Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 19, '14 at 12:42am

SportShark

SportShark

1,123 posts

Well, that's a pretty thorough post, and I agree with all the way.
By the way, I'm just listing possible reasons why guns are useful. I don't need everybody who disagrees with me to try to nit pick my rational opinions.

 

Posted Jan 19, '14 at 2:38pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

You have them because you wanted to own them, and now you do.


The issue isn't that people want to own them. The issue is that they're dangerous if used incorrectly and that there a lot of people that shouldn't have them.

I believe a citizen should be allowed to buy an assault rifle for reasons stated above.


I believe they should be able to as well, provided it's not kept in their house and is instead stored at a gun club of some sort. Why do you need to keep le dangerous machine made to kill crap in your home where there's nothing you could possibly shoot, instead of at a place with targets in a safe area?

The biggest and easiest claim for gun ownership is self-defense.


Those who are carrying a gun are far more likely to be shot than those who are not. Obviously, this is because anyone else armed is going to shoot you first and ask questions later. In the event of a home robbery, you're probably asleep or not already holding your gun.

The robber is. Going for the gun is a great way to get shot at.

You draw your Glock 19 from a side holster and shoot him 13 times, saving your life and defending everyone else.


You shouldn't have a gun if you think shooting someone 13 times with intent to kill is legitimate self defense when there's only one guy and he has a crowbar.

As soon as I was old enough to pick up a gun, my Dad went over gun safety. He took me out to our backyard (we live in the woods) and showed me how to hold one, how to shoot it and how to reload. Before all of that, he explained to me that guns are dangerous and do not EVER play with them. Guns are not toys. NEVER aim one at anything you don't want to shoot, especially a person. Always check a firearm to see if it is loaded before picking it up.


I agree that this is something that needs to be done. Kids should be taught how to safely handle things they may encounter, from matches to power tools to guns to chemicals. Not doing so is negligent on the parent's part.

Here's the thing. If parents and schools went over gun safety when kids were actually kids, gun violence would drop


Gun violence would also drop if we didn't give crazy people with a vendetta firearms and kept better control on the market. Less guns = less gun violence.

Gun bans to reduce crime:


Gun control /= Gun ban. This is such false dichotomy made so often it feels like everyone who isn't against everyone being able to own an RPG if they so wish thinks that instituting background checks, requiring training, and limiting the more military grade weaponry is the exact same as outright denying firearms to the public when that just isn't the case.

Not many rational people are arguing for the ban of guns. They're arguing for better gun control. That's extremely different. I'm for stronger gun control. I'm also for people being able to own guns and CC. What I'm not for is any random bozo walking into a gun shop and walking out with a pistol no questions asked.

Mine took less than an hour and all I had to do was sign the bottom line


See, that's not a very thorough background check. They probably just looked you up to see if you had a criminal record and where you went to school. That's barely better than nothing at all.
 

Posted Jan 19, '14 at 7:43pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,585 posts

The issue isn't that people want to own them. The issue is that they're dangerous if used incorrectly and that there a lot of people that shouldn't have them.


The exact same description could be applied to motor vehicles. I clarified in the "background checks" section.

I believe they should be able to as well, provided it's not kept in their house and is instead stored at a gun club of some sort. Why do you need to keep le dangerous machine made to kill crap in your home where there's nothing you could possibly shoot, instead of at a place with targets in a safe area?


You're asking the wrong question. It's not "Why do you NEED this?" It's "Why DON'T you need this?" Why do you need a car capable of going over 100 MPH when there's nowhere you could possible go to travel at that speed? The answer is simple: you didn't buy it so you could travel over 100 MPH. The same applies to firearms. I didn't buy a shotgun to go break the law with it. And I live on 14 acres of private property. There are plenty of things to shoot (usually 1-Liter bottles of soda and cardboard boxes).

