Crazy gun laws

[Wirey]

We should be safe, but at what cost? Our freedom? You never sacrifice freedom for security.

What freedom? You're in perpetual fear that if you're not ready to kill your fellow countrymen they'll...what will they do? Force free health care on you? Feed the poor? I can't imagine fearing my own nation.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

What freedom? You're in perpetual fear that if you're not ready to kill your fellow countrymen they'll...what will they do? Force free health care on you? Feed the poor? I can't imagine fearing my own nation.

I don't fear the nation, but some people in it. There's nothing wrong with wanting to defend yourself. Some people don't wish to be at the mercy of criminals. Criminals take many forms. Street thugs, cops, or some totalitarian politicians. Consequences are usually greater when a nation is disarmed and the government becoming more corrupt. It's happened many times in history.

 

[Wirey]

I don't fear the nation, but some people in it. There's nothing wrong with wanting to defend yourself. Some people don't wish to be at the mercy of criminals. Criminals take many forms. Street thugs, cops, or some totalitarian politicians. Consequences are usually greater when a nation is disarmed and the government becoming more corrupt. It's happened many times in history.

Gun ownership for shooting other humans isn't self-defense, it's insanity. Are you genuinely suggesting that threatening my life somehow makes you safer?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Gun ownership for shooting other humans isn't self-defense, it's insanity. Are you genuinely suggesting that threatening my life somehow makes you safer?

...

Do you always exaggerate and make things up in your posts? Having a gun to protect yourself isn't insanity. It doesn't mean you're going to go shoot others. It's to protect yourself in CASE others threaten you. How did I insinuate that I'd be threatening your life and that would make me safer? What are you talking about? I never said such a thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Gun ownership for shooting other humans isn't self-defense, it's insanity. Are you genuinely suggesting that threatening my life somehow makes you safer?

I'm so happy we don't have so much of a paranoid attitude up here in Canuckistan.

At least not around where I am. I've never felt the need to have to shoot someone and I've been in some pretty hair situations.

 

[Wirey]

...

Do you always exaggerate and make things up in your posts? Having a gun to protect yourself isn't insanity. It doesn't mean you're going to go shoot others. It's to protect yourself in CASE others threaten you. How did I insinuate that I'd be threatening your life and that would make me safer? What are you talking about? I never said such a thing.

Your ownership of a gun for 'self-defense' means you determine when I'm a threat, and then kill me for presenting that threat. That is a danger to me, a very serious one, because I am exactly as safe as the craziest member of the gun club. Who decided that you (average citizen you, not you personally) get to decide when I'm a threat? No one, that's who! You don't get to kill me because you think I'm after your TV just because the repo company sent me over. You don't get to kill me because I asked you for the time and you thought I said 'wallet'. What is so hard to understand about basic civilization? You're talking about acting like a pack of wild dogs. "That guy looks threating. Kill him!" The average schmuck on the street isn't smart enough to make decisions that can result in life or death outcomes.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Your ownership of a gun for 'self-defense' means you determine when I'm a threat, and then kill me for presenting that threat. That is a danger to me, a very serious one, because I am exactly as safe as the craziest member of the gun club. Who decided that you (average citizen you, not you personally) get to decide when I'm a threat? No one, that's who! You don't get to kill me because you think I'm after your TV just because the repo company sent me over. You don't get to kill me because I asked you for the time and you thought I said 'wallet'. What is so hard to understand about basic civilization? You're talking about acting like a pack of wild dogs. "That guy looks threating. Kill him!" The average schmuck on the street isn't smart enough to make decisions that can result in life or death outcomes.

It is natural for one to defend themselves. You never kill unless there's absolutely no other choice. I wouldn't do such a thing if someone looked threatening. That makes no sense. However if someone clearly threatening you and your life. i.e. demanding you hand over your money to them or if they wave a gun or a knife in your face, what do you think you would do? This is common sense we're talking here. Having a gun doesn't mean someone will die in the fight. A gun can scare off a would be assailant. There will be mistakes made by people who don't know how to handle guns, However that's no excuse to punish everyone who can handle guns. You're exaggerating to prove your point, which shows it's not valid. If it was valid, you wouldn't resort to exaggerating.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whether it's difficult or easy to get a gun, criminals always find a way. The cities with the strictest gun laws doesn't stop the criminals from owning guns. All of those gun laws that makes it difficult to own one only ends up hurting the innocent who whishes to defend themselves. Which is why gun crimes happen so much. Gun laws only disarm the innocent. It's been shown time and time again. We know it doesn't work, so there's no point in doing it.

