your position is now entirely substance-free. Congratulations. Tip: Please don't become a police officer. Your standard of what constitutes reasonable evidence is atrocious: You'd be arresting people for things you perceive to be crimes based on opinion pieces and tweets you've read, while likely then complaining that in the UK people can be arrested without lawful ground to support the arrest.

As for your opinion about the UK's freedom of speech, feel free to start a new thread, it's irrelevant to this one.

Way to deflect. Still waiting on you to provide the (non-existent) law where cops are arresting your own citizens for "offensive weapons" - which doesn't include guns or knives. I've already proven that the arrests have and are still happening. Enjoy your nazi-like country while my country laughs at your "rights".

 

[SP33Demon]

Speedy’s back, how fun! I look forward to his poorly informed, nonsensical ranting followed by bizarre macho posturing. I wonder how long it will be until he brags about how much he can squat.

I'll punt the argument to you since your buddy mikey wussed out (not surprising from someone who lives in the UK).

Here's the link:
https://www.london.gov.uk/mopac-pub...rime-strategy-putting-stop-knife-crime-london

Here's what they are bragging about:

• Operation Winter Nights (Nov-Dec 2017) saw more than 900 arrests and more than 350 weapons being taken off the streets – including 278 knives, 61 offensive weapons and 20 firearms

Now inform us, on what grounds can the UK police arrest people for "offensive weapons" that aren't guns and knives? Because we've seen twitter posts about them bragging about confiscations that include a regular screwdriver and scissors which are obviously "offensive" to them. Also inform us how this is different from Nazi Germany not allowing their citizens to be armed.

 

[Thebobo]

..... (not surprising from someone who lives in the UK)......
....

He can lift more than you!

 

[fskimospy]

I'll punt the argument to you since your buddy mikey wussed out (not surprising from someone who lives in the UK).

Here's the link:
https://www.london.gov.uk/mopac-pub...rime-strategy-putting-stop-knife-crime-london

Here's what they are bragging about:

• Operation Winter Nights (Nov-Dec 2017) saw more than 900 arrests and more than 350 weapons being taken off the streets – including 278 knives, 61 offensive weapons and 20 firearms

Now inform us, on what grounds can the UK police arrest people for "offensive weapons" that aren't guns and knives? Because we've seen twitter posts about them bragging about confiscations that include a regular screwdriver and scissors which are obviously "offensive" to them. Also inform us how this is different from Nazi Germany not allowing their citizens to be armed.

By the way, I saw somewhere else you were already bragging about how much you can squat. I love that I called that, hahaha. I want to you know that I genuinely find you extremely funny. On the off-chance you're a parody poster designed to make conservatives look dumb you're doing a great job.

As for your Nazi Germany comparisons they're silly but honestly who gives a fuck. There's no point in discussing things with you and we all know it. Look at the global warming thread: you used a quote from John Bates to declare data had been tampered with and even when presented with a direct quote from...that's right... John Bates himself saying there had been no data tampering you refused to admit you screwed up. There's no discussing things with someone that dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

He can lift more than you!

When you can squat 525lbs that's when you know you've accomplished something in life. Those other things you guys can do like 'basic reading comprehension' and 'not get duped by literally everyone' are pussy accomplishments that liberals who can't lift like to console themselves with.

 

[mikeymikec]

Speedy’s back, how fun! I look forward to his poorly informed, nonsensical ranting followed by bizarre macho posturing

I'll punt the argument to you since your buddy mikey wussed out (not surprising from someone who lives in the UK).

Not only did you predict the cretin's behaviour, he even confirmed it.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yeah, until they got robbed by people with guns. Then the policy changed.

 

[SP33Demon]

By the way, I saw somewhere else you were already bragging about how much you can squat. I love that I called that, hahaha. I want to you know that I genuinely find you extremely funny. On the off-chance you're a parody poster designed to make conservatives look dumb you're doing a great job.

As for your Nazi Germany comparisons they're silly but honestly who gives a fuck. There's no point in discussing things with you and we all know it. Look at the global warming thread: you used a quote from John Bates to declare data had been tampered with and even when presented with a direct quote from...that's right... John Bates himself saying there had been no data tampering you refused to admit you screwed up. There's no discussing things with someone that dumb.

Yes, it's so silly that a place is banning things my kids use to cut construction paper with, and put common toys together like screwdrivers. So silly, said the nazi's!

 

[SP33Demon]

He can lift more than you!

Bro, that statement is offensive to me. I'm going to arrest you. Oh wait, that's the UK!