Those who are carrying a gun are far more likely to be shot than those who are not. Obviously, this is because anyone else armed is going to shoot you first and ask questions later. In the event of a home robbery, you're probably asleep or not already holding your gun.


A majority of home invasions wake the homeowner. Very rarely does someone wake up and realize their valuables have vanished. The only possible situation in which not having a gun is safer is if you sleep through the home invasion. If you wake up, you are infinitely safer with your firearm than without one for one simple reason: YOU know what you do with a gun. You have no way of knowing what the "bad guy" will do. You will use your gun to stop the home invasion.

There is literally no guarantee that the burglar will have mercy on you because you are unarmed. If you are at home with your wife and are faced with an intruder with a gun, you can only hope that he will simply take your valuables and leave. What if the intruder decides he wants to rape your wife? You can sit back and watch, and if you don't, he'll kill you and do it anyway. I would rather die defending myself with a firearm, if it came to that, than die without even fighting. Never, EVER put yourself at the mercy of an intruder unless you have no other options.

The robber is. Going for the gun is a great way to get shot at.


Doing nothing is also a great way to get shot at. He's already broken the law by forcing entry and committing theft. The best you can do is assume that he won't go any farther than that.

You shouldn't have a gun if you think shooting someone 13 times with intent to kill is legitimate self defense when there's only one guy and he has a crowbar.


Actually, I was being overly dramatic. I hear a lot of gun-happy people talk like that. I don't personally take that stand, and I don't conceal-carry. It's illegal anyway where I live.

I agree that this is something that needs to be done. Kids should be taught how to safely handle things they may encounter, from matches to power tools to guns to chemicals. Not doing so is negligent on the parent's part.


I would go as far as to say a majority of the criminal population comes from irresponsible parents. A man I personally know teaches public education at an elementary school. He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes without a father, and he's seen several of his students in prison only a few years later (he's a prison minister). Even parents who hate firearms should explain gun safety to their children. It's certainly better than nothing.

Gun violence would also drop if we didn't give crazy people with a vendetta firearms and kept better control on the market. Less guns = less gun violence.


Feel free to point out all of them so we know who to restrict sales from. Less guns = less armed citizens. Criminals very rarely purchase a firearm legally for several hundred dollars. Gangs have fully automatic weapons that cannot be purchased legally. Look at the current crime rate in America. This country has the highest jail population in the world, and it's growing. It's too late to restrict gun sales to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Criminals already have them.

Gun control /= Gun ban. This is such false dichotomy made so often it feels like everyone who isn't against everyone being able to own an RPG if they so wish thinks that instituting background checks, requiring training, and limiting the more military grade weaponry is the exact same as outright denying firearms to the public when that just isn't the case.


I assume you meant "=/=," as in doesn't equal. And I know what you're talking about. I didn't say "gun control" because I wasn't talking about gun control. I was talking about literally banning guns entirely, i.e. outright denying firearms to the public. I mentioned gun control afterwards. Gun BANS are indeed an issue because some believe that no one should ever own a gun at all. I was arguing against that, not control.

Not many rational people are arguing for the ban of guns. They're arguing for better gun control. That's extremely different. I'm for stronger gun control. I'm also for people being able to own guns and CC. What I'm not for is any random bozo walking into a gun shop and walking out with a pistol no questions asked.


No, but people ARE arguing it, and I was arguing against it.

See, that's not a very thorough background check. They probably just looked you up to see if you had a criminal record and where you went to school. That's barely better than nothing at all.


What other records do I have? Besides blood work and a urine sample, there are no other records worth checking. I don't have a psychological profile and neither does anyone else I know. The concept of gun control is to keep people with a bad history from buying a gun. Checking for a criminal history is all that they need, and it is much better than nothing at all.

I think people often forget that guns are expensive. You have to save up or get a hefty bonus to buy one and pay it off. Why in the world would anyone, bent on killing someone, wait until they're old enough, spend a serious amount of money and go through a background check? Even if they did go through all the hassle and paperwork, it would if nothing else make background checks look less reliable.
 

