Sorry, another gun control thread

[MomentsofSanity]

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

The law stayed on the books into the 70's. That's 1970's.

 

[mikeymikec]

The law stayed on the books into the 70's. That's 1970's.

Why are you bringing facts to a custard pie fight? You clearly don't understand the rules of the game he wants to play.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Why are you bringing facts to a custard pie fight? You clearly don't understand the rules of the game he wants to play.

Let me modify my statement. Up yours conservatard!

 

[mikeymikec]

Let me modify my statement. Up yours conservatard!

Better. You could also have gone with an alternative fact as the fictional basis for his alternative fact. If enough alternative facts are built up, maybe Jesus and Hitler can be brought into the narrative without raising any red flags?

 

[shortylickens]

I am pro gun.

But since Sp33demon is making us look bad, I think I will just point out one thing and then leave. Unbanning guns is almost always results in a drop of violent crime. Why?
Complicated. but its too consistent to be a coincidence.

 

[richaron]

I am pro gun.

But since Sp33demon is making us look bad, I think I will just point out one thing and then leave. Unbanning guns is almost always results in a drop of violent crime. Why?
Complicated. but its too consistent to be a coincidence.

I would suggest this is likely a temporary phenomenon.

That is: if this means there are more guns in circulation.

 

[deathBOB]

I am pro gun.

But since Sp33demon is making us look bad, I think I will just point out one thing and then leave. Unbanning guns is almost always results in a drop of violent crime. Why?
Complicated. but its too consistent to be a coincidence.

Citation needed

 

[shortylickens]

Citation needed

FBI and CDC.

 

[mikeymikec]

FBI and CDC.

Two TLAs does not a citation make.

 

[pmv]

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".

In most countries the purpose of police is to police the country's "own citizens". Most arrests will be of people in that category. Not sure why you consider that to be an especially egregious thing. Can you explain?

Do cops in the US only arrest people who aren't your "own citizens" then? They generally let anyone who can produce a US passport go? Strange policy, but it's your country I guess.

It's also fairly common to have laws about possession of an offensive weapon - which would include tasers, say, or, say, a baseball bat with nails through it, or a broken bottle, or any number of rather obvious items that aren't guns or knives that the bearer can provide no reasonable pretext for carrying.

I found a screwdriver in the street once. Picked it up 'cos it seemed a shame to let it go to waste...only much later when I happened to use it for something did I notice it had been deliberately sharpened.

I'm not that keen on stop-and-search laws myself, they do seem to get overused as a kind of random fishing expedition, but really there's no good reason to be carrying a long bladed knife in a public street.

But then I don't think of my country as a warzone full of people who fear and hate each other. I guess the US is different. Makes me feel sad for you.

Anyway, don't know why I'm bothering to be rational with you - you mostly seem to post stream-of-conciousness drivel.

Oh, and the 'non existent' law on offensive weapons - as you are clearly too dim to use google, here's a link.

http://www.afglaw.co.uk/services/criminal/offensive-weapons-charges/

What constitutes an offensive weapon?
The article or object must fall within one of the three following categories to be considered an offensive weapon:
1. an offensive weapon per se (or by their very nature, as they are without an innocent quality)
• the following have been held to be offensive weapons ‘per se’: a machete, a sword, a flick knife, a truncheon, etc.
• however, a lock knife, ordinary razor or penknife have been held not to be offensive weapons ‘per se’ as they do have an innocent purpose
2. something adapted to cause injury (for example, a bottle that has been deliberately broken, a nail-headed club, an unscrewed pool cue, etc).
3. something that is not offensive per se, or adapted, but is intended to be used for the purpose of causing injury (for example, a work hammer, a large torch, an axe haft etc)

 

[Paladin3]

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.

In general, I disagree very much with your assertion that guns give people balls. A gun may give a sick/evil/violent/criminal person balls, but a person with morals will not suddenly lose them because they are carrying a gun.

I am far more polite and do everything I can to not engage in any kind of argument when carrying. If someone spit in my face I would walk away and call the police precisely because I am carrying a weapon, and I realize that a simple confrontation and bad words passed could potentially lead to me having to use the weapon. It's my duty to deescalate any potentially dangerous situation if possible before resorting to defending myself with lethal force. A gun is a last resort tool to be used when your life is threatened and you have no other option for stopping the attacker.

