Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Indie

This is just the same –‘there is no alternative’ argument I’ve already addressed.

It runs that since there isn’t an alternative the only way to protect yourself from that pistol totting crack addicted gangbanger that at any moment could break through your door and rape your wife and child before putting a bullet in your head is to get yourself a gun, no get two or maybe three…..

It a way of promoting guns and the mentality that goes with it of there being no alternatives.

Now I’ve often asked do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals and the most common answer I got is – yes, but then present the ‘there is no alternative’ argument – the second bit turning the yes effectively into no – meaning they do want guns in the hands of criminals.

The ‘impossible’ argument is the idea that there is no alternative; nothing can be done to get guns out of the hands of the criminally minded.

But many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners object to them, it is not impossible it is just seems to me that they want to make it look like it is impossible.

 

Roo you are just repeating the same arguments that you presented in the other thread on guns, and you haven’t yet addressed those criticisms.

Just repeating something doesn’t make those criticism go away it just highlights that you haven’t addressed them.

*

This from the last time we went through this -

Roo

Now I’ve often asked do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals and the most common answer I got is – yes, but that is impossible – the second bit turning the yes effectively into no – meaning they do want guns in the hands of criminals.

– but –

– because –

The same ‘yes, but that is impossible’ argument

You then seem to go on to complain about the few measures that are in place.

Which fits in with - But many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners object to them

You then go on to hint that any moves to limit the access of firearms to the irresponsible or criminally minded would end in an authoritarian dystopia. Again it all seems to be about scaremongering rather than rational or reasonable argument.

*

It is the same pro-gun argument that I was highlighting – that it is impossible so nothing should be done - in other words you do want guns in the hands of criminals.

Also as I’ve said (many times) it would not just be about gun control laws but about tackling the socio-economic factors that can lead to criminality, in my view if someone has turned to crime then their society has already failed them.

Please calm down Roo (all this caps lock shouting isn’t healthy), because if you calmed down you might just see the flaws in your argument.

You see it is incredibly simplistic – that isn’t your fault it is the same simplistic way of thinking that I have noticed in most pro-gunners. To you and them gun control equate to just one thing – the banning of all guns.

Your whole argument against me is based on that fallacy and that is why it’s flawed and you’d know it was flawed if you read all of my posts, rather than just the first ten words.


To me it would be about harm reduction, it’s not just about getting the guns out of the hands of criminals or anyone that might us them to do harm, but reducing crime in general.

That would involve a holistic approach, involving social, economic and political changes but would also include gun control measures.

But you can have gun control measures that don’t involve a total ban. There are gun control measures in place already in the US that don’t involve a total ban.

The problem is that because of the attitudes and mentality that often seems to be associated with the desire for gun ownership there is a tendency among some pro-gunners to be against virtually any kind of gun control. That is why I don’t think they’re serious when they claim to want to get guns out of the hands of criminals.



According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

Here are a couple of ideas I’ve suggested before

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. (plus see above)

Also according to the FBI gun misuse is often associated with domestic violence. So -

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.

If in a relationship a partner, if they could give due reason, would have the ability to veto (in confidence) the handing out of a gun license (or have it removed).

*

Roo

Please clarify – what legislation?

*

Then please present them, because I must have missed them, I mean I’m still waiting for that legislation you said you could craft?

 

This is a pretty weird law...

Yeah, maybe Britain did fuck the world up well over a CENTURY ago, no doubt, I am not a fan of our colonial past at all. Not much I, or anyone in our generation can do to turn back the clock though is there?

The 'reasons' for the gulf wars are not because 'Britain fucked up the world' - they were mainly because the US wanted more oil. Funny how the UK still gets such a bashing, even though we have been one of your closest allies for a long ass time...

Shit, people hold on to things that they never even went through. Bet you wish you were there in Boston all those years ago, slinging tea over the sides of boats and flipping the bird to her majesty?! lol Historical rhetoric only goes so far.

He he, fighting fire with fire... Maybe I should have been a little more tactful lol...

 

How come my pro-gun control posts are deleted?
Zensur is live and well!!