Posted Jan 19, '14 at 9:19pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

The exact same description could be applied to motor vehicles.


Exactly. And note that we have strict laws on driving, how to drive, require that people learn how to drive, and obey rules. We test them before allowing them a driver's license and punish them for not obeying rules that are minor, such as speeding or failing to fix a brake light.

And they aren't even designed to kill people!

And I live on 14 acres of private property. There are plenty of things to shoot (usually 1-Liter bottles of soda and cardboard boxes).


Not everyone lives on land. Most people live in urban centers where a bullet could travel through a house and into someone, as you noted.

A majority of home invasions wake the homeowner.


The vast majority of home invasions happen when the homeowner isn't home. Your point of having a gun to stop the burglary is moot.

If you wake up, you are infinitely safer with your firearm than without one for one simple reason: YOU know what you do with a gun. You have no way of knowing what the "bad guy" will do. You will use your gun to stop the home invasion.


You are not safer. By entering a confrontation you place yourself at risk. Even if the other party doesn't have a gun, having a gun doesn't make you invincible. Likewise, they can also have a gun, and at best you're on even terms. All you're doing is placing yourself into a potential fight. That is not, in any way shape or form, safer.

There is literally no guarantee that the burglar will have mercy on you because you are unarmed


And there's no guarantee being armed will mean you win. I'm not arguing against self defense. I'm trying to get the notion into your head that the situation you're presenting isn't likely or realistic.

Actually, I was being overly dramatic. I hear a lot of gun-happy people talk like that.


Yes, and those gun happy people are the types of people who shouldn't have the guns at all. It's insanity to think that blasting multiple holes in an assailant's body far beyond the point they're able to run away or even live is self defense. Shooting to kill is intent to murder, even in self defense. You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to incapacitate as much as possible. These gun maniacs think it's justified to shoot a dozen rounds into a guy's chest because he threatened to take their wallet.

He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes without a father,


That's a gross exaggeration and sexist to boot. Not all kids who misbehave or disrespect authority are from "broken homes without a father."

Even parents who hate firearms should explain gun safety to their children.


Yes, they should. That's part of being a responsible parent.

Criminals very rarely purchase a firearm legally for several hundred dollars. Gangs have fully automatic weapons that cannot be purchased legally.


Any real gun control legislation will involve cracking down on the illegal guns too. America is gun proliferate. It's easy to acquire guns, because we have such poor controls on them.

I was talking about literally banning guns entirely


And no one is arguing that. You're debating a strawman.

but people ARE arguing it,


Some. Not many. The vast majority just want stronger controls. Then the Republicans just outright shoot down (figuratively) any legislation intended to do that based on a slippery slope fallacy and this strawman.

What other records do I have?


Psychological evaluations, relatives who have committed crimes, citations of anger problems from school or in your job immediately come to mind.

wait until they're old enough, spend a serious amount of money and go through a background check


They don't. They just swipe it from an irresponsible gun owner whom is a relative. We see it time and time and time and time and time and time again.

Background checks are just one part of it. Plugging a leak in the boat does no good if water is getting in elsewhere. Likewise, bailing is an effort in futility until the leaks have been plugged. America is a boat full of shotgun holes with people closing their eyes plugging their ears and screaming that they aren't sinking and it's the decay of morals to blame.
 

Posted Jan 19, '14 at 11:30pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,585 posts

Exactly. And note that we have strict laws on driving, how to drive, require that people learn how to drive, and obey rules. We test them before allowing them a driver's license and punish them for not obeying rules that are minor, such as speeding or failing to fix a brake light.

And they aren't even designed to kill people!


