That seems to be the logic behind banning abortions. Am I to believe it won’t work with guns?
Sure, eliminating guns from the world will prevent gun deaths, but it won’t prevent death, and I don’t mean the natural kind. The only thing that will prevent unnatural death is banning unnatural death. How do you do that?
I’m confused. Are you asking for zombie control laws, or… ?
Outlaw zombies, and only outlaws will be zombies!
Well, if there were no zombies, no zombies could kill us. Seems logical.
Both actually. A law-abiding person might want to own such a weapon rather than a six-shot revolver against the admittedly rare possibility of defending themselves against rioters and multiple home invaders. And if you believe it’s possible that someday either no government capable of defending you will exist, or it will be the government itself trying to harm you, then at least in potential and as a deterrent against it coming to that pass, owning those guns looks like a good idea.
And the Internet didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written. I highly doubt the authors of this meant that every man has a right to post images of women having sex with dogs where any kid with access to an unsecured computer can see them.
How exactly? I thought it was quite apt. If a handful of crazy evil people can abuse a right and inflict intolerable harm on society, then for the sake of safety everyone must forfeit that right.
Fine, but just how exactly do we keep bad people from getting guns? Other than improving mental health care in the US, the only other suggestions I’ve seen is to make sure that nobody at all can get at least some kinds of guns.
Solme are for hunting, some are for varmint shooting, some are for target shooting, some are for home defense and self defense, and some are for collecting. You really didn’t know this?
And some are for overthrowing the government. Why did you leave that out?
The thing is, you can’t eliminate guns, all you can do is try to take them all from law abiding folks. Even if all gun manufacturers were closed up, it would take forever for the current guns to quit working, and there would be plenty of incentive to create illegal gun factories.
Because a handful of yokels running around out in the woods playing soldier is not worth mentioning.
What? My point was that when the 2nd amendment was created, a firearm was something that could be used to defend or attack, but at a limited capacity compared to today’s weapons. Mass murder with a gun back then was next to impossible. The intended targets would either beat the shit out of the shooter while he was reloading, or just run away.
I’m confident had they known that there would be a weapon that could murder every last person in a tavern in less than a minute if he got angry, they would have banned it outright.
How exactly? I thought it was quite apt. If a handful of crazy evil people can abuse a right and inflict intolerable harm on society, then for the sake of safety everyone must forfeit that right.
That is literally the entire issue summed up into one tidy, yet un-answerable question. Gun control advocates think that bans on types of guns sold, and background checks will curb the slaughters. Maybe so. Responsible gun owners either keep their mouths shut and keep on doing what they do, or they flare up like rabid wolverines screaming about how their constitutional rights are being violated because they can’t have enough firepower to kill a whole town.
Like I said before I love guns. I really like shooting, and the idea of potentially eliminating a threat. I also realize that said threat is highly unlikely to ever rear it’s head in my lifetime.
I think both sides of the gun control argument genuinely want murder numbers (especially those of kids) to go down, and they agree that crazy and unstable people should not be allowed to possess firearms. If bad guys don’t have guns, everything is cool. I realize that this is often not the case, and is sometimes the opposite of what is true, but… it is what we all want to happen regarding this matter.
There are two elements in common with every gun related mass murder: the shooter, and the gun. Regulating the gun, and its availability is not that hard. This is what gun control advocates want to do. Regulating who has access to guns is much more difficult. This is what gun rights advocates should be promoting. Remove the negative side affect of owning a gun, keep the crazies from having them.
I think it’s the responsibility of the gun advocates to eliminate the chances of a mass murderer attaining a gun, rather than restricting guns in general. Yes, this is difficult if not impossible, but it beats the alternative of banning of gun sales across the board.
Yet the amendment doesn’t mention anything about cannon, rockets, grenades or barrels of gunpowder - all of which were well known at the time and quite capable of causing significant damage.
This I agree with. It’s a shame there doesn’t seem to be any middle ground on the whole issue, frankly - it seems to be either “Guns for nearly everyone!” or “No-one gets a gun at all!” with not much in the middle.
