Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[TSGracchus]

I would prefer to have the law changed and all the guns locked up with very limited access.

How would you do that, since current laws do not insure that the currently illegal guns are locked up with very limited access?

Closely regulate the sale of guns, ammunition and parts. Require the the recording of guns and owners in a database, to include the recording of rifling so that any bullets recovered from crime scenes can be traced to a gun and the last recorded owner. Forbid the exportation of firearms except in times of war, constitutionally declared by congress.
Anyone who fails to report the sale, theft, or loss of a gun should be held guilty of a felony. Anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime should be imprisoned until at least age 70. No parole for crimes of violence. No parole for gun crimes, including criminal negligence.
If that seems harsh, just remember that I am one of those tender-hearted "liberals", and I do not believe in punishment or vengeance, only in the protection and dynamic stability of society.

[brianbbs67]

And the Knife , club and rock , murderers? What would you do to regulate them? God forbid if they could kill with their hands....would all hands have to go?

[TSGracchus]

And the Knife , club and rock , murderers? What would you do to regulate them? God forbid if they could kill with their hands....would all hands have to go?

So, if we can't prevent all homicides we shouldn't even try to prevent some? Guns make killing easy. A three year old can shoot his mother with her own gun.
A father can shoot his daughter in a darkened living room. A half-awakened sleeper sees an ominous shape at the foot of his bed, and with the pistol from under his pillow, shoots off his own big toe. A frightened home owner shoots in the night an injured person at his front door trying to get help for an auto accident. And fourteen well-trained police officers fire more that 200 rounds before killing an unarmed man holding a cell phone.
Sometimes guns do kill people, and they always make the killing easier.

[AgnosticBoy]

And the Knife , club and rock , murderers? What would you do to regulate them? God forbid if they could kill with their hands....would all hands have to go?

So, if we can't prevent all homicides we shouldn't even try to prevent some? Guns make killing easy. A three year old can shoot his mother with her own gun.
A father can shoot his daughter in a darkened living room. A half-awakened sleeper sees an ominous shape at the foot of his bed, and with the pistol from under his pillow, shoots off his own big toe. A frightened home owner shoots in the night an injured person at his front door trying to get help for an auto accident. And fourteen well-trained police officers fire more that 200 rounds before killing an unarmed man holding a cell phone.
Sometimes guns do kill people, and they always make the killing easier.

I'm a bit shocked at how one-sided your view is. I noticed that nothing you said deals with self-defense from violent crime. Instead, you want to bring up when guns are used to shoot at shadows in a bedroom which I'm sure are very rare occasions.

I'm beginning to question if you're even knowledgeable of guns and gun laws in the US. The ONLY reason you should use deadly force is if there is a physical threat to you or someone else. Someone ringing your doorbell at night doesn't qualify as such, unless that person wants to try to help his or herself into the house UNINVITED in which case that is immediate grounds for the use of deadly force. Period.

Criminals prey on those who are nave and weak.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 42 by AgnosticBoy]
I'm a bit shocked at how one-sided your view is. I noticed that nothing you said deals with self-defense from violent crime. Instead, you want to bring up when guns are used to shoot at shadows in a bedroom which I'm sure are very rare occasions.

AgnosticBoy: "I'm beginning to question if you're even knowledgeable of guns and gun laws in the US."

I know a bit about guns. I spent six years in the army and trained with the M-1 Rifle, the M-1 Carbine, the 1911 Colt .45, the .30 and .50 cal. and M-60 machine guns, the 105 mm howitzer and the XM-28 and XM-29 tactical nuclear delivery systems. And my brother in law was a life-long member of the NRA and used to deliver rants on gun laws and the second ammendment on any and all occasions.


AgnosticBoy: "The ONLY reason you should use deadly force is if there is a physical threat to you or someone else."

What should happen is often what doesn't especially when the transaction involves firearms.

AgnosticBoy: "Someone ringing your doorbell at night doesn't qualify as such, unless that person wants to try to help his or herself into the house UNINVITED in which case that is immediate grounds for the use of deadly force. Period."

And yet every example I cited actually happened.

AgnosticBoy: "Criminals prey on those who are nave and weak.'

Which of course isn't you. But most of us are strong enough to walk around unarmed. Some of us have even learned a few techniques of avoiding or de-escalating dangerous situations. "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

"Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to 'injury by firearms' (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens)." --- Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia

All your rants about self-defense ignore the simple fact that all those guns mean lots of gun deaths.

[AgnosticBoy]

"Someone ringing your doorbell at night doesn't qualify as such, unless that person wants to try to help his or herself into the house UNINVITED in which case that is immediate grounds for the use of deadly force. Period."

And yet every example I cited actually happened.

I'm sure it can and has but it's not an epidemic. Nothing that education of gun laws can't fix.