Almost all of those are already in place for gun owners. The ones that are missing (teaching how to use a gun, how to obey rules) come from responsible parenting. Ideally, anyway. As for guns being designed to kill people, I'll level with you and agree to some extent. Guns are the primary means of warfare. However, people don't buy guns (I am speaking of the average citizen that purchases a gun at a show or from a retailer legally) to kill people. People buy guns to have fun. Shoot targets, compete for accuracy, make a lot of noise (it's expensive noise, but still) and, of course, hunt animals. Is it dangerous? Yes. But a lot of things people do for fun are dangerous, especially men.

Not everyone lives on land. Most people live in urban centers where a bullet could travel through a house and into someone, as you noted.


Okay...but my point still stands. Also, a majority of PEOPLE live in urban centers, where all firearms are banned. Apartments, condos and some neighborhoods have a zero-tolerance policy on firearms. I live in one. My firearms are at home, on my farm, where I can access them.

The vast majority of home invasions happen when the homeowner isn't home. Your point of having a gun to stop the burglary is moot.


I was speaking of invasions when the homeowner was present. Sorry for not clarifying, I thought it was assumed (not sarcasm).

You are not safer. By entering a confrontation you place yourself at risk. Even if the other party doesn't have a gun, having a gun doesn't make you invincible. Likewise, they can also have a gun, and at best you're on even terms. All you're doing is placing yourself into a potential fight. That is not, in any way shape or form, safer.


When your home has been invaded by an armed man, you are in a confrontation as soon as he sees you. I already said that having a gun doesn't make you invincible and that one should be familiar with how to fire it. Besides, I would rather be on even terms than on the intruder's terms.

You seem to believe that, if I had a firearm, I would engage in a stand-off with an intruder and immediately be forced into a life-or-death gunfight. That's the last way you would want to fight an intruder. People often assume that the best way to stop the intruder is to run up to him and aim the gun in his face, like in a movie or heroic "blaze of glory" moment. How would you go about stopping an intruder, assuming both of you were armed and you knew he was indoors? You have no way of knowing how he will react and your only advantage is surprise. Confrontation is inevitable, as he is searching your house for valuables.

That's a gross exaggeration and sexist to boot. Not all kids who misbehave or disrespect authority are from "broken homes without a father."


No, it's not. The man has worked in public schools for over 20 years, and it has invariably been that case because he tutors struggling students. In every situation, a disrespectful or rebellious student has come from a broken home.

Yes, and those gun happy people are the types of people who shouldn't have the guns at all. It's insanity to think that blasting multiple holes in an assailant's body far beyond the point they're able to run away or even live is self defense. Shooting to kill is intent to murder, even in self defense. You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to incapacitate as much as possible. These gun maniacs think it's justified to shoot a dozen rounds into a guy's chest because he threatened to take their wallet.


Um...that was basically a rant. I never claimed any of those things.

Any real gun control legislation will involve cracking down on the illegal guns too. America is gun proliferate. It's easy to acquire guns, because we have such poor controls on them.


The problem is that such a legislation puts immense pressure on people that own weapons legally. I've heard of the suggestion that all firearms in home should be unloaded, locked in a secure location and incapacitated, i.e. slightly disassembled. That defeats all purpose of having a handgun for self-defense, which is why people buy them. Where do you draw the line to where guns are impossible to steal but also able to serve their purpose?

And no one is arguing that. You're debating a strawman.

Some. Not many. The vast majority just want stronger controls. Then the Republicans just outright shoot down (figuratively) any legislation intended to do that based on a slippery slope fallacy and this strawman.


It was never intended to be an argument at all, and I'm not debating it. I was adding it to the list of opinions I have about guns. If you re-read my last post, I didn't add any new opinions to the topic: I just said it was a different topic.

Psychological evaluations, relatives who have committed crimes, citations of anger problems from school or in your job immediately come to mind.


I have never had and never needed an evaluation (and I'm not going to take one), crimes from family members cannot prove anything about my character or actions, and legal citations would either appear on police records (if severe enough).

They don't. They just swipe it from an irresponsible gun owner whom is a relative. We see it time and time and time and time and time and time again.


