Gun control discussion

[StarLost]

It's so sad, people who think they can solve all their problems with violence. Somethimes it is of great pride to be a pacifist

Consider that Heinlein said "A pacifist male is a contradiction in terms."

While the perpetrator's motivations have not yet been explained, this is a truly unfortunate incident. While we in the "west" would like to claim some moral or civil "highground" while knashing our teeth over sectarian violence such as that between Sunni and Shiite in Iraq, it is clear that this kind of insanity knows no bounds.

And the NRA will go into full apologist mode again.

 

[Messierhunter]

And the NRA will go into full apologist mode again.

No need to, they do not advocate criminal use of firearms. Indeed, if not for a person carrying a concealed handgun, my brother's chruch would have been the site of a columbine-sized massacre not long ago. Thanks to the NRA and its members, a law abiding citizen with a gun was legally able to stop the attack before it could escalate even further.

 

[Urwumpe]

Again... wasn't there a similar event in the last week. Must be the heat. Another tragedy.

Why should they? It's not their fault some guy got hold of a gun and used it wrong.

No, but you can say it is their fault to fight any control of the weapons. If you don't even have to take part if regular gun training or a organized militia to own a weapon, any freak can have one. Not only the criminal freaks - any freak.

I have little objections against allowing all adult people to own guns, when some important requirements are satisfied:


- Regular training, with weapon as well as unarmed
- Insurance and Registration. No gun without being insured against wrong decisions.
- Social Control (= join clubs, militias or terror groups. Just make sure somebody is around to notice you snap out.)

The NRA approach of total gun freedom is IMHO, just calling for trouble.

 

[Messierhunter]

No, but you can say it is their fault to fight any control of the weapons.

They support taking away the guns from the criminals. That should be the only control.

I have little objections against allowing all adult people to own guns, when some important requirements are satisfied:

I wouldn't call the objections below "little."

- Regular training, with weapon as well as unarmed

Training should only be required for those who wish to carry their weapon with them. I don't need "regular training" to know how to shoot at the range on the weekend safely.

- Insurance and Registration. No gun without being insured against wrong decisions.

In other words, treat all gun owners as likely criminals, and make THEM pay for it. Nice.

- Social Control (= join clubs, militias or terror groups. Just make sure somebody is around to notice you snap out.)

Once again, treating all gun owners as likely criminals. I won't have any of that. My decision to join a gun club or not should be my own. The vast majority of gun owners in america never become criminals.

The NRA approach of total gun freedom is IMHO, just calling for trouble.

If by calling for trouble you mean, stopping it dead and thereby saving my brother's life, then yes, you're exactly right.

 

[Moonwalker]

Owning guns, at home or in in public, should be illegal for common people. Freedom doesn't mean no limits. It is a misconception that owning guns has something to do with freedom. That's schizophrenic in my point of view. Guns reduce freedom. But luckily I never saw a real gun in person and I also don't know a person who owns a gun (because I don't live in an armed society).

And no, a gun is not comparable to a kitchen knife, a car or a cigarette.

 

[Ghostrider]

Owning guns, at home or in in public, should be illegal for common people.

Anyone who differentiates between "common people" and "someone else" has no place living in a democracy. We're all "common people", this is not an oligarchy.

And no, a gun is not comparable to a kitchen knife, a car or a cigarette.

Why, because you say so? You're a very narrow-minded person, you know. Not having seen a firearm in person or not knowing someone who owns a gun doesn't make you any better. It just means you either know very few persons or - worse - that you apply a form of discrimination in the choice of the persons you choose to know based on traits that have nothing to do with character.

I expect that in any society ruled by the likes of you I would be prosecuted into the ground by simply existing. Fortunately I don't live in bigotland.

 

[Urwumpe]

They support taking away the guns from the criminals. That should be the only control.

Yes - and all criminal acts committed with weapons are just reasons for arming unskilled, from a military point of view stupid, civilians with deadly weapons.

Training should only be required for those who wish to carry their weapon with them. I don't need "regular training" to know how to shoot at the range on the weekend safely.

Yes. And you also don't need to own your own gun for that. You can sure lend one from the range.

The training is not for teaching you how to fire a weapon. Any idiot can fire it (And the NRA is a good collection of idiots). It is for teaching you to use it correctly.

In the army, you need one afternoon to be taught how to fire an automatic rifle and hit a target in 200m distance. You need one morning to be explained how you clean and maintain it.

And you spent about 40 days of the basic training to learn how to deal with potential enemies and which appropriate ways you have to not use the rifle, even in situations, where somebody is not willed to deescalate the situation.

