| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a large part of the blue red divide on this one is exposure and location, location, location.
If you live in say, New York city, You'll see muslims in malls, on the way to work, and probably at work. So when you flip on CNN and see that Muslim terrorists have blown up the world trade center you know that most Muslims aren't like that.
If you live in rural Idaho (insert banjo music here) you probably don't know any Muslims. So your only exposure to them comes when they do something newsworthy. Sadly, it is easier to do something absolutely horrific than something truly heroic, so this is likely to be for something negative. That becomes your only exposure to Islam, and your only frame of reference for it.
Now flip it around with guns. Rural folks use guns all the time. People shoot targets for fun, shoot as a sport, hunt for fun, drive off large animals, and supplement their grocery list with things they hunt. If some nut misuses a gun to blow innocent people away rural folks know that it is a misuse, because they see the right way to use them on a regular basis. They know that most gun use is legitimate.
Urban dwellers on the other hand, because of tighter restrictions, a lack of space to target practice, a lack of anywhere to hunt, and a lack of large dangerous animals, see very little legitimate gun use. What they do see is a lot of bodies piling up in the morgue and guns being shoved in their faces to rob them. Their only exposure to gun use is illegitimate, so naturally they form a negative opinion on guns.
In both cases, people are forming an opinion based on their own experiences without looking at the broader picture. Forming an opinion against an inanimate object isn't nearly as bad as forming an opinion against human beings of course, but the thinking is largely the same.
How I would like to do gun control:
-Pistol permits. Do you really have to have the gun on you ALL the time? If you really can't wait 30 seconds to walk to your car and get the gun out of the back its probably not a situation where you want to add one more person shooting to the mix anyway. I don't see why a rifle or shotgun isn't a viable substitute for home defense.
And if you can't chase a 35 pound coyote off with a stick I want your manpass back. Laser sighted pistol my....
-Limits based on shots per minute. There is no reason to have a gun that lets you spray bullets. You are not using an AK 47 to hunt because you're not allowed to blow away the entire herd at one go. The only purpose for these things is killing lots of people at once.
-I know the purpose of the second amendment was to allow people to rise up against the government by force of arms should it become tyrannical, but things have changed a lot since a group of your 100 closest friends and their hunting gear was considered a viable army. This sort of resistance just isn't going to happen. We're not letting you get military grade hardaware, sorry no tanks for you.
-Extend the right to bear arms to melee weapons. They're a more visible effective deterent to crime and far less likely to kill someone. Run fu is far more effective against them than bullets.
-While the right to bear arms is an individual right it is not a universal one. There are reasonable limits on all of our rights: I can't talk in a courtroom where a trial is going on for example, so i don't think gun owners should expect to be able to bring their 45's into the trial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What brought this on?
"Guns are like condoms. I'd rather have one and not need it, then need it and not have one."
- That one chick from AvP.
I have to back up the melee weapons bit. I love my martial art although I am years out of practice, and I loved working with and carrying melee weapons. Sure, a long stick was a bit unwieldy on the train, but I kept it in its case and no one messed with me or even gave me a second look. I think it would be hard to legislate, but I love my melee stuff.
What brought this on?
Came up on the Australian thread.
And insomnia.
Thought maybe you were talking about that guy advertising for concealed carry classes...
Came up on the Australian thread.
I shouldn't have brought it up there, either. I should have stuck to the topic of women being allowed in frontline combat roles by another country.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess one view of it is that the weapons that cause the most harm in both urban and rural settings are not the ones that have utility in rural settings.
A pistol is not intended for hunting. (or, as I'm fond of repeating: "a pistol is what you use to fight your way to real gun.")
A fully-automatic weapon is not suitable for hunting.
Restricting access to these weapons presumably reduces their use in crimes. It also makes it so that only the police and government have guns, which is something I'm not too excited about.
I'd love to think there's a happy medium between "no guns ever" and "anyone can get a gun cheap no questions asked." I believe in restricting access to ensure the safety of the public. I also believe that completely restricted access leads to a police state.
*sigh*
It's the ideologues on both sides who make an effective solution impossible.
Was my intention :P
I enjoy the British system.
You mean the one that doesn't do a thing to curb violent crime while making it difficult for people to protect themselves?
I don't think preventing crime is nearly as important as preventing the loss of life.
Did the British system manage to keep people from killing each other, or did people just start killing each other with pointy things instead of guns?
Did the British system manage to keep people from killing each other, or did people just start killing each other with pointy things instead of guns?
The second. People still get shot, though it's less common, but the violent crime rate is just as high as before the ban, if not higher.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Constitutional right, period.