This is criminal activity regardless of the responsibility of the gun owner. It's theft. You can't prosecute a gun owner for property that was stolen from them and misused or used for illegal activity. I firmly believe gun owners should be responsible and maintain control of their firearms, but in the end it is the criminal's fault for the crime. Not the owner, not the gun, not the government.

A martial arts student, perfectly capable of defending himself, was beaten to death with a tire iron from behind from a stolen car. He had been lured into examining the car by a man who claimed he couldn't get it to start and was stuck in the head repeatedly from behind. That is not the fault of the homeowner of the stolen car or the weapon, nor is it the student's fault for being unaware of the danger. Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done.
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 12:42am

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

If you're going to use probability terms such as "rarely" or "usually", you need to back them up with stats.

And to think, I was actually going to give my two cents. ._.

 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 1:05am

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

Almost all of those are already in place for gun owners.


It is far, far harder to obtain a driver's license than purchase a handgun.

However, people don't buy guns (I am speaking of the average citizen that purchases a gun at a show or from a retailer legally) to kill people.


People don't buy cars to get into accidents with them either. We still require regulation over who drives them, and take away that when they cause other trouble.

Also, a majority of PEOPLE live in urban centers, where all firearms are banned. Apartments, condos and some neighborhoods have a zero-tolerance policy on firearms.


Your point? There is no reason why one would need to keep an assault rifle in their house in an urban area. Sure if you own land and can shoot on it safely. But not everyone does.

I was speaking of invasions when the homeowner was present. Sorry for not clarifying, I thought it was assumed


When a person pulls a gun, they are something around five times more likely to be injured than otherwise. I know there's a source Nichodemus brought up a while back. Though I pulled this out of Nerdsoft's post a few pages ago.

Gun homicide rates vs gun ownership rates

When your home has been invaded by an armed man, you are in a confrontation as soon as he sees you.


I do wonder about that. How many burglars would just turn tail and run? They're there because they want your stuff - they don't want to start a manhunt or get caught.

How would you go about stopping an intruder, assuming both of you were armed and you knew he was indoors?


I would call the police and wait, avoiding a confrontation. If it became likely, I would shout out before they knew where I was that I had called the police and they had better get moving.

In every situation, a disrespectful or rebellious student has come from a broken home.


Exaggeration/hyperbole. I'm aware of the statistics on fatherless homes btw. Children from them are 70% more likely to have behavioral problems. That does not translate to every child who misbehaves coming from a broken home. Nor does that even say 70% of them are from fatherless homes. It's just that they're 70% more likely than, if all other factors are held constant, than a home with a father.

Even if your assertion was true, your logic is that of ice cream sales cause shark attacks, because obviously the ice cream is making the beach goers, who are hot and only go in the summer, that much more appetizing to the sharkies.

Um...that was basically a rant. I never claimed any of those things.


I know you didn't. I was referring to those who do claim those things. You know, the gun nuts who can and do get guns and think like that. Then we wonder why the hell we have these shootings.

I've heard of the suggestion that all firearms in home should be unloaded, locked in a secure location and incapacitated, i.e. slightly disassembled. That defeats all purpose of having a handgun for self-defense, which is why people buy them.


The problem with these kinds of blanket statements is they don't address individual cases. If you live alone, I see no problem with keeping a loaded gun in your bedside drawer. If you live with children, that's a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE idea.

Where do you draw the line to where guns are impossible to steal but also able to serve their purpose?


At the ownership level, teaching people to own them responsibly. Not just saying, "Welp! You haven't ever tried to murder someone or been cited for drug abuse! Here's your lethal weapon! Have fun!"

I have never had and never needed an evaluation (and I'm not going to take one), crimes from family members cannot prove anything about my character or actions, and legal citations would either appear on police records (if severe enough).


A psychological evaluation should be mandatory. There's a heavy stigma about going to a psychologist/psychiatrist when there should be.

