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

OWB

If you wish me to supply the sequence I’m happy to do so -

*

Balbus -

The other argument that some pro-gunners seem to present is that any gun control measure undermines their inalienable right to own a gun, and it has even been implied that gun control inevitably leads to a total ban.

OWB (in post 564)

Balbus

The problem is that the view that virtually any gun control measures will inevitably lead to a total ban, comes up in virtually every gun issue thread (and I’ve been in many) and has come up in other conversations elsewhere so I think it a bit of a dodge to try and claim it only happens here.

*

 

OWB

I’m sure I’m not the only one that has noticed you have not cited the supposed answers or pointed out where they are.

That was post 564 (although LOL I notice you have left out everything I said). Trouble is that I replied to what you said in posts 587 -588

It is very tiresome to me to have to constantly repeat myself or refer back to old posts because some people claim to have read posts when they clearly haven’t.

*

 

OWB

LOL – oh yes of course you would, what was your excuse last time oh yes…that you had discuss social issue so much before coming to hipforums that you haven’t talked about it since –

You’ve been here, I believe, 4 years or so?

And now surprise, surprise we get another excuse, you are not going to talk to me because I accused you of lying (a charge you still seem able to refute).

I’ve just pointed out that many pro-gunners (not all) seem reluctant to discuss social issues (as your absence from such discussions in the politics forum seems to illustrate). And that others seem to have views that match those talked about in my general theory and so back up that theory (please don’t ask me to repeat it again).

Anyone with a serious criminal record (especially if it involves violent behaviour).

You target those in at risk groups and try to help them by giving assistance as a means of curbing possible self destructive behaviour (such as becoming involved with gangs). It would be a holistic approach, covering many areas such as environment, education, and childcare etc.

 

OWB

To repeat – I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible.

Also I’ve written at length and in detail about my thought, views and ideas on the prohibition on drugs.

For an idea try –
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871&f=36

I do not believe in prohibition, but neither do I believe in dangerous deregulation.

To me things need to be properly regulated. The ideas behind such regulatory policies are based on risk to individuals and society.

For example – lets us look at private car ownership.

There are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns.

People have to have a driving licence, and they only get a driving licence if they have passed a driving test. There are bars on people with a medical complete that may cause them to loose control of a vehicle (e.g. epileptics) or otherwise be of danger to other road users or pedestrians (sight defects). We remove licences from those that we deem unfit to hold one (e.g. drunk drivers). People have to have a tax disc and current insurance and driving without is illegal.

Then there are the rules of the road, which side of the road to drive. how to turn left or right, how to conduct at traffic lights or crossing points.

The car manufacturer also has a number of regulations to make sure the car is safe and a user has to have a yearly certificate of road worthiness to make sure it is still safe and driving without one is illegal.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.

To me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.

Now 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 try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

 

Let's just chalk this up to your usual smoke screening, to make look like you have something to say.

No, your subjective opinion about how many "pro-gunners" do anything is just that your opinion and it not proof of anything. And your constant using me as an example for this is actually working against you, as your statement, "seems to illustrate" points out. You no idea why anyone does anything and you are just guessing, which I can personally testify to because nothing you've said about my not posting in the political forumis true.

You don't believe in rehabilitation? And besides they really aren't criminals, because they only turned to crime because they didn't receive your "holistic approach", so how can we call them criminals, if it's not their fault?

Isn't "at risk groups" code for racial profiling. Also what about those not in "at risk groups" what are you going to do about them? They turn to crime too?

 

nuff said!:toilet:

 

Yes, I have seen you make that statement several times and then turn and suggest that by limiting the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible, the number of guns in the hands of criminals will also be reduced.

So no matter how many times you say "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible", those of us who read your posts know the truth, so you are only lying to yourself.

 

Oh boy, Goodie, I can hardly wait to read some more of your off the thread rambling rhetoric.

 

OWB

Oh hell I’d wish people would read my posts.