Does that mean that people should have nuke silos under their houses? Of course not. Obviously there is a line, and people are going to disagree exactly where that line is. But preventing people from, say, owning handguns or hunting rifles is obviously counter to the Constitution, imho. Likewise, no guns in court seems like a no-brainier to me.
Constitutional right, period.
Does that mean that people should have nuke silos under their houses? Of course not. Obviously there is a line, and people are going to disagree exactly where that line is. But preventing people from, say, owning handguns or hunting rifles is obviously counter to the Constitution, imho. Likewise, no guns in court seems like a no-brainier to me.
See now, I sort of agree.
Then I see gun shows.
All I can say for certain is that I am somewhere in the middle on this one, and to hear the fringe on either side tell it, there is no middle. Worse yet, they both kind of have a point.
There's no way this thread will end well. :(
Because a rifle will blow through walls and harm people in the next apartment / house?
That's more of an issue of caliber isn't it? My .22 rifle isn't going to go through half of what a .45 pistol is.
If you're worried about that why not use buckshot.
The problem with pistols is the concealability. Its way too easy to commit a crime when you can just blend in with everyone else and then whip one of these things out on a seconds notice.
At least when you're carrying a rifle people know you aim to misbehave.(or hunt)
And actually, if you're in a situation where you need a gun and can't afford a 30 second walk to your car, adding one person who is a law abiding citizen and is trained and knowledgeable in how to handle a fire arm (you know, like people who get conceal and carry permits are) can make a world of difference in the lives of several people.
Even police, who spend far, far far more time training than the average citizen, are absolutely horrible shots once the bullets start flying and the adrenaline starts pumping.
Lets say some nutjob starts shooting up a mall. You take out your gun and look for the shooter. Someone in Sears takes out their gun and heads for the shooting. Someone else in the electronics boutique takes out a gun and heads for the shooter.
Who's the nutjob and who are the law abiding citizens?
Remember kids: When you're in a situation where seconds matter, the cops are only minutes away. They'll come and take photos of your dead body and talk about what a trajedy it was.
I'm all for independent bystander action. But there is a very high cost to making easily concealed guns so readily available (i can get a gun faster than i can get a dental apointment) and have to wonder if a few high profile incidents where the guns did save lives are really worth it.
Yeah. . . Because my (hypothetical) 70 year old grandfather should have to worry about getting into a fight with a pack of rabid/starving coyote and/or wild dogs just so you can be sure he has a man pass.
1) I was refering to a specific incident http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/rick-perry-coyote-shooting_n_10275 36.html
2) Man passes are not revokable after age 65.
You know there already are limits on this right? For example most people, even those liscensed to carry and conceal a fire arm, aren't allowed to take those weapons into a bar. Or a hospital. (I never understood the hospital though.)
Those vary by state. Some people don't like the limits that exist. Some people show up to political rallies with guns to make a point.
The hospital thing i can answer. First off a hospital is sometimes a de facto part of a prison, jail, or courthouse when a criminal/suspect is being held there. Its already tempting enough to break someone out of there without letting people come in armed.
Secondly many times if you shoot someone and they live, they go to the hospital... where people try to shoot them again.
Dotting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self defense for dummies (not recommended as an at work read).
Also guns... well they hurt people -- and they might stop an attack -- but generally we can save gun shot victims pretty well. Also never pull a weapon unless you intent to kill with it. Had a girlfriend that kept a knife on her -- had a heck of a time convincing her she was better off no having it as she didn't have the skill or mental ability to use it -- which means she was simply putting the weapon in attacker's hands and upping the ante drastically (before he just wanted the money -- now you've threatened him while he was doing his job, and he has to teach you a lesson... and it's likely to be a very painful one).
Seriously? You realize someone who is willing to attempt to murder someone and then goes to the hospital to finish the job probably isn't going to see the sign that says no guns and turn around and leave, right?
No, but the security guards and or police have the legal ability to toss him out on his rump or call the police the second he walks in rather than having to wait for him to demonstrate that he isn't a law abiding citizen. It also gives them grounds for searching people as they come in.
Actually a lot of people will. It's the closed door effect.
On the "gun control" side, guns are a significant cause of accidental death.So are cars. Should they be banned?
See this is a perfect example of an actual strawman: The person has taken a statement forced a position on the person and now expects them to defend it as if it was their position.
Which it wasn't -- Lincoln Hills didn't say ban all guns he said guns are a significant cause of accidental death -- which is true. It would be just as true if he were to then say, "We should do what we can to limit and eliminate these accidental deaths without banning guns." as it would have been if he said, "Therefore we should ban guns."