The reason for family members is because if you live with one who has committed a crime, that's a risk because they then have access to YOUR gun. Likewise they can visit your home. Things like that should be inquired into and the people buying the gun should be made aware of that risk and taught how to reduce it.

Further, citations you receive from your place of employment for unruly behavior don't always go to the police. There could be signs allllll over that someone idiot who's irresponsible and prone to anger should have a gun that goes overlooked because they've never been cited by the police.

You can't prosecute a gun owner for property that was stolen from them and misused or used for illegal activity.


They should, if it was located in an easy to get spot. It's called negligence. Parents who have their guns stolen by kids that use them to go on shooting sprees are entirely responsible, both for not noticing their kid was having trouble and for leaving a lethal weapon within their reach.

My dad has a handgun because he's an airline pilot. It is kept hidden in his room, unloaded inside a locked bag, apart from the ammo. That's a safe gun. Inside a glass cabinet stored with the ammo is NOT.

Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done.


Then why do we have laws? Hmm? If criminals are just going to break them anyways? Do you realize how ridiculous the argument is, "well, dem criminals are just gonna get guns anyhowz, so let's make guns e-z to get!"

It's asinine, to say the least.
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 3:19am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

By entering a confrontation you place yourself at risk.

That's like saying "If you fight against a rapist they might hurt you more." Trying to avoid further escalation when they've already violated your rights doesn't mean they won't violate more.

Likewise, they can also have a gun, and at best you're on even terms.

"on even terms" IS infinitely safer than being a puppet.

That's a gross exaggeration and sexist to boot. Not all kids who misbehave or disrespect authority are from "broken homes without a father."

"All Apple products I've owned are broken" =/= "Every Apple product is broken"
You're trying to bring personal experience to mean he's saying it applies to the world.

relatives who have committed crimes

If one of Obama's relatives was a terrorist, would that mean he's not fit to be president (more specifically Commander in Chief, in charge of our nation's entire military arsenal)?
Familial restrictions would apply to other tools. "Your uncle was arrested for drunk driving. You can't buy a car."
When someone is arrested, why isn't their extended family also locked up?
Individuals rise and fall independent of relation.

When a person pulls a gun, they are something around five times more likely to be injured than otherwise.

Which is why he said better training.

They're there because they want your stuff

Or to rape/torture/kill you and your family. Or to strap an explosive to your neck and force you to rob a bank for them. You don't know. Once you're under their thumb, they can do anything they want.

- they don't want to start a manhunt or get caught.

And the best way is to not leave any witnesses.

They should, if it was located in an easy to get spot. It's called negligence.

"Someone stole your car and ran someone over. Why did you leave it in a parking lot when you know that people steal cars sometimes? You're going to jail or getting a fine."
My kitchen knives aren't inaccessible, and I'm sure they're not at restaurants either. If I run into the kitchen at my local Outback and start stabbing with one of their knives, is it their fault for not keeping their knives in a vault?

Do you realize how ridiculous the argument is, "well, dem criminals are just gonna get guns anyhowz, so let's make guns e-z to get!"

Why not restrict everything else that can be used to kill people as well, such as pressure cookers?
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 7:12am

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

That's like saying "If you fight against a rapist they might hurt you more."


No, it's like saying you know there's a rapist around the corner that doesn't know you're there, and instead of calling for help you go confront them. By all means, defend yourself, but don't seek the conflict.

on even terms" IS infinitely safer than being a puppet.


Except it's not in this case. Those with a gun are far more likely to be shot, because the robber will see them as a threat. They almost certainly are not there to hurt you. It's not their desire to hurt you. Even if they encounter you, if you do not attack them, they'll probably run or threaten you, but not attack.

What we're balancing here is the value of your possessions vs your life. Is the risk to your life worth the money? I won't put a price on it, but that's the real question here. If the robber outright attacks you, of course you defend yourself. You don't let them hurt you if you're able.