Again: Any idiot can buy a weapon (even in Germany) and fire it. But it requires regular training and practice to make the weapon a tool of the good and no unpredictable risk.

In other words, treat all gun owners as likely criminals, and make THEM pay for it. Nice.

Wrong: As likely to cause loss of human life. One wrong decision, even in good intent, and somebody is dead.

Or are you allowed to drive a car anywhere without proper insurance?

Once again, treating all gun owners as likely criminals. I won't have any of that. My decision to join a gun club or not should be my own. The vast majority of gun owners in america never become criminals.

No, treating them as responsible citizens who understand that they have a very potent weapon in their hands. You can't drive a car without getting a drivers license and show on a regular base, that you are capable of using the car correctly and make good decisions in typical situations, but you can buy a semiautomatic rifle or a semiautomatic pistol by mail order. What is more deadly - the car or the pistol?

If by calling for trouble you mean, stopping it dead and thereby saving my brother's life, then yes, you're exactly right.

And if you kill an unarmed man by playing judge and executioner in one person, how do you explain this? A tragic error? Ooops, I did it again?

You are no soldier in your own four walls. You are not surrounded by enemies, even if the NRA likes to tell you that. And your enemies do not wear a uniform which makes it easy to detect them. Your decisions are important - too important to be taken on the easy side. Real life is no action movie.

I can save my brothers life in many ways, not only by hoping for the day a mad freak runs into us with a pistol. And even then I can still deal with him in many more ways than only lethal force.

Do you want to be a guardian or an avenger?

 

[Ghostrider]

Do you want to be a guardian or an avenger?

Can I be the Batman? Chicks love the car.

 

[Messierhunter]

Owning guns, at home or in in public, should be illegal for common people. Freedom doesn't mean no limits. It is a misconception that owning guns has something to do with freedom. That's schizophrenic in my point of view. Guns reduce freedom.

You don't have to like guns, but you also don't have to try to reduce my freedom to own them. Guns do not reduce freedom - my owning a gun does not hurt your freedom in any way.

Yes - and all criminal acts committed with weapons are just reasons for arming unskilled, from a military point of view stupid, civilians with deadly weapons.

So why aren't these "stupid civilians" who can carry concealed in my state causing more trouble than they're stopping?

Yes. And you also don't need to own your own gun for that. You can sure lend one from the range.

Been there, done that, range guns are always in terrible shape, in need of at least a complete cleaning, or at worst a complete overhaul. I should have the right to bring my own gun for which there is no need for me to be "regularly trained" as you originally claimed.

The training is not for teaching you how to fire a weapon. Any idiot can fire it (And the NRA is a good collection of idiots). It is for teaching you to use it correctly.

Actually studies have shown that most idiots can't figure out how to fire a gun with its safety set to on for a minute or more. That aside, I know how to fire my gun safely and properly, thank you very much. I was trained by my father on that from a young age. It's important that anyone who fires a gun even at a range know gun safety, but that's something for the range officer to provide, not the government.

Again: Any idiot can buy a weapon (even in Germany) and fire it. But it requires regular training and practice to make the weapon a tool of the good and no unpredictable risk.

Training is required for those who go for a concealed weapon permit in america. Training should not be required for others.

Wrong: As likely to cause loss of human life. One wrong decision, even in good intent, and somebody is dead.

Wrong. A concealed weapons permit holder is about 800 times less likely to kill an innocent than a random person chosen off the street. Loss of human life statistics include criminals shot by the innocent: not a fair statistic.

Or are you allowed to drive a car anywhere without proper insurance?

Again, law abiding gun owners, particularly concealed weapons owners, are less likely to hurt the wrong people, not more likely. Stop treating us as if we were likely criminals.

What is more deadly - the car or the pistol?

LMFAO! The car, actually, boy you stepped in that one. You're far more likely to die from a car than a pistol.

And if you kill an unarmed man by playing judge and executioner in one person, how do you explain this? A tragic error? Ooops, I did it again?

Where are the statistics of all these innocent people being killed by concealed weapons holders who went on rampages? Huh? They DO NOT exist!

Your decisions are important - too important to be taken on the easy side.

Translation: Your decisions are too important for me to let you make them. You need big brother.

I get where you're coming from. Loud and clear. Only too clear, in fact.

I can save my brothers life in many ways, not only by hoping for the day a mad freak runs into us with a pistol. And even then I can still deal with him in many more ways than only lethal force.

Do you want to be a guardian or an avenger?

