Any Pro-Gun Liberals?

[Storm]

"If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns." Then there's that whole pesky Second Amendment issue.

BTW, isn't the Liberal Only area supposed to be debate-free?

 

[DarkSun]

Careless would be not keeping the gun secure, maintained and leaving it loaded. IMHO.
Naturally using a gun in a crime would get you to loose your license for good.
Unfortunately we can't predict psychotic behavior 100%... but I hardly think if the collumbine kids had to go through training, registration, waiting periods and such, then the attack would have happened. At least not to the degree that it did.

Or, alternatively, they could have stolen the guns from people who did have the training, the liscence, the registration, and had to undergo the waiting periods and such

That much is silly. You will never rid the USA of guns, making them illegal only makes them underground. You would still worry about gun crime because criminals don't care about illegal guns. (most guns used in crime are illegal anyway).

What we need is better and stricter management of guns that we already have and that are produced in the future. There will never be an gunless utopia in the world.

I actually agree with Kai on this. In the UK and pretty much every other country world-wide, it's almost unheard of to even see some criminal with a gun breaking the law. So why would you need to protect yourself against an imaginary race of people who happen to have guns?

But in retrospect, I'd think it'd be different in the US if they suddenly tried to ban guns. Just reading a few of the comments on here, I'm thinking that prohibition of fire-arms would result in every single person in the country getting the sudden desire to "want to protect themselves" and then go to the black market to get a gun. It would be better if no single person was allowed a gun to begin with. >_>

It's quite sad really... (Page 12)

I feel like I'm saying this a lot, but I'm not for the prohibition of anything. Some things are too harmful to society to be used by people, and I perceive guns to be one of them. So rather than out-right prohibition (which wouldn't work), the only "real" solution would be if people just chose not to use guns of their own free will.

And before you call be naive for saying that, I'll acknowledge that I know that also isn't going to happen any time soon. So there is no "real" solution. Only more safeguards we could introduce, which will fail to solve the problem completely.

 

[DarkSun]

ps. even the wiki article on Collumbine will tell you where the kids actually got the guns and from whom.

I didn't think this was relevant, so I didn't look for the information.

Is it relevant where they got their guns from? Does that change the gist of what I'm saying?

. . . ?

Moving on.

 

[painted wolf]

Or, alternatively, they could have stolen the guns from people who did have the training, the liscence, the registration, and had to undergo the waiting periods and such

ah, but if the weapons were properly registered and traceable then they could be quickly tracked down. And the penalties for having illegal weapons would have to be enforced and strict.

Gun ownership in the UK is not illegal. It is highly restricted however. Switzerland has a law where every adult male owns a gun (as part of the obligatory military service) and they have very low gun crime.
Clearly the problems the US faces are not simply one of gun ownership, but rather gun management and the cultural view of guns.

I didn't think this was relevant, so I didn't look for the information.

Is it relevant where they got their guns from? Does that change the gist of what I'm saying?

I think it is relevant... they got the weapons illegally not legally as you suggested. This is a very big difference and exposes a totally different problem in the system.
The problem is with enforcing the rules about selling guns not with selling in general. Enforcement is often the problem with laws in the country.
Simply making it illegal for the kids to get guns obviously won't fix things as it was already illegal for them to get the guns.

wa:do

 

[DarkSun]

ah, but if the weapons were properly registered and traceable then they could be quickly tracked down. And the penalties for having illegal weapons would have to be enforced and strict.

How would making the guns easier to trace be of any help if someone stole the gun the morning before they chose to shoot someone? I'm not saying that this is what happened with the Columbine Massacre, I'm just saying that it's highly likely that this could happen.

Gun ownership in the UK is not illegal. It is highly restricted however. Switzerland has a law where every adult male owns a gun (as part of the obligatory military service) and they have very low gun crime.
Clearly the problems the US faces are not simply one of gun ownership, but rather gun management and the cultural view of guns.

It would be extremely hard to change the cultural view of guns. Don't get me wrong, education could be a good thing, but guns have been around in the US for most of its history and there would be difficulty changing the cultural mindset on something so accepted. If it could work, and quickly, then that would be good.

But as it is, the solution you've proposed won't bring gun crime down to zero, even if it did lower gun related crime. The only thing that would eliminate the problem entirely is if people chose to not have guns of their own free will. Even an ordinary person could commit a terrible crime given the circumsrance, so if they never had a gun in the first place (by choice), then the damage they could cause would be so much less. Gun crime would be rendered non-existent. But again, this is also never going to happen, because guns are so accepted and most people would never just choose not to have one.

I think it is relevant... they got the weapons illegally not legally as you suggested. This is a very big difference and exposes a totally different problem in the system.
The problem is with enforcing the rules about selling guns not with selling in general. Enforcement is often the problem with laws in the country.

Well, whether they got the guns illegally or legally doesn't seem too important to me, personally. They still had the guns, and they still killed people with them.