 

Perhaps I should have mentioned that two instances, in Atlanta, Georgia I was able to protect myself from a knife attack simply by displaying a handgun, and in one instance a gun threat. In neither case was a shot fired, although I did make it clear that I was prepared to if necessary.
No law will ever eliminate guns from the hands of criminals, as guns are not difficult to manufacture. I've made 3 myself from scratch, and 2 revolvers from kits. I used to have a wallet gun, although I never used it and eventually gave it away preferring my Walther P38. Much like the annual defensive driving course required by my past employer, remaining safe is often simply a matter of being prepared for the unexpected.

 

i believe it is because of your tendency to blame anything and everything you don't like on the jewish people

there are other forums on the internets where this viewpoint is more acceptable; perhaps you could try one of them?

:love:

 

Adolph should be allowed post what he wants to. Nazis belong in the spot light where we can see them. Perhaps he's not ready for Stormfront.

 

balbus, i've already responded to the things you're saying about my old post you're quoting. And either way, you're not even quoting something from reasonably recently, that post is weeks if not months old.

As for the "we're not debating if they can be, but if they should be", well no, because it would finish the task of undermining any freedom in the US. And there are dozens of articles I could link here, dozens of horrible precedents being set, handfuls of wikipedia pages that would help explain the legal reasons this is not acceptable, but balbus would just tell me I'm scare mongering because I have a better legal understanding of the situation than himself. So I suggest you go look them up yourself, google is your friend.

Very simply put, it's not about the guns, it's about the freedom to have them. I wouldn't care if it was the freedom to keep and bear paperclips, it's not the magnitude of the freedom that determines if I'll give it up, but the magnitude of the freedom's protection. If the second amendment is not immune, NOTHING is, and american freedom is gone. Either you get it or you don't, at this point we're playing word games, balbus knows what I'm saying and has no interest in it, and is playing semantics games that revolve around calling my side of the argument scared or telling us there's better ways to deal with things. We're not talking about practical gun ownership, even, as I said. I want my guns, and I want my paperclips.

 

If it's about the freedom and not the guns, then I want my freedom to possess nukes.

 

There's a fine line between arms and fucking pointless.

I already sort of hit on this, when I said yes, I think I should be allowed to own a functioning abhrams tank. That is an arm capable of targeted use.

However a nuke is more of just a parking lot making device.... Maybe private ownership of them could be governed by the EPA, to limit emissions

I mean, I know you can see the difference between a weapon, and a genocide device...

Nuclear arms are the only ones that I think the government should be able to have that I shouldn't, if indeed they should be able to have them (that's another "well ideally, no", that is totally un-realizable) and I don't think anyone should be able to have biological or chemical weapons, beyond very mild riot control maces and the like.

 

I just realized you were from the uk which totally makes me see your argument differently. Now that I know I will cut this whole exchange between us short by saying. You and your country are in no position to judge any other country’s practices. The source of all modern problems can be traced back to Britain. This kind of thinking should be expected from someone who has had the misfortune of growing up in a socialist country where your government is in possession of far too much power. Who do you think you are to pass judgment on another country’s practices oh right I forgot that’s what ur culture is all about for you lot have done it to the whole world spreading ur culture like an incurable disease. In America we are a gun toting culture and we are damn proud of it if it’s a problem for you stay across the pond and spank one out to ur queens nasty old fanny.

 

It has been asked; "But does gun ownership necessarily mean that ‘freedom’ is defended?" Quite simply no and I don't know why anyone would think so, gun ownership merely allows a person to do somethings that not owning a gun will not allow but that does not mean that the gun will be used for any purpose at all.



It was also said; "The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?"

An interesting concept but I think many would say that without the use of "guns" Nazis would still be committing genocide today, and before you say that the "guns" were under the control of the Governments, the underground in many of the occupied countries were not under control of government and some say they played a significant part in the defeat of the Nazis.

 

It has been said; "But I’m just pointing out that many pro-gunners seem to display fear and some even seem to be promoting fear as a means of selling guns."