You don't get it at all. I'm not hoping for the day a mad freak tried to kill my brother but he was stopped by an ordinary citizen with a gun: that day already happened! I would never hope for such a thing to happen, but I will do whatever I see fit to prepare in case that day should ever come to me personally. Again, I don't want to be an "avenger," I want to be left alone. Killing someone in self defense is not something I look forward to, it's not a decision I want to make, but it's people like you who try to portray people like me that way in order to minimize our rights. You even sit there in denial of an event that actually happened in order to invalidate my reasons.

 

[Andy44]

All this BS about how gun control somehow controls crime. Total BS. In DC and NY City and Chicago, very strict gun control results in no decrease in crime. Just outside of DC, in Virginia, you can own almost any kind of gun you want, including machine guns (subject to federal tax stamp), and the crime rate is much lower. And I'm talking about the northern, urbanized part of Virginia, surrounding the Pentagon, not the farmland. How's that crime wave going in Britain since they banned guns, hmm? Knife moved in to kick it up a notch, has it?

Understand this: when you are in a situation like the one in the OP, where some nut decides to start killing people (with or without a shotgun, the weapon doesn't matter), you are on your own for at least a few minutes. No cops will get there to save you, no army is going to rescue you. The man who allegedly dove in front of the shotgun to sacrifice himself didn't have to die. He could've fought back, which is what free, reasonable, and couragous, men and women do when confronted with a threat to their lives. They take responsibility for their own well-being.

"Dumb" is letting government agents have guns and tasers and not holding them accountable for the havoc they wreak under color of authority. I trust my next-door neighbor, who I know, with a high-powered rifle or pistol a whole lot more than I trust someone in a costume with special powers from the state.

This guy won't save you from a gunman in church, but he may kill you or wound you someday:

 

[Urwumpe]

MessierHunter: In a shorter summary as most of your stuff is pretty repetitive or based on argument from ignorance:

If a shooting range operated by professionals have weapons which are in a bad state, what about the state of those weapons kept at home? Are these in general better? I strongly doubt that.

Also the difference between car deaths in the US and fire arm deaths is: A car is naturally used more often. But how many people died by the moment somebody took a firearm? I would estimate around 90% of all firearms in the USA are just bought by people, who thought "I am weak, I need it to be able to defend myself." and leave it in the drawer next to their bed. Without proper maintenance, training and education. A weapon you can't use properly is a weapon against you.

Also:
If you want to be left alone, why do you need a pistol? You don't need a pistol to be left alone. Except you want to shoot all who disturb you. Which is a good reason for a headshrinker to declare you unfit for a firearm.

Again: I don't treat you as criminals. I treat you as people who want the right to place themselves above executive and justice. Ever heard of responsibility?

You sound like a immature kid which fears that somebody will take his toy away - what do you have to fear when your right to own a firearm would be no less limited as the right to drive a car? It is still a great bargain, compared to the power it gives you.

Also who are people like me? Militarist Germans? All I show you is, that all your reasons (it already happened, blaaaaa) are based on your not even being able in a slow forum discussion to estimate a situation in a reasonable way. How can you estimate threats to your life correctly when the clock ticks faster? You are not trained for it.

You believe the power of a weapon solves your problems, but this is a false promise you give to you. Only by owning a weapon, you have not won anything. You have just become the same risk, you want to protect yourself from. A good unarmed combat training can save your life and the life of others in more situations as a pistol can. Even with training for it.

But let me tell you my personal, subjective and likely very generalistic opinion why people in the USA prefer buying guns over unarmed combat: Unarmed combat training requires you to invest effort, discipline and dedication. That's what you are fighting against. With effort, discipline and dedication, you could master a pistol and it's use and learn using it for the good of the community. But that is against your childish definition of freedom (without responsibility)

You may grow old, fat and lazy and maybe unable to leave your bed and TV Set. But you can have a gun to defend yourself.

 

[Brad]

Andy44 I agree whole hardly with your assessment. I applaud the US Supreme court ruling this summer on handguns. Police officials need to be held to a higher accountability. The increase of tasers concerns me especially since some studies indicated that the use of a taser does no necessarily deescalate the issue.

What happened in Tennessee is indeed tragic. It is unfortunate that one person would act with so much hate. The person is responsible. NOT the gun makers, NOT his mother or father, NOT society. It is time that people took responsibility for their actions and cease to shift blame to third party.

 

[Moonwalker]

You don't have to like guns, but you also don't have to try to reduce my freedom to own them. Guns do not reduce freedom - my owning a gun does not hurt your freedom in any way.

