Or give them both guns, on the grounds that the other person’s gun might persuade the other not to draw first. (If we’re discounting the threat of death as a disincentive, then there’s really nothing we can do short of locking all angry people up.
Well, Stephe96, just in case we ever adopt a system like that, can you tell me specifically and in detail how to avoid looking even remotely like a “bad guy”?
The possibility of a gun in possession of a citizen, promotes politeness.
I guess my opinion on handguns for self-defense is the same as my opinion on the arms race in international politics: It’s a bad thing, but possibly the more sane response to the other guy doing it.
I mean, basically, the bad guys', however defined, will have guns whether they are legal or not. So if we forbid the good guys’ from having guns, then there will be no mutual dissuasion from using them. If you argue that this is a good thing, would you also argue that the US should just junk its entire military, and if some other power felt like doing something we don’t like, well, the US can appeal to the UN and the international court in the hague to protect them?
Now, I’ll be upfront in that I don’t pack heat for protection, and feel no need to do so, and really have no particular interest in living in a world where I did feel a need to. And, IMHO, the US could well stand to be a bit more deferential to international law and the UN. But my basic point is that arming both sides is a bad thing, but unilaterally disarming your side while the other remains armed seems a really really stupid thing…
I couldn’t disagree more, what guns do is equalize the ability of a person to do nasty stuff and thus deter it.
Some time in the last 60 days that bastion of anti- personal concealed carry, Missouri has switched to allowing concealed carry.
I guess they did not believe the CDC either.
That is the 'Show me " state isn’t it?
So answer my question then, how will the cops find the guns? Wait for them to be used in a crime? DUH BRT… :smack:
Agreed. 
Moving yet another gun thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Ah, so it’s a control issue! You don’t feel safe unless you can control other people, is that it?
I think this is quite common in the anti-gun crowd - they don’t trust anybody else. There seems to be an assumption that the other person is intent on harm.
What a terrible world in which to live.
I don’t know if the following applies to RTFirefly specifically, but I have know a number of “ban-the-guns” folks who seemed to go through life as terrified rabbits, convinced every stranger on the street was about to jump them. Their “disarm them all” attitude seemed to stem from a feeling of helplessness, and a desire to render everyone else equally helpless in order to feel “safe”. And to rely on the “authorities” to protect them.
Well, I don’t agree with that. First of all, in my experience, the “authorities” are never around when you really need them, when the Bad Guys are doing their bad things. That’s because most Bad Guys are smart enough not to do bad things in plain view of the cops. The cops show up later after the crime has been committed.
And, of course, there are folks who are committed to non-violence overall from moral principles. Banning guns would be in line with their stance on banning violence and conflict altogther. While I do not agree that this is a viable option in all situations, I can at least respect this stance if it is applied consistently to all aspects of their lives.
Although I know there are Bad People out in the world, and I am cautious with strangers and people I have just met, it has also been my experience that MOST people, the vast majority, do NOT mean or intend harm to others. Putting a gun in a person’s hand does not change them. If a randomly chosen person has no intent or motivation to harm another human being putting a gun in that person’s hand will not suddenly induce a rampage.
The problem isn’t the just the gun - the problem is a Bad Guy with a gun. Take the gun away this Bad Guy is still a Bad Guy - you can’t even assume he’s unarmed. He’s just lacking a gun. He might still have a knife or an icepick or a hijacked 757 under his control.
In my area, we have a city where handguns are absolutely forbidden, right next to an area of another state with some extremely loose gun ownership laws. Where does most of the gun crime occur? In the city where handguns are utterly banned. This fact alone seems to indicate that simply outlawing weapons is not going to solve the REAL problem, which is one person doing violence to another.
(That doesn’t mean I think we should issue sidearms and assault rifles to everyone, either. Obviously, there are some people who can not handle the responsibility of owning/operating a weapon and should not be permitted to do so - previously mentioned categories including the mentally ill, convicted felons, and small children.)
The mayor of said city is constantly berating those of us in the neighboring state to change our gun laws to be the same as what’s in his city, and help him sue the gun-makers. Why should we? It’s not our problem. We have gunshops everywhere, people with concealed carry, etc. and we are NOT having a blood bath in the streets. On the other hand, the Big City doesn’t have a week go by without a number of people getting shot, a lot of them children and innocent bystanders - but WAIT! There aren’t supposed to be any guns in the Big City!
So how can you have one area with lots and lots of guns, but little crime committed with guns, right next to an area with no legal guns, but lots and lots of gun crime?
