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

I can hardly wait to see Balbus' response to your post.

 

Much better than what I said. Thanx

 

Haaaa..... Oh god, here we go.

 

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Just owning a gun or others being able to legally obtain what are now Illegal drugs, "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".

 

Exactly

 

Does Mr Jefferson deny psychological injury?

 

Truth

And if others say well that allows people to do 'evil'
This is false.
People will not stop doing evil because law 126/67 b says you cant have a projectile weapon.. A hammer is far easier to use.

It seems a large proportion of people here are simply stupid..
because they imagine a gun empowers.
false, an attidude.. a will empowers

was evil NOT DONE before guns. like 3000 years of history.

I have owned MANY guns.. and had visceral joy in blasting away with them at targets.People transfer that feeling now.. to sport.

Sport is the new 'WAR"
For those that cannot read

idiots

 

I don't know, I guess you'll just have to ask him yourself.

 

Brother

You are not joking?.. what other reason is there

 

You either live life for others.. or for yourself.
Banning guns is about a life based in gratuitous profit
Educating others to not need such rules. is a life based in others


Is this preschool?

 

Wait, what? I am totally selfness... so I need a device to shoot other people...to protect my self

 

If that's what you want to believe.

No one is telling you that you need anything.
Also a gun has other purposes than shooting other people.

No one is telling you that you have to protect yourself if you don't want to but I do defend the rights of others to defend themselves and their family, if they wish.

 

And do you wish? You still haven't answered why defending my self is selfless while choosing not to is selfish.

 

OWB

Oh come on LOL – of course you are trying to accuse me of being a ‘bad’ person that is the only reason you are spending more time trying to ‘prove’ I do bad things rather than actually debating.

Even here you’re claiming that this is yet another example of me behaving in a ‘bad’ way. I mean you are claiming you are not trying to prove I’m bad by saying that it is an example of me acting badly (do you now what irony means?)

And then in the next breath you go and accuse me of bad behaviour again -

But it wasn’t a parenthetical statement, which are usually marked by parentheses (brackets).

It was just part of the question and as soon as I realised you had not understood that, I rephrased it so you could understand.

As supposed evidence of my ‘crime’ it’s not particularly substantial not even circumstantial.

As to your example it doesn’t work –

So only once someone ‘misused’ a gun..? – Comes across as a question

You're a stupid idiot..? even with the question mark does not come across as a question.

OWB you put it forward as ‘evidence’ of my supposed wrongdoing. I’ve pointed out that I was only asking a question but you continue to claim it as proof of my crimes. I think it silly in the extreme that you are trying to pass this off as some kind of evidence of wrongdoing but you do, forcing me to defend myself.

Or is the person making false allegations trolling (you) or is the person just defending themselves (me)?

 

OWB

What ‘draconian’ measures have I proposed?

In what way are my ideas repressive?

But the way you phrased it says you think I’m lying. You claim that you know the truth – that I’m lying – and that I should realised that I’m lying (lying to my self) and so stop lying to others.

It is a matter of English and it is what you said - but if that not what you meant, I’m happy to accept that, I was happy to accept it some time ago but you don’t want to drop it because you claim it is ‘proof’ of my supposed bad behaviour, when it is nothing such.

So you go on and on about it….

 

OWB

…and on and on…

The problem is that is still saying you think I’m lying.

You claim to know the truth, that truth being that I’m lying – and you are telling me that I should realised that I’m lying (lying to my self) so that I’d stop lying to others.
I’m not trying to twist your words, your words are plain, but if that’s not what you meant fine, but this isn’t ‘evidence’ that I twist words.

*

The problem is that when I seek clarification through a question as I did here –
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? (Notice the question mark)

Instead of just saying that wasn’t your meaning you got all huffy and start claiming that it is an example of my wrongdoing.

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.

I mean all you had to say is ‘sorry that’s not what I meant’ (as you did when I pointed out your mistake with the use of the word ‘Abrogate’) and we could have moved on but no you wanted to claim I was ‘bad’ and a wrong doer…and so on and on…

 

OWB

LOL – You have no personal animosity toward me but you are constantly trying to prove I’m a wrong doer?

You have no personal animosity toward me but out of all the millions upon millions of examples to present to ‘prove’ I was not asking a question but making a statement you chose the one you did?

I didn’t ask to be called a wrongdoer.

You accused me of ‘twisting’ words, I asked for examples, you put up some rather lame claims, that clearly have nothing to do with ‘twisting’ words, but more to do with your desire to ‘prove’ I’m a wrongdoer.

And you now seem to be arguing that me defending myself from these false charges is itself ‘examples’ of my supposed bad behaviour.

Just stop making false claims and I’ll stop defending myself.

 

OWB

OH hells bells LOL – lets see shall we

I’m the one who only sees things in black and white? Either/or – either I’m against a ban or I’m for a ban, no shades of grey no in between?

So where is the – “I don't want guns banned and I want guns banned” you said of your views earlier?

So in your mind you can only have one view or another – there can only be black or white?
Two people might not believe in a total ban but they might disagree as to how much something should be regulated and as to what form the regulation should take.
You would better understood that if you’d read my post on drugs policies I gave you a link to.

And again you are thinking in black and white.
*

In what way have I not answered the question? I don’t think I could be clearer? I believe in regulation not a complete ban, just as you believe in regulation and not a complete ban. We just disagree as to what the regulations should be.

 

OWB

You've come to be saying this quite often now and to me it seems to be one of those valueless statistics.

Quite honestly how does one go about getting a gun that was not originally obtained legally.

For instance organized crime goes to, let's say China, and legally buys 1000 assault rifles and illegally imports them to the US and sells them on the black market. There just is not, at this time at least, a business called Illegal Arms Manufacture.

Or let's say that organized uses gun control measures to obtain guns, such as bribing an official to obtain a list of all registered guns in a certain area and just goes down the list stealing those guns. All those guns would have been originally obtained legally and legally registered but are now illegal.

LOL – so where is the question mark in your statement?

Anyway you said this in response to - 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.

But that was about the problem that guns brought by individual private citizens passing into the hands of criminals. In which they are either stolen or passed on willingly.

It was not about organised crime.

That is why I often follow the above statement with a list of ideas for curtailing this (to repeat) –

Any gun 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.

 

OWB

Do they come with the removal of the ability to own a gun as part of the sentence?

As I’ve said I’m not directly linking like with like, as I said before There are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns. To me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.

To me someone that has acted in an irresponsibly violent way is not a responsible citizen and so has lost the ‘right’ to own such a deadly weapon as a gun.

If someone acts in an irresponsible way in their driving test they are refused a driving licence. If someone has acted in an irresponsibly violent way then they should be refused a gun owners licence.

*