I don't understand when we gave up on the standard of being competent, polite, capable adults who handled situations responsibly. I reject the idea that I'm a child and can't be trusted with a gun or that a gun will somehow make me give up all the moral ideals I try to live my life by. Would YOU kill if handed a gun, or get big balls and go around starting fights that you otherwise wouldn't?

And, again, you are judging all gun owners based on the bad actions of a small minority. Zimmerman was ONE guy. He's the outlier, not the rule, as are all the school shooters ever when compared to the estimated 130,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. Not to mention you are still operating under the misconception that you could enact a gun ban of sufficient scope to stop those intent on murder from getting a gun to do it.

 

[Paladin3]

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?

First of all, we are not your teenagers to be corrected. So fuck you on that and get off your high horse talking down to us.

Only three countries in the world currently have a constitutional right to own a gun: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala. Six other countries used to have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they've since repealed those laws. So we are a little different that most developed countries.

The 2A of our constitution is not a barrier to anything. It's a fundamental principal this country embraces and currently has no political will to change. It's the test against which we must measure our actions and proposed laws. It's there to protect citizens from unreasonable laws. If a proposed solution to gun violence violates the 2A then it doesn't measure up, or qualify as something we can do. Unless, again, you have the political will to change the 2A. Please let me know when you do.

I suggest we make gun training mandatory for gun ownership because I believe the American people will accept such a proposal. It would undoubtedly be challenged in court, but I would hope we could get it passed the Supreme Court since I believe it would help. It would have to be provided free of charge to citizens to help not violate the 2A. I would look to gun manufacturers and the government to subsidize these programs. And I stand by my statement that I am iffy on this idea because it does challenge the purpose of the 2A.

Having said that, you can't disqualify my other arguments simply because this one suggestion of mine might push up against the 2A. Debating on technicalities is BS.

The 2A does not guarantee absolute free access to guns to anyone. We have many, many laws and restrictions on the kinds of arms a citizen can legally own, just as the actions of a citizen can easily result in the loss of the right to own a gun. I'm against adding to those restrictions and banning currently legal guns in any way, but that does not mean I'm think we should repeal all restrictions. Please stop confusing my opinion on this.

I don't know how we completely stop violent gun crime. In a perfect world every human being would be capable of empathizing and caring for others. We would excise evil from our hearts.

But shit ain't like that in the real world. In the real world evil, sickness, mental illness and criminals exist as a tiny minority of our society who screw things up for the rest of us. Most folks are good, decent people who don't use violence against others, and these are the only people you would be affecting with any further restrictions on firearms. Unless you know how to effectively take away all the guns currently in circulation, and stop the illegal black market in guns that would swell unimaginable huge to keep criminals armed should a gun ban ever be passed.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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

citation requested.

 

[MrSquished]

In general, I disagree very much with your assertion that guns give people balls. A gun may give a sick/evil/violent/criminal person balls, but a person with morals will not suddenly lose them because they are carrying a gun.

I am far more polite and do everything I can to not engage in any kind of argument when carrying. If someone spit in my face I would walk away and call the police precisely because I am carrying a weapon, and I realize that a simple confrontation and bad words passed could potentially lead to me having to use the weapon. It's my duty to deescalate any potentially dangerous situation if possible before resorting to defending myself with lethal force. A gun is a last resort tool to be used when your life is threatened and you have no other option for stopping the attacker.

I don't understand when we gave up on the standard of being competent, polite, capable adults who handled situations responsibly. I reject the idea that I'm a child and can't be trusted with a gun or that a gun will somehow make me give up all the moral ideals I try to live my life by. Would YOU kill if handed a gun, or get big balls and go around starting fights that you otherwise wouldn't?

And, again, you are judging all gun owners based on the bad actions of a small minority. Zimmerman was ONE guy. He's the outlier, not the rule, as are all the school shooters ever when compared to the estimated 130,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. Not to mention you are still operating under the misconception that you could enact a gun ban of sufficient scope to stop those intent on murder from getting a gun to do it.

Of course they do, in many cases. That's why violent crime increases in RTC states.

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

 

[shortylickens]

Of course they do, in many cases. That's why violent crime increases in RTC states.

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

which is the opposite of what a Harvard study said.

So now, we either need more studies, or we need to pick a source that we trust the most and go with that.

 

[mikeymikec]

First of all, we are not your teenagers to be corrected. So fuck you on that and get off your high horse talking down to us.

If you prefer the high horse analogy, get off of yours for the reasons I already specified. You've been doing it repeatedly on this thread and yet you get angry if you perceive someone else doing it to you. Then you proceeded to talk about "the real world"!