The problem is NOT the guns, it’s the people. When you get down to it, it’s a people problem, which was pointed out in RT’s post. Ban the guns and you have the problem of finding and getting rid of the guns. Even if you manage to get rid of the guns for real, you then have the problem that you still have Bad Guys walking around.
I’ll throw in an interesting factoid from my current state of residence. Crossbows actually are more strongly regulated than guns. For instance, you can’t get a concealed carry permit for a crossbow (even if you could, I’d have to wonder how you could conceal it anyhow). I can legally carry a gun in my car or truck, but I can’t carry an intact crossbow - I’d have to disassemble the 'bow to take it to a shooting range (where it could be legally used for target practice). Hunting with firearms is a common past time in this state - but you can not hunt with a crossbow unless you have lost the use of one arm. You can not walk down the street carrying a crossbow under any circumstances, although you can legally do so with a legally owned gun. Interesting, huh?
Somehow, I don’t think this was prompted by a rash of crossbow crime.
(Why do I know this? I own a crossbow. I do not, however, own a gun. Yeah, I’m a strange one…)
According to Bill Bryson, this is short for Show me the way to get to another state.
Actually, it is the gun laws themselves that ESCALATE the problem.
Even a small child can see the ridiculousness of givng criminals more and more advantages by disarming and restriciting only the decent and honest people.
What you fail to see, is that gun laws are not restrictions on criminals, rather, by their very nature, they are only restrictions on law abiding honest citizens.
…which is why we have over 20,000 gun laws.
YOu start with a few restrictions on guns, restricting honest citizens and giving an edge to the criminal, who then commits more crimes.
When more crimes are committed by criminals who now have a slight advantage, you pass more restrictions giving even greater advantage to the criminals who in turn commit even more crimes.
It is an unending vicious cycle, each new gun law decreasing the self defense capabilities of honest citizens and giving the criminals more and more advantage in their criminal persuits, until you end up with 20,000 gun laws placed upon honest citizens while the criminals can carry any type of gun they want anywhere they want.
Because so many people fall into this failed circular thinking, is why we dont repeal gun control laws, and why we just keep making the situation worse. e.g. if we have a school shooting, then we pass a law to prevent teachers and principles from shooting back if it happens again making it even easier for someone to shoot up a school. If we have an airplane hijacked, then you prevent the passengers and pilots from being able to defend themselves in future attempts, etc. The more honest people you disarm, the easier you make it for the criminals to do what they want to do, resulting in more and more restrictions on honest people.
Is Washington DC(a gun free zone) really much safer now that virtually no citizen can defend themselves while the criminals can carry and use any gun they want to? Is the crime rate in Washington DC lower or higher now than in the 1940’s and 1950’s before such totally restrictive gun laws were placed on honest people?
Furthermore, if it is ever proven guns are not needed for self defense, if our leader determine that guns are not needed by anyone for self defense, then the police, and the security guards, secret service, etc. of politicians, rich people, etc, should not be allowed to carry them either.
Our police and our secret service should be providing an example to the rest of our citizens that guns are no longer needed in this society by anyone for self defense.
Although you do not mention it the spin of most of these threads is anti-handgun, when the bushmaster .223 used in the DC sniper case is not even close to one.
The what is that the gun is not a proximate cause of the violence, a person is.
Look around next time you drive to work, see the other cars. You do not control them. The person who does control them could be drunk, mad, distraught, sleep deprived, chatting on their cell phone, or any number of things that impairs their ability to effectively control a vehicle. Not one of those vehicles will just “jump up” they will respond to control inputs of the driver. A poorly timed or unsafe use of a vehicle is just as deadly if not more so as a gun, and its hundreds of times more likely. Personally I am all for increasing training requirements for drivers but thats another thread.
So you are suggesting that the weapon is the problem, not the choices of those who use them.
We’ll let you go back to fantasyland where guns don’t kill people, knives, icepicks, baseball bats, and rocks kill people.
Maybe not but you did take a shot at the fifth.
Although you do not mention it, the spin of many of these threads relates to assault weapons, of which the Bushmaster certainly is one.
[Cue standard whinging about the definition of “assault weapon” . . . ]
Well have the laws that ALLOW guns proven to be effective ? Have US militias been required to defend the nation in the last 100 years ? Is crime in the US low compared to non-gun bearing countries ? For every robbery stopped in a shootout how many more crimes and killing have been helped by guns ? Your argument turned around seems way more compelling...
