Gun Control

[Nacho45]

While I thoroughly enjoy the poorly chosen debating points being used, there is a simple fact often overlooked. Criminals do not follow the law. That is why we call them criminals. If they did, there would be no crime. So, regardless of what restrictions we put in play, criminals will ignore them and those who do follow the law will be less prepared to protect themselves or anyone else. This is pretty much the bottom line of the argument.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

A cogent quote from Frederick Douglass, the famous 19th century abolitionist would be very appropriate here:
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box.”

I’ll reiterate what I said before: everyone has the inalienable right to life. The Church is quite specific about that. But that’s no good without the corollary right to defend that life. And the right to defend the lives of the defenseless old, young and unborn.

Also must have a conversation about the way we treat the young male mentally ill in this country: it is a real scandal. Every mass shooter has been found to be on psychotropic drugs: this is a connection that has yet to be fully explored and discussed in the public arena. The problem however is that it doesn’t dovetail with the anti-gun control agenda to have this discussion, they would rather see a few more rage monsters let loose if it will get them another few inches of gun control laws passed. Check out my detailed post on this a few pages back. One poster replied that he thought what I cited was inconclusive. To which I must ask, would you bet your life on that? I won’t, hence I want to see that discussion move next to gun control.

Finally, as said before, criminals don’t obey the law. By definition. No amount of gun control laws is going to prevent the dedicated criminal from wreaking mayhem on the lives of others. With guns or without them.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

While I thoroughly enjoy the poorly chosen debating points being used, there is a simple fact often overlooked. Criminals do not follow the law. That is why we call them criminals. If they did, there would be no crime. So, regardless of what restrictions we put in play, criminals will ignore them and those who do follow the law will be less prepared to protect themselves or anyone else. This is pretty much the bottom line of the argument.

The laws and restrictions on firearms have no significant impact on criminal behavior? Remind me again what the crime rate for crimes involving automatic firearms is; and how this compares (both currently and as a historical trend) with the overall crime rate and crime rate involving non-automatic firearms.

 

[Nacho45]

The laws and restrictions on firearms have no significant impact on criminal behavior? Remind me again what the crime rate for crimes involving automatic firearms is; and how this compares (both currently and as a historical trend) with the overall crime rate and crime rate involving non-automatic firearms.

If you want, I will be happy to point you in the right direction but I think you will be surprised when you learn most gun violence is by handgun, through gang violence, usually contained within specific races (as in they kill themselves), though not always. Not much is said about this because it rather destroys the entire “assault rifle” propaganda. Also, considering almost half of all homes have a gun, I’d say the violence is pretty low. Places which have the strictest gun laws have the most gun violence…strange? Not really.

But I tend not to run down rabbit holes, which appears to be the direction you are going with your focus on a specific style of gun glazing over the fact criminals do not follow the law.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If you want, I will be happy to point you in the right direction but I think you will be surprised when you learn most gun violence is by handgun, through gang violence, usually contained within specific races (as in they kill themselves), though not always. Not much is said about this because it rather destroys the entire “assault rifle” propaganda. Also, considering almost half of all homes have a gun, I’d say the violence is pretty low. Places which have the strictest gun laws have the most gun violence…strange? Not really.

But I tend not to run down rabbit holes, which appears to be the direction you are going with your focus on a specific style of gun glazing over the fact criminals do not follow the law.

-No, I’m not surprised that handguns account for most gun crimes. It’s only logical that easily concealed, easily obtained, and easy to transport firearms would be used in most gun crimes.

-As for handguns themselves, I’d be far more supportive on a general ban on them due to their disproportionate risk to public safety, little value for legit civilian use, and little to no value as a military weapon than the silly restrictions/bans people are trying to put forth on rifles or the size of an external magazine.

-The strictest gun laws not working only really makes sense if we assume that such places operate in a vacuum. One would think that dry counties don’t have a major issue with alcohol or drunk driving since you can’t buy alcohol in them. Yet said counties do have issues with alcohol because while you can’t buy alcohol in them, you can drive to the county line and buy alcohol from the liquor store that for some odd reason just happens to have been built just inside the wet county. Strict guns laws really only work if the are consistent across the board (Chicago’s laws, for example, being the national norm), uniformly enforced, and enforced with particular care at the borders.

-Yes, feel free to point me in the right direction concerning the criminal usage of the heavily regulated automatic firearms in comparison to the much less regulated usage of semi-automatic firearms and how this comparison supports your argument that laws and regulations really don’t have any impact on criminal behavior.

 

[Hobbes42]

-No, I’m not surprised that handguns account for most gun crimes. It’s only logical that easily concealed, easily obtained, and easy to transport firearms would be used in most gun crimes.