But you've missed my point with regard to my Constitutional Right argument so I am going to stop here unless you want to have another crack at it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I should not be surprised if gun purchases on the left go up.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Seems some folks are more outraged with attacks against the NRA then attacks against humans.

I was watching "Fact Fiend" (Karl Smallwood) on YouTube and he casually mentioned that he had been mugged while taking about something else and explaining why he was going into a phone store for a new phone -- as if getting mugged is just a normal occurrence in whichever-part of the UK he lives in.

Not here. I live in a city near Atlanta, GA USA. I've never known anyone who was mugged. Potential muggers must consider that a weak-looking person might be packing a great equalizer.

Even though I don't carry, I benefit from legalized firearms. Fewer people would consider mugging me because they don't know if I'm carrying a handgun or not.

LOL here they just have a shootout and whoever isn't dead gets all the stuff. Guns work out great for population control. Cleans out 2 or 3 percent of the garbage every year.

 

[Paladin3]

If you prefer the high horse analogy, get off of yours for the reasons I already specified. You've been doing it repeatedly on this thread and yet you get angry if you perceive someone else doing it to you. Then you proceeded to talk about "the real world"!

But you've missed my point with regard to my Constitutional Right argument so I am going to stop here unless you want to have another crack at it.

You are using the term "the real world" in a totally different way than I am. If you choose to take things out of context and warp the meaning of my statements then I am done with you.

And you never, ever address the majority of my arguments. All you do is find some tiny phrase you can argue against on a technicality, then use that to disqualify every thing else I say out of hand. The exact same goes for your constitutional rights rebuttal earlier: I can't use the 2A to justify gun ownership because my suggestion we offer free gun training may be challenged by the 2A. That's faulty logic on your part.

And I'll say it again, only three countries have the civilian gun ownership protected by their constitution: The US, Mexico and Guatemala. So, yeah, the US is a bit unique with regards to gun rights.

 

[mikeymikec]

You are using the term "the real world" in a totally different way than I am. If you choose to take things out of context and warp the meaning of my statements then I am done with you.

But shit ain't like that in the real world. In the real world evil, sickness, mental illness and criminals exist as a tiny minority of our society who screw things up for the rest of us.

This is a country where due process under the law is a fundamental right of all.

I didn't warp anything. Here are a couple of examples of you communicating in a condescending manner / as if the US is unique and special and it clearly isn't. You have spoken like this at least a few times on this thread, and I've pointed it out more than once, yet you keep doing it. If you want, I can start talking about the UK as if it's some wondrous snowflake where we value things like freedom and rule of law and how childrens' lives are valued here and see how long it takes before it bugs the living shit out of you.

And you never, ever address the majority of my arguments. All you do is find some tiny phrase you can argue against on a technicality, then use that to disqualify every thing else I say out of hand.

My Constitutional Right argument isn't a technicality, it's me pointing out what I consider to be a fundamental flaw in your argument which you either don't fully understand or choose to at least partially ignore. That's why I said that I'm basically done with this argument until you actually address that point. Even in your previous response you attempted to create a counter-argument by saying that the Constitution isn't a barrier to change yet then highlighted ways in which it was. The latter is something you've done repeatedly. But then, a lot of your arguments involve arguing both sides of the fence. You argued that 2A has many extra amendments already, which does nothing to counter my point, it just highlights how illogical the situation is IMO.

The exact same goes for your constitutional rights rebuttal earlier: I can't use the 2A to justify gun ownership because my suggestion we offer free gun training may be challenged by the 2A. That's faulty logic on your part.

Err, no, I didn't say that (and I'm honestly having trouble understanding how you came to that conclusion). The way you frame it is as if my point revolved around a historical understanding of what has been challenged legally. It didn't. Normally at this point I'd attempt to make my point even clearer but every attempt I've just made hasn't achieved that.

Hold on a second - this is how your "suggestion to offer free gun training" was worded:

5. All gun owners need to attend either a gun safety or hunter safety class.

Now you're wording it as a "suggestion to offer free training"?

And I'll say it again, only three countries have the civilian gun ownership protected by their constitution: The US, Mexico and Guatemala. So, yeah, the US is a bit unique with regards to gun rights.

I didn't say that the US's firearms situation has absolutely no unique characteristics. Again, I can't tell if you deliberately misinterpret my comments or you really don't understand what I'm saying.