Guns have done very little good for the USA. Banning guns now might not be effective due to overarmed population… but should guns be banned in a decade or two things might get better. How do you prove to a gun lover that guns in general are dangerous ? Have you visited countries where guns are restricted ?
I go for the escalation problem... guns dont kill people alone... but people without guns dont kill as much. When someone comes to attack you... he has his gun ready... you dont. So the SELF DEFENSE argument is pretty flat. Most people learn to shot paper cutouts... not combat shooting. I dont know in the US ... but people who have reacted to a armed robbery in Brazil... 90% ended up shot at. A good number wounded or killed. Those who dont react might feel powerless... but they certainly didnt get shot at 90% of the time.(# of criminals with guns), compared to, (# of private citizens that responsibly own firearms), compared to, (# of private idiots that own firearms)
So long as the second number dramatically outstrips the first and third numbers we’ll never be able to judge the deterrent or self-defense benefits of firearms ownership on our widely geographically distributed population VERSUS the violents or crazies that shoot people. See, fair and balanced. There are lots of violents and crazies, granted. They are the least likely to obey any firearms laws, unfortunate but must also be granted.
I’m afraid of what happens to me when we start the scientific experiment to see how a total gun ban would work. Our cops are used to taking their time, except for food.
The first thing that happens, unintended consequenceswise, is a lot of seemingly normal people tweak off the chart, what with the Second Amendment. That is not an invitation to re-open that can of worms. It is true, people will “tweak” and they will base their displeasure on the Second Amendment.
The second is that the price of illegal firearms goes off the chart. Prohibition acts as a price support: ECO 101. Corruption of the institutions permitted to have firearms will follow.
**
Ok, we already have laws covering these three things.
What’s a loved one, a family member? At any rate let’s eliminate some of the many variables from that little statistic. What about a household where nobody has a history of criminal behavior, there is no history of domestic abuse, no drug use, and no alcoholism. Are they still more likely to kill a loved one?
Marc
…and if I put low profile tires, ground effects, lots of decals and a big exhaust pipe tip on my Toyota Corolla I now have a race car.
Styling has little to do with performance.
With respect, you have a very Hollywood view of what a real fistfight or real brawl sans guns is like, and I’ll hazard you’ve never seen one IRL. People die from simple fistfights, or receive serious, crippling, life-changing injuries. Real fights are not like Rocky or Charlie’s Angels or 101 Dalmations - sometimes one hard punch can break a person’s jaw, tear flesh, put out an eye, or even break ribs and puncture lungs. I’ve seen it happen.
Without arguing for or against your point on gun control I have to say that assertions which play down the deadliness of unarmed conflict really piss me off. Just as much as the ludicrous typical Hollywood portrayal of the homeowner in their dressing gown descending the stairs with a baseball bat…
Having a gun can de-escalate a sitaution as well. Long ago I was being pursued in the wee hours of the morning by a drunken man who weighed more than 100 pounds more than me and who was nearly 2 feet taller than me who said he was going to “kill me” - until I showed him my 9mm. Instant sobering, instant de-escalation, instant change of mind. And you know what? Even if the situation had escalated…so what? I’m not going to stand there and let a large male whose fist is nearly the size of my head beat me (or worse), all the while hoping that I’ll get a bloody nose and all will be well.
And this is the one point that lunatic side of the anti-gun crowd (which, IMO, also contains a large number of thoughtful, intelligent, and sane persons) always sweeps under the rug, or dances around - they cannot offer a better solution for how to allow a 100-pound 5-foot female to defend herself with any hope at all against a 6’6"-300 pound rapist or attacker. Instead, they try to muddle the issue and create strawman arguments by saying “Oh, most attacks are unexpected, so you have no hope anyways” or “they’d just take that gun away from you, because you would be so awed by the Majesty of The Man, like most females”. Or, in some debates the response is along the lines of “Better you get raped than you take someone’s life.” :rolleyes:
Yes, many attacks are unexpected - but it’s certainly arguable how many, and to what extent a person would still be able to use a weapon to defend themselves. Most criminals aren’t Marvel Comics Supervillains who suddenly appear out of nowhere with an arm around your neck - another Hollywood creation. If you’ve ever been “stalked” by someone IRL, there is typically a clear length of time during which an observant person knows that someone is after them, and sees them follow or prepare to strike. This has happened to me twice (once in the Paris Metro, another time in downtown Phoenix), and both times I’ve been dead-on right, was able to have plenty of time to prepare, and was successful in avoiding injury or conflict.