Simply making it illegal for the kids to get guns obviously won't fix things as it was already illegal for them to get the guns.

wa:do

But I don't want to make guns illegal. :sarcastic

 

[J Bryson]

"If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns." Then there's that whole pesky Second Amendment issue.

BTW, isn't the Liberal Only area supposed to be debate-free?

Not sure. I think that it's like the religious sections, where you can have debates so long as they're kept within the family.

 

[Valjean]

How is it possible for liberals to get together without debating about something? It's unnatural!

 

[J Bryson]

How is it possible for liberals to get together without debating about something? It's unnatural!

I'm going to steal a UU joke: "It is said that where you find two Jews, you will find three opinions. Liberals are astonished at that level of unanimity."

 

[painted wolf]

How would making the guns easier to trace be of any help if someone stole the gun the morning before they chose to shoot someone? I'm not saying that this is what happened with the Columbine Massacre, I'm just saying that it's highly likely that this could happen.

Actually it's not that likely. Most stolen guns are sold or pawned not used by the thief. Most illegal guns are bought by killers from guys on the street or pawn shops.

But as it is, the solution you've proposed won't bring gun crime down to zero, even if it did lower gun related crime. The only thing that would eliminate the problem entirely is if people chose to not have guns of their own free will. Even an ordinary person could commit a terrible crime given the circumsrance, so if they never had a gun in the first place (by choice), then the damage they could cause would be so much less. Gun crime would be rendered non-existent. But again, this is also never going to happen, because guns are so accepted and most people would never just choose not to have one.

Nothing will ever bring gun crime down to zero... that is a pipe dream.
And may I add a darn silly reason to be against tighter management.
Face it... people in the USA are not giving up guns. I personally don't want them to either.
Our founding fathers had very good and legitimate reasons for putting it in the constitution and I trust their judgment.
I'm terrified of the idea of USA where only people on the far right of the spectrum have guns.

Well, whether they got the guns illegally or legally doesn't seem too important to me, personally. They still had the guns, and they still killed people with them.

And that is why you can't look at the issue rationally.

But I don't want to make guns illegal.

Bad news... the only way to make your utopia happen is to do just that.

wa:do

 

[DarkSun]

Actually it's not that likely. Most stolen guns are sold or pawned not used by the thief. Most illegal guns are bought by killers from guys on the street or pawn shops.

Fair enough. But I still don't see how this is relevent.

Nothing will ever bring gun crime down to zero... that is a pipe dream.
And may I add a darn silly reason to be against tighter management.

Could you please show me where I've denied this?

Face it... people in the USA are not giving up guns.

Again... could you please show me where I've denied this?

I personally don't want them to either.

Well, why not?

Our founding fathers had very good and legitimate reasons for putting it in the constitution and I trust their judgment.

Why are guns necessary in the US? What are these reasons that you speak of?

I'm terrified of the idea of USA where only people on the far right of the spectrum have guns.

I'm a bit sketchy of people with guns, full stop.

And that is why you can't look at the issue rationally.

Haha.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I said that the only way to bring gun crime down to zero was if people chose not to have a gun to begin with. But this is not realistic (as I have already pointed out). So there is no real solution to the problem, instead, there only methods through which gun-related crime could be lowered. That's not to say that these methods should not be enacted, I'm just saying that they won't completely eliminate the problem. Nothing will.

Make sense?

Bad news... the only way to make your utopia happen is to do just that.

wa:do

I think most people assume that I want to prohibit gun/drug use just because I'm against gun/drug use. It can get a but frustrating, you know?

 

[painted wolf]

Fair enough. But I still don't see how this is relevent.

Most crime is done with illegal weapons, not legal ones.

Well, why not?

Why are guns necessary in the US? What are these reasons that you speak of?

Because responsible ownership of weapons by the people is best defense of a nation. Not only from outside threats but inner threats.
It's not perfect, but it's working. Our founders wanted to make sure that the real power in the country was not in the hands of a few men of power, but in the hands of "general population". I agree with that.
No Democracy outright bans weapons to the populace.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I said that the only way to bring gun crime down to zero was if people chose not to have a gun to begin with. But this is not realistic (as I have already pointed out). So there is no real solution to the problem, instead, there only methods through which gun-related crime could be lowered. That's not to say that these methods should not be enacted, I'm just saying that they won't completely eliminate the problem. Nothing will.

So why focus on the pipe dream and not workable solutions for right now?

I think most people assume that I want to prohibit gun/drug use just because I'm against gun/drug use. It can get a but frustrating, you know?

I can imagine...

wa:do

 

[Green Gaia]

I have no problem with (most) people owning guns. I've said before I have a 22 rifle that my grandfather bought when he was 12 years old and gave to me on my 12th birthday. I'll give it to my oldest on his 12th birthday. It is a family heirloom that is not evil and has never harmed or threatened anyone.

I am somewhat troubled by the gun obsession by some in this country. But as long as they don't hurt anyone, then let them be.

I have thought about purchasing a handgun, but haven't worked up the nerve or the reason to do it yet.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I always have a Glock 9mm under the driver's seat of the van and always will.