The problem is he didn't take the later position -- he simply stated guns are a significant cause of accidental death.
So are cars. Should they be banned?
I already know what the answer to this will be:
"No, but to drive a car you have to pass a test and carry a license to do so, and there are other factors taht can prevent you from driving like being legally blind or otherwise handicapped."EDIT: Ninja'd. Or Abraham will just point out the silliness of it.
Of course they are -- seat belts, speed limits, constant commercials about the dangers of drunk driving, texting and driving, being distracted and driving, drivers schools, mandatory adult passengers, limited adolescent passengers are but a few of the things that are being used to help combat accidental death in cars.
Besides what sort of logic is, "well we aren't doing x so we should do anything about y either"?
It's like saying, "But Andrew was doing (x)!" when you get in trouble -- it's not an actual argument it's a distraction technique, a poor one at that.
Not that hard to conceal a sawed off shot gun either.
Which is why those aren't legal.
People who are willing to go through the hassel of getting a carry and conceal permit are hardly "average citizens."
Dude, you're filling out a form and getting a background check. Not taking green beret survival training.
The one actively shooting at unarmed civilians. Or if he quits shooting people when other armed people show up, well then I'd say they did their job.
What if they're shooting at armed people? Are they the nut job or your fellow citizens?
I'd say they are for those people at the very least. And its not just about rather its a high cost and worth it, its about telling people they don't have the right to protect themselves.
Its a question of whether the government can make everyone much safer by banning pistols vs how much safer an individual can make themselves. I think its a legitimate question and I sympathize, but I think the pistols are doing far, far far more harm than good.
Also, can you offer evidence where law abiding citizens being armed has done more harm than good?
Well that's tricky isn't it? The second someone is walking around with a gun and pulls it out when they shouldn't they're no longer law abiding. Often people have the gun there and use it in situations where they wouldn't if it took even 5 minutes to get to. But i think i know what you mean.
I can't find anything where an armed citizen made the situation horrible. A fair number where the wrong person had a gun pointed at them but nothing a change of underwear wouldn't fix.
The main problem here isn't the law abiding citizens or even the people who are law abiding until the road rage incident. Its the availability of pistols TO law abiding citizens that makes them available to the less abiding kind.
I like the laws in Australia - not perfect but they do a reasonable balancing job. Like I said before to me a gun is a tool (a dangerous one at that). They are not toys and not a right.... They are a privilege and a person should earn the right to use them by demonstrating that they responsable, and mature enough to do so. I have no problem with background checks and categorizing licences for professional, sport and hunting.
I like the laws in Australia - not perfect but they do a reasonable balancing job. Like I said before to me a gun is a tool (a dangerous one at that). They are not toys and not a right.... They are a privilege and a person should earn the right to use them by demonstrating that they responsable, and mature enough to do so. I have no problem with background checks and categorizing licences for professional, sport and hunting.
Australia goes too far by banning ownership for self defense purposes.
Similar to not liking people telling me what i can or cannot do in my bedrrom, I dont like people telling me I can not have a gun in my house.
Dude, you're filling out a form and getting a background check. Not taking green beret survival training.It is my understanding that one must also take a fire arm safety course and pass it. Is that not correct?
If you can't handle the gun without putting a bullet in your foot and can't shoot a target -- in the best circumstances possible I do not want you owning a gun.
You obviously are too inept to be allowed one. Just like if you can't manage to pass a driving test or simply can't see at all I don't want you driving.
This is a question of competence -- I don't want someone with the means of killing people at random to be incompetent. You shouldn't either.
Its a question of whether the government can make everyone much safer by banning pistols vs how much safer an individual can make themselves. I think its a legitimate question and I sympathize, but I think the pistols are doing far, far far more harm than good.
Again, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
Honestly who's going to do it better? You who managed to make it to the range once a week, or the guy that's regularly violent and has a habit of using it to get his way on a daily basis?
Are you aware of the range of engagement for a concealed gun? Over 30 feet. If they are closer than that they will be on top of you before you can draw and shoot, and that's if they aren't very good at what they are doing.
Honestly that link I put up earlier? Go there.
It is my understanding that one must also take a fire arm safety course and pass it. Is that not correct?
Varies by state.
CCW training courses are typically completed in a single day and are good for a set period, the exact duration varying by state. Some states require re-training, sometimes in a shorter, simpler format, for each renewal.
Not all states require training, or hands-on training. For example, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington[35] have no training/safety certification requirement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Training_ requirements
I needed more intense training than that to be able to to pound on someone's chest when they were already dead.
