Gun rights victory today!

[Reverend Rick]

To people who use the self-defense arguement:

If you have a gun the chances of others having a gun are just as high. Net gain in safety is sweet nothing.

Ahhhh, but you asume that the weapons are similar and the skill set is the same.

I guess a 50 dollar hand gun in the hands of a gang banger is equal to a 3,000 dollar hand gun in the hands of a highly trained professional?

To me, gun control is having the ability to hit your target even while moving for cover.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Correct me if I am wrong, when Australia banned gun ownership, home invasions skyrocketed right?

 

[Magic Man]

It speaks to your point:

What I meant was that hunters generally use rifles, not handguns.

We should consider also how often is it not harmful when people have guns. If it is overwhelmingly less harmful to own guns, we need to consider other alternatives than restrictions that take away liberty.

First, it would be better to refrain from using phrases like "restrictions that take away liberty". It has no place in an honest discussion.

Second, we could certainly find out that data, but it doesn't mean all that much.

 

[Storm]

First, it would be better to refrain from using phrases like "restrictions that take away liberty". It has no place in an honest discussion.

Why not? Calling a spade a spade is perfectly honest.

Second, we could certainly find out that data, but it doesn't mean all that much.

Again, why not? These are the folks who would be most affected by increased gun control: law abiding citizens who want to own them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What I meant was that hunters generally use rifles, not handguns.

Hunters aren't the only folks who own guns [and I do know plenty of hunters who either carry a handgun while hunting or use a handgun as a primary gun]. Quite a few handgun owners only use their guns for target / recreational shooting.

First, it would be better to refrain from using phrases like "restrictions that take away liberty". It has no place in an honest discussion.

I couldn't disagree more. Liberty is what we're talking about: the right to bear arms. One side wants to restrict liberty, the other wants less restriction. Liberty is the entire topic.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Liberty is the entire topic.

WOW, we agree.

Guns, freedom of speech, abortion, gay marriage, privacy, it's all the same.

Some folks want to control others. I say the more freedoms the better. Once we lose them, there gone forever. :sad4:

The bottom line is, are we going to let others decide which freedoms we can and cannot have just because it makes some folks uncomfortable?

 

[Magic Man]

Why not? Calling a spade a spade is perfectly honest.

That's true, but that's not what that phrase is doing. What that's doing is calling an estate tax a "death tax".

Again, why not? These are the folks who would be most affected by increased gun control: law abiding citizens who want to own them.

Because the point is to determine how much net harm guns do.

 

[Storm]

1) Gun violence is not caused by gun ownership. Norway has high ownership and low gun crime. Switzerland Goes so far as to basically mandate ownership, and also boasts low crime.

So, I don't understand why people think ownership = violence. (No one has come right out and said it on this particular thread, but the implication has certainly been made.) Obviously, the US has much deeper issues. I think it equally obvious that simply banning guns will not solve them.

Which brings me to my second point...

2) Even if ownership were the cause of violence, banning them in the US wouldn't help. This is one point on which I agree with the anti-immigrationists: Mexico would be a problem (IF we tried to get rid of guns). We're not geographically isolated like Australia, or surrounded on all sides by countries with similar restrictions like most of Europe. It just won't work.

Criminalize firearms, and we'll just see the black market skyrocket, fed by Mexican smugglers. It won't solve anything, only ensure that criminals are the only ones with access.

Prohibition is worthless enough without a ready supply of black market goods sitting next door.

 

[Storm]

That's true, but that's not what that phrase is doing. What that's doing is calling an estate tax a "death tax".

I disagree entirely. The right to bear arms is a liberty that gun control restricts. I'm not sayin that all such restrictions are unreasonable, but that doesn't make them anything but restrictions.

Because the point is to determine how much net harm guns do.

Net harm cannot be determined without taking into account all the times no harm is done.

 

[sandandfoam]

Storm,
Almost all men in Switzerland are in the military until middle age. They have their military issue weapon in the house. If they used that weapon on, for example, a burglar. they would be in DEEP DEEP trouble.
It's a different thing entirely imo

 

[Magic Man]

Hunters aren't the only folks who own guns [and I do know plenty of hunters who either carry a handgun while hunting or use a handgun as a primary gun]. Quite a few handgun owners only use their guns for target / recreational shooting.

You were talking about hunters. That's what I was responding to. If you want to add in other groups, you're welcome to, but you should amend your earlier statement.

I couldn't disagree more. Liberty is what we're talking about: the right to bear arms. One side wants to restrict liberty, the other wants less restriction. Liberty is the entire topic.

I'm sure you do see it that way. However, it's not really conducive to real discussion, just like calling the recent healthcare bill "Obamacare" isn't.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You were talking about hunters. That's what I was responding to. If you want to add in other groups, you're welcome to, but you should amend your earlier statement.

Ahem...

I suspect that there are more guns in the hands of hunters and collectors than there are in the hands of people who are committing violent crimes.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree entirely. The right to bear arms is a liberty that gun control restricts. I'm not sayin that all such restrictions are unreasonable, but that doesn't make them anything but restrictions.

And that tax is sort of a tax on death, too, but it's still not conducive to a real discussion to call it a death tax.

Net harm cannot be determined without taking into account all the times no harm is done.

That's right. That's my point. Let's see how many times no harm was done due to guns, and how many times harm was done due to guns.

 

[Magic Man]

Ahem...

And? Are you implying "collectors" means "people who use handguns at the range"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And? Are you implying "collectors" means "people who use handguns at the range"?

 

[Storm]

Storm,
Almost all men in Switzerland are in the military until middle age. They have their military issue weapon in the house. If they used that weapon on, for example, a burglar. they would be in DEEP DEEP trouble.

This is new information, and seems rather unreasonable. Do you have a source?

From the Wiki:

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle
​

So, even if you're correct in that there's a stupidly draconian law preventing active service members from using what's convenient in a time of need, they can keep them after service has ended. Modified, sure, but still functional. So, my point stands.

It's a different thing entirely imo

Even if you're right, and setting aside my point about retention, that still leaves Norway.

The fact remains: guns do not breed violence. They're inanimate objects utterly lacking any magical ability to turn a responsible citizen into a murderous lunatic. Social ills (of which the US has many) breed violence, and those who succumb will always find a weapon.

 

[Storm]

And that tax is sort of a tax on death, too, but it's still not conducive to a real discussion to call it a death tax.

That's because "death tax" is a cheap appeal to selfishness. Meanwhile "restriction on liberty" is precisely what is happening.

Again, not all restrictions are unnecessary or unreasonable. You'd be hard pressed to find a stauncher advocate of free speech than myself, but even I don't oppose the restriction on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

That's right. That's my point. Let's see how many times no harm was done due to guns, and how many times harm was done due to guns.

So, why are you arguing against taking the former into account? I'm confused.

 

[Magic Man]

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[sandandfoam]

This is new information, and seems rather unreasonable. Do you have a source?

I've asked about their guns etc when I've been there.
There was a guy in the village I go to shot someone with his army weapon and I was told uh - oh he's in DEEP DEEP trouble

 

[Magic Man]

The fact remains: guns do not breed violence. They're inanimate objects utterly lacking any magical ability to turn a responsible citizen into a murderous lunatic. Social ills (of which the US has many) breed violence, and those who succumb will always find a weapon.

Guns may not cause violence, per se, but they certainly make it easier.