So do you think we shouldn't amend the laws to make it so a convicted murderer can't get a gun? Do you think we should just continue to allow people to buy from small-vendors with no background check? Do you think we shouldn't train and certify people to use guns, similar to what is required for operating a motor vehicle?

 

[Wirey]

It is natural for one to defend themselves. You never kill unless there's absolutely no other choice. I wouldn't do such a thing if someone looked threatening. That makes no sense. However if someone clearly threatening you and your life. i.e. demanding you hand over your money to them or if they wave a gun or a knife in your face, what do you think you would do? This is common sense we're talking here. Having a gun doesn't mean someone will die in the fight. A gun can scare off a would be assailant. There will be mistakes made by people who don't know how to handle guns, However that's no excuse to punish everyone who can handle guns. You're exaggerating to prove your point, which shows it's not valid. If it was valid, you wouldn't resort to exaggerating.

I'm exaggerating? How many crimes are actually happening in these cities with all the guns? Tons! Guns don't stop crime, guns make crime. And telling someone they're not allowed to kill someone over $50 isn't punishment, it's civilization!

 

[Theweirdtophat]

So do you think we shouldn't amend the laws to make it so a convicted murderer can't get a gun? Do you think we should just continue to allow people to buy from small-vendors with no background check? Do you think we shouldn't train and certify people to use guns, similar to what is required for operating a motor vehicle?

When did I say that? It really depends on the crime. Someone who's convicted of such a thing is more likely to hurt someone with that as opposed to someone convicted for fraud. Why bar the person convicted for fraud when the crime he committed wasn't violent?

I feel like people should do what some countries have done before which is help train people to use such weapons so they are less likely to hurt others. I could be getting countries mixed up but I hear in Switzerland that everyone goes to the military and is trained in fire arms and much of the population is armed. People should go the military anyway. It helps mature them and they get trained for self defense, including fire arms.

 

[metis]

I could be getting countries mixed up but I hear in Switzerland that everyone goes to the military and is trained in fire arms and much of the population is armed. People should go the military anyway. It helps mature them and they get trained for self defense, including fire arms.

Actually the U.S. has a substantially higher percent with arms than do the Swiss. Most of the arms they have are military issues that they're allowed to keep after serving and after having thorough background checks.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Actually the U.S. has a substantially higher percent with arms than do the Swiss. Most of the arms they have are military issues that they're allowed to keep after serving and after having thorough background checks.

There are more people in America overall, and there is higher crime, but the Swiss don't seem to have many strict laws against it like some American cities. Swiss has a decent human development too so it doesn't have to many poverty stricken areas like some American cities and poverty ends up breeding crime.

 

[metis]

There are more people in America overall, and there is higher crime, but the Swiss don't seem to have many strict laws against it like some American cities. Swiss has a decent human development too so it doesn't have to many poverty stricken areas like some American cities and poverty ends up breeding crime.

The Swiss have very strict gun laws, along with extensive background checks, both of which are far weaker here in the States. Even the Israelis think we're crazy here by allowing so many to carry guns, and they also use extensive background checks like the Swiss.

Here, we average almost one gun per man, woman, and child, and yet we have many times higher homicide rates that Britain, France, Switzerland, and even Canada. If having a lot of guns supposedly is going to make us "friendlier", to use the NRA line, then why ain't that happening? [rhetorical]

 

[Theweirdtophat]

The Swiss have very strict gun laws, along with extensive background checks, both of which are far weaker here in the States. Even the Israelis think we're crazy here by allowing so many to carry guns, and they also use extensive background checks like the Swiss.