Even the UK still permits guns for hunting. The idea that gun control is the same thing as a gun ban is paranoid.
I’ve seen posts here that favor a complete gun ban for the US. Trolling, I guess, or a reaction to personal tragedy.
I think that’s his point. They didn’t mention them, because they weren’t planning on allowing them.
And, while I’m not going to quote the people who said it because there’s too much, please quit with the dumbfuckery about cars. A car is primarily a transportation device that causes damage only if used improperly. A gun is a device specifically designed to cause damage that is only used for recreation on the side. Many people need a vehicle to get them to work. No one needs to go hunting. The only real need for a gun is to protect you from other people who have guns.
Alcohol makes a faulty analogy, too, but for a different reason: the harm that occurs is mostly to the user. No one buys alcohol with the intent to harm others. Even with cars, this is unlikely. Both alcohol- and car-related deaths are usually accidents–they are unintentional. Most gun related deaths are not.
The only thing guns can be compared with are other weapons–something primarily designed to cause harm, has only recreational use otherwise, and, when harm occurs from their use, said harm is usually intentional. These are the unique properties that make guns different from any other item I own.
And, note, I said “other item.” I own a few heirloom guns. I got my hunting license a while back, even though I never used it. (It was a [not boy-] scout thing.) And I never even thought about gun control until I got to this board. I’m not anti-gun. I just hate these stupid arguments. A gun is not like a car, nor is it like alcohol. It’s like what it is, a weapon.
Cite? You may have seen posts that refer hastily to a “complete” banning, but I can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t want guns in the hands of police, the military, the FBI, those who’ve passed rigorous background checks, etc.
The thing is, I don’t hear people advocating that the founding fathers wanted us to be able to send porn to children. Everybody does, however, try to argue original intent when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Plus, I’m not sure that the Internet changed things as much as you think. People could have pulled off the same thing with print and freedom of the press. What prevented this was obscenity and porn laws, so what changed things was the Fourteenth Amendment which incorporated the Bill of Rights to the State and later jurisprudence that found a lot of those laws unconstitutional.
I only meant a “complete” civilian ban, sorry. A poster called foolsguinea had the most extreme position that I recall seeing here. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15808681&postcount=44
Not being in the US I don’t claim to be a US constitutional expert but it’s my understanding things like cannon likely weren’t specifically prohibited because they cost as much as someone’s house so it was breathtakingly unlikely there were going to be many in private hands.
Cars make a useful analogy because they’re a mechanical object which everyone is familiar with, which most people use responsibly, and which a small but visible group don’t.
Most cars are capable of far more than what anyone “needs”. No-one needs a family sedan that can drive at 220km/h. Almost no-one needs a four-wheel drive to travel alone to their non-primary or construction-industry work along a paved road in temperate weather. No-one needs a Bugatti Veyron.
But, for the most part, most people have no problem with the fact family cars can drive at 200+ km/h, people can drive to work in an office in a 4WD, or spend a million dollars on the fastest car…
… In The World.
And calls to disallow these things because they’re not “needed” would be met with [Tony Harrison]Outrage![/Tony Harrison] from the majority of people who were using them sensibly.
Just like guns, in other words.
Most anti-gun people not only don’t understand why many shooters think laws banning guns for “Looking scary” are silly, they (anti-gun people) generally don’t know anything about guns except that they don’t like them.
But saying “Imagine if it was a law banning cars simply because they had a bodykit and a spoiler”? I’d suggest that’s a reasonable analogy for the “banning scary black guns” debate and one most people can engage with on some level.
Well, at least here in the US, most modern cars will have an automatic disengaging of the engine if speed exceeds a certain amount. Additionally, some even newer cars have sensors that will detect and avoid obstacles. So i’d say your analogy fails because we are already addressing these problems.
No, they are also quite useful for protecting yourself from other people who have knives, clubs, or who are attacking in a group.
If I ever find myself facing a 25 year old, 6’ tall, 180 ib intruder (armed or not), 5’ 2"", 50 year old me will be damned glad she has her pistol. (That’s unlikely to happen, but it’s not an impossibility. Rapists and highway hunters are real.)