Gun control is to me like abortion: if you don't believe in it, don't get one, and otherwise mind your own business.

The gun control panic by hunters, self-defense advocates, etc. stymied much social progress. People were tricked into voting against themselves and as a liberal i have to say it was our own dang fault.

I have a Beretta 9000....

Going hunting later this year so will be looking at some 50 cal muzzle loaders and a 270 rifle......but I'm new at using and owning so I will be doing (ALOT) of practice at the gun range....

Here's my take on gun control....Now this is just my opinion.....

All of us who actually buy guns the legitimate way should have few requirements.

I don't mind gun locks. My friend hunts with a bow,owns a 270 (not sure what brand)....but keeps everything in an upright safe.

I don't mind having to buy a gun and wait a couple days.

I'm not sure we need to have Uzis and guns similar...(what's the point)...unless you're a collector and you just have them on display....

My problem is with the illegal purchase and sales of guns. This is where the strict laws should be.....

I'm still wet behind the ears when it comes to all the ins and outs of this topic. I live in VA. so we can own guns and certain situations you can carry concealed...So I'm pro choice.....

Fool come running up in my house gonna get a cap in that tukas.....

Be careful everyone

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I'm pro-gun. Conservatives call me liberal and liberals call me conservative. I call myself a moderate free thinking individual. I tend to be very liberal in the social aspects of politics but more conservative in the economic aspects as well as being pro-military.

 

[DarkSun]

Because responsible ownership of weapons by the people is best defense of a nation. Not only from outside threats but inner threats.
It's not perfect, but it's working.

Our founders wanted to make sure that the real power in the country was not in the hands of a few men of power, but in the hands of "general population". I agree with that.
No Democracy outright bans weapons to the populace.

Doesn't the government have stealth bombers, atomic bombs, a whole bunch of technology, the army, the navy, the airforce, the CIA, the FBI and a collective of other organisations under its control? What a power imbalance.

Should the general populace also share this power as well? Because as you said, the real power in the country was not meant to be in the hands of a few men, but in the hands of the general population.

So why focus on the pipe dream and not workable solutions for right now?

Because I define a solution to a problem as something that will completely solve the problem. What you propose does not do that. What I propose cannot do that due to impracticality. Therefore, there is no solution.

 

[painted wolf]

Doesn't the government have stealth bombers, atomic bombs, a whole bunch of technology, the army, the navy, the airforce, the CIA, the FBI and a collective of other organisations under its control? What a power imbalance.

For now... I think history demonstrates the worst that can happen when the military alone has the weapons.

Should the general populace also share this power as well? Because as you said, the real power in the country was not meant to be in the hands of a few men, but in the hands of the general population.

I think history also shows that stealth bombers and the like, don't always win wars... an armed population is far more dangerous to a military coup or invasion.
Plus... while the population may not have stealth bombers and such, we can build a ROV from junk at Radio Shack... for about $10.
leading edge military technology is very egalitarian. (which is part of why it's kind of spooky)

Because I define a solution to a problem as something that will completely solve the problem. What you propose does not do that. What I propose cannot do that due to impracticality. Therefore, there is no solution.

No wonder the solution will never happen. You want to win the Boston Marathon before you can crawl.

wa:do

 

[Rough_ER]

I'm anti-gun, but then I have no reason to own a gun and certainly don't want my neighbors to own them! I'll fall asleep with my window open tonight, I like it that way.

 

[DarkSun]

For now... I think history demonstrates the worst that can happen when the military alone has the weapons.

What about the insurgence in Iraq? The military and rebel groups both have weapons, and civilians are still getting hurt and killed daily.

I think history also shows that stealth bombers and the like, don't always win wars... an armed population is far more dangerous to a military coup or invasion. Plus... while the population may not have stealth bombers and such, we can build a ROV from junk at Radio Shack... for about $10.
leading edge military technology is very egalitarian. (which is part of why it's kind of spooky)

Does the general population also have access to nerve gas, bacterial strains with increased pathogenicity, and bombs which can obliterate entire cities (whether nuclear or not)?

There is already a power imbalance between the government and its people in the US. It's just that the government or the military isn't about to use it any time soon.

If they ever do, however, I somehow doubt that guns or ROVs are going to help much.

No wonder the solution will never happen. You want to win the Boston Marathon before you can crawl.

wa:do

Some children learn to speak before they learn to walk.

No, but in all seriousness, I don't think either proposition is a "solution", because neither option will ever completely eradicate the problem.

 

[Father Heathen]

Woah, I completely forgot about this thread.

No rapists are took to court and sentenced appropriately.

Yes, after they already committed the crime. It wasn't prevented. The damage is already done. So your point was?

 

[Father Heathen]

Those are the same gun. They fire the same bullets at the same speed and rate of fire, and carry the same amount of rounds. The functionality isn't changed in any significant way, yet for some reason whenever I show these pictures people are often okay with getting rid of the first one while leaving the second innocent "hunting rifle" there.

They thought it was a hunting rifle even with the clearly visible bayonet?