To repeat what I’ve said many times, - I know it is just an opinion, a viewpoint, some theories, I don’t claim it to be anything else.
But they are theories that seem to be supported by you and many other pro-gunners that have visited this site, not all of course, but enough that it still stands up rather well.
Just dismissing them does not make them go away, I’ve explained often and at length why I think they seem valid, you are not explaining why you think they’re not, you’re just saying that because you don’t like them, they must be wrong.

Then go ahead prove I’m a liar and point out where you have had long, in depth discussion on social issues in the politics forum.

 

OWB

Oh hell I’d wish people would read my posts.

To repeat what I’ve said many times, - I know it is just an opinion, a viewpoint, some theories, I don’t claim it to be anything else.
But they are theories that seem to be supported by you and many other pro-gunners that have visited this site, not all of course, but enough that it still stands up rather well.
Just dismissing them does not make them go away, I’ve explained often and at length why I think they seem valid, you are not explaining why you think they’re not, you’re just saying that because you don’t like them, they must be wrong.

Then go ahead prove I’m a liar and point out where you have had long, in depth discussion on social issues in the politics forum.

 

OWB

Oh I’ve written at length about it on a few occasions, probably even on these forums but I’m not sure where, I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

And in the general theory I do imply that many US jails seem more aimed at punishment than rehabilitation.

But I still think that someone with a serious criminal record especially if it involves violent behaviour should not be able to own a gun until they can prove that they would not be a threat to anyone, are you saying they should?

Oh pleeeeease – we’ve covered this before, it is about trying to prevent people turning to crime that does not mean that some might not. And if people do stray then it is much better to step in early to try and put them back on a good track.

Making sneering remarks doesn’t help (but does fit in with my theory).

 

OWB

Oh I’ve written at length about it on a few occasions, probably even on these forums but I’m not sure where, I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

And in the general theory I do imply that many US jails seem more aimed at punishment than rehabilitation.

But I still think that someone with a serious criminal record especially if it involves violent behaviour should not be able to own a gun until they can prove that they would not be a threat to anyone, are you saying they should?

Oh pleeeeease – we’ve covered this before, it is about trying to prevent people turning to crime that does not mean that some might not. And if people do stray then it is much better to step in early to try and put them back on a good track.

Making sneering remarks doesn’t help (but does fit in with my theory).

 

OWB

You target those in at risk groups and try to help them by giving assistance as a means of curbing possible self destructive behaviour (such as becoming involved with gangs). It would be a holistic approach, covering many areas such as environment, education, and childcare etc.

That is interesting you associate ‘at risk groups’ with ethnicity. You see to me it has more of an association with socio-economic factors, social position, environment, education etc and those are universal factors not ones associated with any particular ethnic group.

Most studies on the subject point to socio-economic indicators being the major factors in turning to crime and what type of crime is turned to.

You seem to be implying that in your view social position is tied to race not socio-economic factors?

That would be a rather racist viewpoint and I’m sure you are not a racist so could you please clarify your position?

I think you also need to re-read what I said about ‘street-crime’.

 

OWB

To repeat – I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible.

So what have I suggested in this thread that suggests that I want to ban all guns?

What I have said is that 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. So it would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

What truth?

I mean what you are saying is that in your opinion and contrary to what has been said by me in this thread you believe that I want to ban all guns?

Can you actually construct a rational argument to back that up, or is it just another case of having to accept what you say without question?

Again (and in line with my theory) you seem reluctant to discuss wider social issues when given the chance to.

 

OWB

To repeat – I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible.

So what have I suggested in this thread that suggests that I want to ban all guns?

What I have said is that 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. So it would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

What truth?

I mean what you are saying is that in your opinion and contrary to what has been said by me in this thread you believe that I want to ban all guns?

Can you actually construct a rational argument to back that up, or is it just another case of having to accept what you say without question?

Again (and in line with my theory) you seem reluctant to discuss wider social issues when given the chance to.

 

I understood it, the problem is you just don't take criticism well.

I'm not interested in scoring points, I'm interested discussing things with people who want do so and it is becoming quite obvious that you are incapable of doing so.