Here, we average almost one gun per man, woman, and child, and yet we have many times higher homicide rates that Britain, France, Switzerland, and even Canada. If having a lot of guns supposedly is going to make us "friendlier", to use the NRA line, then why ain't that happening? [rhetorical]

Then why are they required to join the Swiss military and be trained with weapons if their gun laws are so strict? Again, not every state in America is the same as the gun laws in Illinois won't be the same as Montana for example. Some will allow you to have concealed carry weapons, others don't. There are some places where even mace is illegal, and if that's illegal, a gun's not going to be allowed either. You can research before and after certain gun laws were enacted in cities like Chicago and New York, and you'll see it's gone higher because of the gun laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course they have gun crime. But compared to Dallas? Nothing! There were four people shot in Toronto yesterday and it's the lead story on the national news. Four people shot in Phoenix wouldn't make the third page. It is way easier to get a pistol legally in Chicago than it is anywhere in Canada, or England, or Australia, or OTHER COUNTRY HERE. You views on gun laws are skewed by the fact that you live in Crazy Bullet Land. The US has essentially zero gun control.

That isn't true. When I carry across state lines, it takes research to determine which states allow it & under what terms. And even in states where federal law allows me to transport a handgun, local cops sometimes fail to recognize this right....they're more dangerous than the criminals I might face.

There's a great deal of gun control.
But it might be a matter of perspective regarding what is a little & what is a lot.
It reminds me of this.....

 

[Revoltingest]

One thing "gun grabbers" just don't address is that even if we had far fewer guns, we'd still have the same thriving cultures of violence. Curbing gun ownership might even raise the death rate because self defense would suffer, while the perps would remain violent (even if some switch from guns to knives). (I've made the statistical argument for this before, but I'm not repeating it at the moment.)

Remember the law of unintended consequences.
Eliminating guns won't just turn us in to Canuckistanians.
We might instead become Braziliastanians.

 

[Revoltingest]

We cannot even have frank coverage of gun crime in the media because of political correctness.
Consider one of Americastan's premier newspapers.....
The racial divide in America’s gun deaths - The Washington Post
We see only that black folk are disproportionately the victims of crime.
They dare not cover who is committing the crimes.
But the vast majority of black folk shot are shot by their fellows.
This points to the uncomfortable issue of inner city black guys being the lion's share of the problem.
Until the cultures change, the problem will remain.

 

[metis]

Then why are they required to join the Swiss military and be trained with weapons if their gun laws are so strict?

The question is a non-sequitur. The Swiss have extensive background checks plus licenses to carry are only rarely granted, The vast majority of guns are rifles, not handguns, btw.

You can research before and after certain gun laws were enacted in cities like Chicago and New York, and you'll see it's gone higher because of the gun laws.

In the case of Chicago, the CPD states that most guns used in illegal activities come from other states, especially Indiana, which has much more lax gun control laws than Illinois does. I don't know if the same is true about NYC as I have not seen any stats on that, although it seems that I heard quite a while back that most of the illegal guns in the northeast come from southern states.

 

[Wirey]

One thing "gun grabbers" just don't address is that even if we had far fewer guns, we'd still have the same thriving cultures of violence. Curbing gun ownership might even raise the death rate because self defense would suffer, while the perps would remain violent (even if some switch from guns to knives). (I've made the statistical argument for this before, but I'm not repeating it at the moment.)

Remember the law of unintended consequences.
Eliminating guns won't just turn us in to Canuckistanians.
We might instead become Braziliastanians.

'Tis true. The American culture favours violence as a problem solving method. Until that changes, gun laws will be without effect.

As an aside, why does spellcheck say Braziliastanians is spelled wrong but Canuckistanians is okay? Did I miss another coup?

 

[metis]

'Tis true. The American culture favours violence as a problem solving method. Until that changes, gun laws will be without effect.

Actually the ready availability of guns can have a significant effect on the homicide rate, but what it needs to be matched with are still penalties for illegal possession, which are also lacking here. After WWII, both the French and Brits not only began to restrict guns, they had stiff penalties for illegal possession. The Brits had up to 10 years for illegal possession alone, although unless a crime was committed, that was typically not given.