 

[Paladin3]

I said I was iffy on that requirement to take a gun safety class, didn't I? I've been very clear on this. I would ideally like it to be a requirement, but I hold the 2A to be supreme over my want for this to be a legal requirement to own a gun.

Sorry, if my living in the real world and understanding that this isn't a black or white issue offends you. Just one more example of you not addressing a single argument I've made, other than to try and find a technicality on which I am wrong. Oh, look, I didn't use the exact same wording to express my idea! Oh, NOES!

 

[MrSquished]

which is the opposite of what a Harvard study said.

So now, we either need more studies, or we need to pick a source that we trust the most and go with that.

I didn't see that study but a quick google shows it is not tied around right to carry/concealed carry - which is my point because I am talking about when guns are able to be carried out and about on a regular day going about your business. A gun in the home will basically only increase domestic violence - which it does btw, but not affect other crime rates. So that's why the Stanford study is different.

 

[Paladin3]

I feel like an idiot for even debating you, mikey, you're not interested in any kind of problem solving or debate or anything like that. You've got a fixed position from which you will not budge, and a hard-on to prove how much better the UK is than the US.

You consider it an "addiction" that I enjoy shooting guns and support of the following:

1. Our 2A
2. Due process under the law
3. Being innocent until proven guilty
4. The basic human right to self defense
5. The idea that you cannot punish the many for the crimes of the few

And you won't even admit that maybe because only three countries in the world, the US, Mexico and Guatemala, have the right for civilians to own firearms constitutionally protected that we might be working in a slightly unique legal environment here compared to, say, you folks over in the UK. And I haven't once addressed how the UK seems to be tossing out a lot of individual freedoms in the name of order and "safety."

You firmly believe your positions and assumptions are facts. You go so far as to criticize me for being open to change on my positions, or "iffy" as I called it. And you refuse to address the majority of points I've made if they don't lead to a quick, perceived win for you. Yes, you do debate on technicalities.

Over 99.9% of the almost 400,000,000 guns in the US are never used to hurt anyone. That's a staggering fact, IMHO, a fact that almost every single anti-gunner has refused to even confront. How can the US call itself a nation dedicated to due process under the law, Constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, and being innocent until proven guilty if we choose to punish the law-abiding many for the future crimes of the sick/criminal/evil few? And even if there was a political will to change the 2A, how will any ban of any scope be practically implemented in a country with more guns than citizens?

Now, go ahead, and tell me how the UK loves it's children more than we do here in the US. As you hinted earlier, I think that's about all you have left.

 

[Paladin3]

I didn't see that study but a quick google shows it is not tied around right to carry/concealed carry - which is my point because I am talking about when guns are able to be carried out and about on a regular day going about your business. A gun in the home will basically only increase domestic violence - which it does btw, but not affect other crime rates. So that's why the Stanford study is different.

It's obvious to me that if guns are prohibited there will be fewer incidents of them being misused criminally or accidentally. Something not there can't help or hurt you. But I still wonder if these studies establish correlation or causation? Do violent people tend to own guns, or do guns make normal people violent? And I understand if a violent person can't get a gun they can't use it to commit violence. I just don't know how to achieve that in a country with more guns than citizens. The criminally violent won't obey a gun ban, and we already had one that didn't do a thing.

This is why I accept being "statistically less safe" for owning guns. I'm not a statistic, and statistics in no way account for my moral beliefs or safety practices. It's the very few who are ruining it for the rest of us.

 

[mikeymikec]

I said I was iffy on that requirement to take a gun safety class, didn't I? I've been very clear on this. I would ideally like it to be a requirement, but I hold the 2A to be supreme over my want for this to be a legal requirement to own a gun.

I haven't been keeping track of your entire discussion with other people, so if you have clarified on that point then OK.

Sorry, if my living in the real world and understanding that this isn't a black or white issue offends you.

If you wanted to go out of your way to be an asshole, you accomplished it. If that wasn't your intent, I'm truly astonished.

Just one more example of you not addressing a single argument

And more hyperbole.

I feel like an idiot for even debating you, mikey, you're not interested in any kind of problem solving or debate or anything like that. You've got a fixed position from which you will not budge, and a hard-on to prove how much better the UK is than the US.

Now, go ahead, and tell me how the UK loves it's children more than we do here in the US. As you hinted earlier, I think that's about all you have left.

Convince yourself of whatever you like, regardless of what I've said. Honestly, I'm done here.