And it is the same thing you have told every one in this thread that disagrees with you. It's amazing that no one who disagrees with you, reads your posts or understands what you have to say. Since you are the common denominator perhaps the problem is with you and not with everyone else.

You asked for an example and it didn't take you long to provide another one.

Where did I say that only once someone ‘misused’ a gun, should his right to gun a gun be taken from him?

You just don't get it. Since you stomped into this thread, practically every post that I've made has been a criticism of your posts and now at this point you're telling to post my criticisms of your posts. I mean you opened this post saying that I've already posted criticisms of your posts. Make up your mind, am I posting criticisms of your posts or am I not?

This is what we're constantly dealing with, this kind of mixed up thinking. You keep accusing us of "just trying to score points" and I'm just trying to figure out what in the world you're talking about so we can have a discussion.

A counter argument to what? You take what is said out of context twist it around and then say it implies something that was never said and now you say I don't have a counter argument? You have no argument to begin with.

 

Another example, where did I, in the post that you are responding to even use the word "ban", let alone say that you wanted to ban Guns? It is this constant jumping to conclusions that makes any kind of a discussion with you nearly impossible.

This is what I actually said; "I have seen you make that statement several times and then turn and suggest that by limiting the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible, the number of guns in the hands of criminals will also be reduced." (you even quoted it)

Correct me if you will, you have said you believe in "gun control" and won't "gun control" mean the "limiting the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible"?

And yet I have to listen to you drone on and on about me saying you want to ban guns, when I said nothing of the kind. How am I suppose to construct a rational argument about me saying that you want to ban guns, when I never said it in the first place?

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that this has anything to do with whether my ideas are valid or not? Saying this over and over and over again does not in anyway invalidate my participation in this or any other thread. And quite frankly has become trolling.

 

I merely asked you a question about what you mean when you say "at risk groups", because there are those use phrases like that as a code for racial profiling. Once again you believe I'm implying all sorts of things. You even said that I "associate ‘at risk groups’ with ethnicity". Now be honest, did I really "associate ‘at risk groups’ with ethnicity", by what I said?

 

Went right over your head did it?

See the problem is you don't remember telling me that putting violent criminals in jail is repressive but now when you want to say that there will always be some people who are violent criminals, it's making sneering remarks to remind you of what you said.

 

Here's a little update for Balbus based on a couple observations. In the column where your Handle and country, avatar and Signature are located I see that you live in the UK. I have to conclude you are a subject of the UK NOT an AMERICAN. Therefore you HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER.

If you would like to have a say in matters concerning the Second Amendment you will need to do several things.
1) Immigrate to the USA.
2) Make your application to become a Naturalized US Citizen. Follow the rules. Learn about my Country. Pay your dues. If you are a solid above board person INS will probably let you join our clan. If not why not try mexeco. They need people to replace the criminals who are sneaking into America. I'm sure you've heard of them. Some call them illegals.

If you're not willing to relocate to America you have NO SAY in how we do things here. None. Nada. Zip. Get the picture?

Another update for you Balbus.
Used to be anyone who had done 'a year and a day' in PRISON (Not Jail) was considered an EX CON and was basically BARRED FOREVER FROM GUN OWNERSHIP. Furthermore an ex con would be in violation of The Law if he was in a residence where guns were kept. He couldn't go to a gun show or gun shop. He could NOT be anywhere where ammo or firearms were present. All because he was an ex con.

A few things have changed in recent years. If one has been found guilty of Domestic Violence whether it was last year or 50 years ago that person is barred from firearms ownership FOREVER. If the guilty party did 30 days in a county jail or 50 hours of community service he is treated like an ex con and is barred from gun ownership FOREVER.

These are the facts as I know them. This particular post is not open for debate between you and I. Someone else may debate you on these facts but it won't be me. Primarily since I am an AMERICAN and you appear to be a Limey to me. I am not trying to offend you here. If you don't like the way I wrote this post chalk it up to only 16 years of school. No Masters Degree. No Doctorate.