Practically it would not as long as you or others don't do stupid things. But potentially it would all the time (if we forget the Atlantic Ocean for a few seconds).

It's a nightmare imagine a few of my neighbours would be allowed to own a gun by law. Or even anybody across the street would be allowed to own a gun by law. That's an environment I don't want to live in and I luckily don't live in

 

[Ghostrider]

You may grow old, fat and lazy and maybe unable to leave your bed and TV Set. But you can have a gun to defend yourself.

It's worth it only to shoot at the TV, Elvis was right.

Anyway, the keyword is discipline. Whether you're operating a car, a plane, a firearm or even a computer, you should always be focused on what you're doing and the consequences of that.
I'm a gun rights advocate, but also a gun duties advocate: you want it, you pay for it in terms of training and if I'm around, I'll provide it free of charge but I guarantee you by the end of the day the mere thought of a trigger guard will make you puke.
As for defence... I use a shotgun loaded with non-lethal rounds and I think it's the best solution for home. However, it's part of a layered defence system and hopefully the cops will be around before I need to work the pump action. But if I need to work the pump action and the trigger, it's there.

 

[Moonwalker]

Anyone who differentiates between "common people" and "someone else" has no place living in a democracy. We're all "common people", this is not an oligarchy.

Well, a soldier or a policeman in the line of duty is not a common person I think

I can't see any reason why non-soldiers and non-policemen should be armed too.

PS: I think my place here in the German democracy is rather valid. But in my point of view democracy also does not mean that people can do what they want, especially own guns just for fun. This might be the case in a banana republic.

 

[FordPrefect]

As for defence... I use a shotgun loaded with non-lethal rounds and I think it's the best solution for home. However, it's part of a layered defence system and hopefully the cops will be around before I need to work the pump action. But if I need to work the pump action and the trigger, it's there.

Defence? But isn't just this the consequence of allowing almost anyone owning a gun?

 

[John_L]

Owning guns, at home or in in public, should be illegal for common people. Freedom doesn't mean no limits. It is a misconception that owning guns has something to do with freedom. That's schizophrenic in my point of view. Guns reduce freedom. But luckily I never saw a real gun in person and I also don't know a person who owns a gun (because I don't live in an armed society).

And no, a gun is not comparable to a kitchen knife, a car or a cigarette.

Well, I DO live in a society that has guns, and I believe in my right to own one. Who are you to determine who should and should not have a gun? If anyone has a gun, then I have the same right to own one to protect myself and my property. Guns do not reduce freedom, they protect it. It's clear that since you live in a country with gun control that you obviously buy into the propaganda fed to you by those 'non common people' who control you. You want my guns? Fine, pry it from my dead hands... it's the only way you'll get it.

 

[davidsinn]

To kill bad people that are trying to kill me or someone near me. That's the reason to own a firearm.

 

[Ghostrider]

Well, a soldier or a policeman in the line of duty is not a common person I think

Yes, he is. He's subject to the same failings and weaknesses and he's bound to make the same mistakes. He SHOULD by training and experience avoid them but I've seen stupid firearms-related mistakes (even fatal) made by experienced police officers, and 16-year olds handle assault rifles with more care and responsability than some career officer. When you stop seeing people as divided in "common people" and "not-too-common people" and evaluate them as individuals, as you should, you will see the mistake and maybe you'll trust your neighbours more. The way you formulated it, it sounds like they're a bunch of goons who would turn your neighborhood into a warzone if they had access to firearms. Decent people don't do that even if you give them access to particle-beam weaponry.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's a nightmare imagine a few of my neighbours would be allowed to own a gun by law. Or even anybody across the street would be allowed to own a gun by law. That's an environment I don't want to live in and I luckily don't live in

Yes. It sort of forces you to also buy a gun yourself right?

You need to be really a convinced pacifist to not loose the freedom of not having to own a gun, when people around you which you can't trust also have them. That is not freedom, that is an arms race.

That's why the concept of police man or "guardians" in general got created. A normal citizen can not be expected to follow a high ideal for controlling himself. But that is required for his job. Who can watch the guardians, if not the guardians themselves?

So, when using this reminder on Plato, the Supreme Court decision is IMHO still a failure. You don't need to believe into an ethic moral codex like a constitution anymore, like you can expect from people inside a well-organized militia, to own the power of a gun. Anybody is now allowed to have them, with the real guardians (the police and army) only being able to later deal with the damage done.

For how small is the step from protecting the house over protecting the neighborhood to shooting suspected drug dealers because the police does not do it?