I don't think anyone is selling guns in these forums, maybe but I don't think so.

And even if "many pro-gunners seem to display fear", I don't really see how that is an valid argument against gun ownership.

Now the gist of this, I have said my self; "They talk of wives and children being hurt or killed. They draw images of mass murder - of children being raped - of loved ones being tortured. They suggest that ‘psychos’ and drug addicted killers are at any time ready to pounce and will at any moment break down your door and commence the killing." and I do believe it is a possibility but I don't say it to get people to "buy" a gun. I say it because I feel if someone is worried about it and would feel safer owning a gun, I believe it is their right to do so and it is not our right to tell them they can't.

It was implied that anyone who said the above feels that; "the only the alternative to having to watch you wife and child being raped and murdered before your very eyes - is to get a gun, no get two many three….", When in fact there are many ways to try to avoid these things without getting a gun and I would say many have already made preparations for these alternatives but there are some who would like to own a gun as well, which is their right.

And in answer to this question; "I’m asking why are so many frightened and wouldn’t i t be better to try and work toward having a society that they were not afraid to live in?" I would say there is nothing inherent in Gun ownership that says; If you own a gun you can not "try and work toward having a society that they were not afraid to live in". Quite frankly, the world we live in is a frightening place and no matter how hard we "try and work toward having a society that they were not afraid to live in", the world is not going to change over night.

I have been accused of this before; "You come here to promote guns but you don’t seem to talk much about how to bring about a better society." First, I do not own a gun and aside from owning a BB gun as a youth have never owned a gun, does that sound like someone here to promote guns? I am here to talk about a person's right to own a gun, if he so chooses.

As for; "you don’t seem to talk much about how to bring about a better society." First, this thread is about the right to own a gun and I did not see that a prerequisite for discussing that right was that we have to have discussed how to "bring about a better society". Sorry but that is only peripherally a part of this discussion and not a prerequisite.

"I mean wouldn’t it be better to have a society were you didn’t fear that your wife and child are going to be raped and tortured before your very eyes?" Yes it would and I am both willing to discuss it and work toward it and would like to hear any suggestions that will overnight change society to that which you describe. but in the meantime I'm interested in discussing the topic at hand which is about taking away the right of an individual to own a gun.

 

I may not agree with all you say but I like your sense of humor, it's too bad more don't recognize the humor in what you say.

 

No one who feels that guns should be outlawed appears to have presented a reasoned response as to WHY they should be outlawed.

 

They kill.

 

Obviously they can be used to kill, but so can many other things. The unjustifiable killing of another by any means is already illegal, so should all objects that are capable of killing be outlawed? If the case is kill or be killed guns can be quite useful, or simply be used as a means of making a threat go away. Guns themselves are inanimate objects, so it would be more rational for all to be taught how to use them safely and appropriately.

 

This is a childish argument that we've seen enough of in this thread. Guns were created to kill, are used to kill and have no other use than for killing. If you think killing is okay, which is obviously the case, just say so. There's no need to hide behind technical vacuities.

 

hear the advice of a world famous scholar, Cesare Beccaria . I stumbled upon this reading Dei delitti e delle pene attending to my course in Law years ago. I always found this the definitive wise word over the issue of gun ban. i can speak about my experience, where i live there are some of the strictest laws about guns ownership and carry , spite of this we have the strongest criminal lobbies and gangmen murdering and machinegunning by night shops of people who didn't pay for protection, so i assume that like the war on drugs, the war on guns is a bloody stupid thing probably devised by gangsters themselves to become the monopolists of violence. sorry , i hate bans and prohibitions, i want to be free .

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

 

Yes, that was a childish argument, is that the best you have to offer?
While it is true that guns were primarily designed to kill, they can be used to put food on the table, which I have often done in the past and many friends continue to do so today. But to say they have no other use is untrue, are you implying that those who purchase guns have intent to use them to kill someone? I do accept killing to be okay, when necessary to preserve ones life or the life of another. Should I assume it to be obvious that you do not? Perhaps you should give more attention to your vacuous reasoning as it is not necessary to hide behind the facts.