"Criminals prey on those who are nave and weak.'

Which of course isn't you. But most of us are strong enough to walk around unarmed. Some of us have even learned a few techniques of avoiding or de-escalating dangerous situations. "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

I don't believe that people walk around unarmed because they think they are "strong", especially when it comes to the women, elderly, and kids. De -escalation is a good thing, but it should only be used up to the time that you remain out of harms way. It would be nave to continue with de-escalation when a criminal continues to approach you with a knife or has already made it into your house.

"Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to 'injury by firearms' (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens)." --- Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia

All your rants about self-defense ignore the simple fact that all those guns mean lots of gun deaths.

The majority of the problem of gun violence in the US is guns in the hands of BAD people. People who have CRIMINAL backgrounds. So the obvious solution should be to keep guns out of the hands of bad people so that only the good people have them to use for self-defense.

Now there is a problem of guns being sold to crazy people who don't have criminal backgrounds (perhaps NOt yet), but that can be handled through strong background checks. In fact, i'd want every civilian who wants a gun to go through the same background checks that FBI agents go through. Every gun owner should undergo psychological eval, firearms safety/training, education on gun laws, and be 21 years old and up (unless you're in the military).

[Clownboat]

All your rants about self-defense ignore the simple fact that all those guns mean lots of gun deaths.

Hoping to pick your brain...

1st line of questions:
If I gave up my guns, how many lives do you think it would save?
Will my kids be more safe or less safe if I got rid of my guns? (Guns are locked in the house and ammo is stored outside the house btw).

All these years of owning guns! How many deaths have my guns caused?

2nd:
Law is passed to outlaw guns. Myself, as law abiding gets rid of my guns like all other law abiding citizens. Now just the government and criminals have guns. Is that better or worse in your opinion.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 45 by Clownboat]
Clownboat: Hoping to pick your brain...

What sort of tool do you intend to use? If you are very, very smart, you might need a tweezers. If not so smart you might need a dragline.

Clownboat: 1st line of questions:
If I gave up my guns, how many lives do you think it would save?

Like quantum mechanics, psychological and sociological math is statistical. But, if we got rid of all guns, there would be no gun deaths. QED!

Clownboat: Will my kids be more safe or less safe if I got rid of my guns? (Guns are locked in the house and ammo is stored outside the house btw).

See the answer above. I do know that if your ammo storage facility catches fire, the firemen are more likely to be at risk. My grandfather had a .32 cal revolver, which he kept in a "secret" compartment in his desk. I found it when I was five years old. Where do you hide your keys?

Clownboat: All these years of owning guns! How many deaths have my guns caused?

I haven't the faintest idea. If you got them second hand you probably don't know either.

Clownboat: 2nd:
Law is passed to outlaw guns. Myself, as law abiding gets rid of my guns like all other law abiding citizens. Now just the government and criminals have guns. Is that better or worse in your opinion."(?)

Again, there is no way for me to make head or tail of individual cases without details. I do know that fewer guns will mean fewer gun deaths. But do note, that in your scenario any non-cop caught with a gun is automatically guilty, and can be removed to a secure environment until too old to pull a trigger. And if every gun is tracked from factory to end user it would be far easier to control gun violence by shutting down the supply lines.

[AgnosticBoy]

If I gave up my guns, how many lives do you think it would save?[/i]

Like quantum mechanics, psychological and sociological math is statistical. But, if we got rid of all guns, there would be no gun deaths. QED!

Clownboat didn't ask you about lives taken due to only guns, but rather he asked about lives, in general. Guns aren't the only weapons used to take lives or to severely injure people.

I assume you know that to save a life, would require having a means of preventing or defending against violent crime, and nothing you said covers that. Banning guns completely (if possible, especially for those who obtain them illegally) can reduce gun crime, but it will not reduce violent crime and that's because crime can be committed with weapons other than guns.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 47 by AgnosticBoy]
AgnosticBoy: Clownboat didn't ask you about lives taken due to only guns, but rather he asked about lives, in general. Guns aren't the only weapons used to take lives or to severely injure people.

Of course not, but if you want to kill quickly, one or dozens, guns are the most convenient, and most available.

AgnosticBoy: I assume you know that to save a life, would require having a means of preventing or defending against violent crime, and nothing you said covers that.
Banning guns completely (if possible, especially for those who obtain them illegally) can reduce gun crime, but it will not reduce violent crime and that's because crime can be committed with weapons other than guns.

No one measure is going to prevent all crime, just as no one vaccine will prevent all disease. But banning guns will put an end to most "accidents" and make it easier to trace and eliminate the supply lines. And just as preventing disease is better than curing it, so preventing some deaths by banning guns is better than demanding that all wrongful death must be prevented before any measures are taken.