Even then, this is going to be far, far FAR short of the sort of training cops receive (and there are times i don't think some of them should have guns either...)
Again, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
I understand and agree with the sentiment. The problem is that the situations where you'd be required to respond with your own personal pistol are very rare and the incidences in which people are using pistols in either the heat of the moment or in the deliberate commission of a crime are enormous.
________
Similar to not liking people telling me what i can or cannot do in my bedrrom, I dont like people telling me I can not have a gun in my house.
While I agree with home ownership of guns, here's the problem. We cannot sell you a gun at your house and then insure that it never leaves.So if the guns are readily available for sale, they can go pretty much anywhere outside your home without any way to track them until its too late.
The second. People still get shot, though it's less common, but the violent crime rate is just as high as before the ban, if not higher.
Well, i don't think its that simple. AN increase in violent crime but a decrease in death would be a good trade off wouldn't it?
The second. People still get shot, though it's less common, but the violent crime rate is just as high as before the ban, if not higher.Well, i don't think its that simple. AN increase in violent crime but a decrease in death would be a good trade off wouldn't it?
Getting stabbed is no better than getting shot. At all. In fact, depending on what you get stabbed with, it can be worse.
|
It's so much fun watching people decide that their own personal "way" is THE RIGHT WAY, and everyone else is wrong in their opinion.
Guns, abortion, 4E.....fun, fun, fun.
Pick just about any cause you want to. Roll a random die roll to pick which side you should be on. Search for "facts" to back up your side. Use those facts to beat others into your way of thinking.
There are tons of surveys, facts, research, etc, proving both sides of every argument.
In the news today a 70 year old woman was raped and killed in her home with a plastic bag by a 39 year old man. Self-defense wouldn't have helped her (a muscular 39 year will wup just about any 70 year old woman). A melee weapon wouldn't have helped her (dude would have used that to kill her instead of a plastic bag). How could she have defended herself? Possibly a gun....if she could get to it and get a shot off right.
Unfortunately we live in a world full of sick people doing sick stuff. That scares me. Yeah, I am 41 and have a good amount of self-d under my belt but I am going to buy a gun soon....I am getting older and my body isn't as spry and tough as it once was and I want to be able to defend my self and my family if the unholy stuff that could happen does. Who is anyone to tell me I have no right to do so. I am not even worried about someone pulling a gun, I am more worried about multiple morons doing a home invasion (which seems to be all the fashion now).
I am glad I can own a gun. I am sad that there is guns, or violence, or insanity or....whatever.
And for this very reason, most civilized nations don't allow its citizens to carry around big knifes, katanas, halberds and the like.Getting stabbed is no better than getting shot. At all. In fact, depending on what you get stabbed with, it can be worse.The second. People still get shot, though it's less common, but the violent crime rate is just as high as before the ban, if not higher.Well, i don't think its that simple. AN increase in violent crime but a decrease in death would be a good trade off wouldn't it?
Because criminals always obey weapons carry laws.
Getting stabbed is no better than getting shot. At all. In fact, depending on what you get stabbed with, it can be worse.
Yes, but 1) its very hard to stab 17 people at one go. 2) you can run away from someone with a knife 3) Its a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. 4) People can grab improvised weapons and be decently effective against someone with a knife . With a gun, not so much.
I am glad I can own a gun. I am sad that there is guns, or violence, or insanity or....whatever.
and i think that's a valid reason for getting a shotgun. happy hunting.
Because criminals always obey weapons carry laws.
It certainly makes them easier to pick out when they don't.
Yes, but 1) its very hard to stab 17 people at one go. 2) you can run away from someone with a knife 3) Its a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. 4) People can grab improvised weapons and be decently effective against someone with a knife . With a gun, not so much.
In fact knives are weapons of aggression or tools only so actual improvised weapon defense can really screw the knife user up.
A knife is not a valid tool of self defense.
Because criminals always obey weapons carry laws.
The problem with gun control laws is that the middle ground is unfortunately the least safe. It's been a while since I've had to talk about the topic, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and you have some stats handy, but the last time I looked at numbers, the areas with the laxest gun control laws tended to have few gun related criminal deaths...as did the areas with the strongest gun control laws. If you cut availability down to almost nothing and make the market so small that it's difficult to sell any sort of gun, then you see less people get them and therefor less people shoot them.
On the other hand, if you make them easy to acquire and build up an ethos and culture that encourages everyone to get their hands on guns, then the guns themselves serve as a deterrent factor.
I'm in favor of the first case, mostly because the second one, while having similarly low crime numbers, has much higher accidental death numbers. At the end of the day, I'm for whatever laws show me less dead people.