You're trying to bring personal experience to mean he's saying it applies to the world.


MattEmAngel, do you believe that all problem children come from families with broken homes? Or at the very least, the vast majority of them?

If one of Obama's relatives was a terrorist, would that mean he's not fit to be president


That's not what I meant. Allow me to clarify.

A relative who has commit a crime should be seen as something to investigate. What was the crime? Who was involved? What contact do they have with the person seeking ownership of the gun?

If it's found, for example, that many of their relatives have been involved in these actions and that they are closely placed to them, this should be considered a risk factor. Not a decisive factor, but something to be thought about.

Would you keep a gun in the same house as a schizophrenic who has violent episodes? Well, if the gun was stored safely then it probably wouldn't be an issue. But it would be prudent to, before issuing the gun to the person living with the schizophrenic, ensure they have a way to safely store it. Ie, require a certain standard of safety.

Which is why he said better training.


Of which none is required at all currently to purchase a gun. Do you see the problems yet?

Or to rape/torture/kill you and your family. Or to strap an explosive to your neck and force you to rob a bank for them.


Extraordinarily unlikely and paranoid. I'd imagine someone coming to do that would have made a plan of attack in advance and come at a time when it's extremely unlikely you'll be able to defend yourself or have a weapon on hand. That's a premeditated intent to harm. Unless you never go to sleep and are always holding the gun at the entrance, I seriously doubt you could do much to protect yourself if you were unaware of this person's intent before the incident began.

And the best way is to not leave any witnesses.


Are you serious? Killing someone invokes a manhunt. Robberies of electronics and jewelry starts an investigation and watch. The police won't stop until they find the killer, but a robber isn't nearly as high priority.

"Someone stole your car and ran someone over. Why did you leave it in a parking lot when you know that people steal cars sometimes? You're going to jail or getting a fine."


Unless that car was unlocked with the keys in the transmission and in front of a prison, I wouldn't consider the car owner to be blamed. This is a completely inapplicable analogy. A gun is made to kill people - one steals a gun to harm or threaten others. A car is a method of transport - one steals a car to profit. Cars are also LOCKED and DENIED ACCESS OF USE (bullets) by requiring a key. Yes, you can break in and hotwire, but that's going beyond the analogy.

My kitchen knives aren't inaccessible, and I'm sure they're not at restaurants either. If I run into the kitchen at my local Outback and start stabbing with one of their knives, is it their fault for not keeping their knives in a vault?


Yeah, because that happens. We can invent as many hypothetical situations where someone takes an item not intended to be a weapon and causes harm with it. That's just completely ignoring the issue.

Why not restrict everything else that can be used to kill people as well, such as pressure cookers?


Because those "everything else" aren't used often enough or are deadly enough to justify instituting a control on who has them.
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 3:03pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

What we're balancing here is the value of your possessions vs your life.

No, it's the value of the right to ultimately control your own property (including yourself) freely vs your life. If they see you and tell you "don't move or I'll kill you" and you stop, you're putting yourself under duress by physical coercion in this case. If you comply, they own you.

If the robber outright attacks you, of course you defend yourself. You don't let them hurt you if you're able.

Don't fight back until the threat is carried out? Really?

Are you serious?

Yes. If you're in a desperate situation where you're already expecting life in prison if you're caught, you certainly don't want someone to be able to pick you out of a lineup.

Unless that car was unlocked with the keys in the transmission and in front of a prison,

Why would you blame the victim under those circumstances? Does being naked and unconscious count as sexual consent?

Yeah, because that happens. We can invent as many hypothetical situations where someone takes an item not intended to be a weapon and causes harm with it. That's just completely ignoring the issue.

Every object is a tool. Something being a weapon is dependent on what is done with it, not the manufacturer's intent.

Because those "everything else" aren't used often enough or are deadly enough to justify instituting a control on who has them.

So it's only a problem after (#) of people are killed? Why isn't the focus on prevention of further actions?
 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!