-As for handguns themselves, I’d be far more supportive on a general ban on them due to their disproportionate risk to public safety, little value for legit civilian use, and little to no value as a military weapon than the silly restrictions/bans people are trying to put forth on rifles or the size of an external magazine.

-The strictest gun laws not working only really makes sense if we assume that such places operate in a vacuum. One would think that dry counties don’t have a major issue with alcohol or drunk driving since you can’t buy alcohol in them. Yet said counties do have issues with alcohol because while you can’t buy alcohol in them, you can drive to the county line and buy alcohol from the liquor store that for some odd reason just happens to have been built just inside the wet county. Strict guns laws really only work if the are consistent across the board (Chicago’s laws, for example, being the national norm), uniformly enforced, and enforced with particular care at the borders.

-Yes, feel free to point me in the right direction concerning the criminal usage of the heavily regulated automatic firearms in comparison to the much less regulated usage of semi-automatic firearms and how this comparison supports your argument that laws and regulations really don’t have any impact on criminal behavior.

See handgun regulations in Great Britain, and incidence of crime involving those items.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

A cogent quote from Frederick Douglass, the famous 19th century abolitionist would be very appropriate here:
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box.”

I’ll reiterate what I said before: everyone has the inalienable right to life. The Church is quite specific about that. But that’s no good without the corollary right to defend that life. And the right to defend the lives of the defenseless old, young and unborn.

Also must have a conversation about the way we treat the young male mentally ill in this country: it is a real scandal. Every mass shooter has been found to be on psychotropic drugs: this is a connection that has yet to be fully explored and discussed in the public arena. The problem however is that it doesn’t dovetail with the anti-gun control agenda to have this discussion, they would rather see a few more rage monsters let loose if it will get them another few inches of gun control laws passed. Check out my detailed post on this a few pages back. One poster replied that he thought what I cited was inconclusive. To which I must ask, would you bet your life on that? I won’t, hence I want to see that discussion move next to gun control.

Finally, as said before, criminals don’t obey the law. By definition. No amount of gun control laws is going to prevent the dedicated criminal from wreaking mayhem on the lives of others. With guns or without them.

-No amount of drug regulations/laws will stop an addict from doing drugs so we shouldn’t have drug regulations/laws.

-A woman who wants to get an abortion will go to an illegal abortion clinic so outlawing/restricting abortion is just a waste of time.

-People speed all the time, no need to have speed limits or speed traps.

-Sexual abuse and assault are illegal yet they still happen, therefore having laws against them is another waste of time.

Can I assume you agree with the above?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

-No amount of drug regulations/laws will stop an addict from doing drugs so we shouldn’t have drug regulations/laws.

-A woman who wants to get an abortion will go to an illegal abortion clinic so outlawing/restricting abortion is just a waste of time.

-People speed all the time, no need to have speed limits or speed traps.

-Sexual abuse and assault are illegal yet they still happen, therefore having laws against them is another waste of time.

Can I assume you agree with the above?

No, because there is no element of good in any of your examples.

There is a good side to firearms: Freedom and Self Defense.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No, because there is no element of good in any of your examples.

There is a good side to firearms: Freedom and Self Defense.

“Finally, as said before, criminals don’t obey the law. By definition. No amount of gun control laws is going to prevent the dedicated criminal from wreaking mayhem on the lives of others. With guns or without them.”

Where exactly is the poster I responded to talking about the good side to firearms? Or are you arguing that since there is a good side to firearms we can’t have any regulations or laws aimed at limiting their “bad side?”

 

[Lost_Sheep]

“Finally, as said before, criminals don’t obey the law. By definition. No amount of gun control laws is going to prevent the dedicated criminal from wreaking mayhem on the lives of others. With guns or without them.”

Where exactly is the poster I responded to talking about the good side to firearms? Or are you arguing that since there is a good side to firearms we can’t have any regulations or laws aimed at limiting their “bad side?”

I’m saying that your examples are not a good comparison to gun laws.

 

[InigoMontoya]

-As for handguns themselves, I’d be far more supportive on a general ban on them due to their disproportionate risk to public safety, little value for legit civilian use, and little to no value as a military weapon than the silly restrictions/bans people are trying to put forth on rifles or the size of an external magazine.

-The strictest gun laws not working only really makes sense if we assume that such places operate in a vacuum. One would think that dry counties don’t have a major issue with alcohol or drunk driving since you can’t buy alcohol in them. Yet said counties do have issues with alcohol because while you can’t buy alcohol in them, you can drive to the county line and buy alcohol from the liquor store that for some odd reason just happens to have been built just inside the wet county. Strict guns laws really only work if the are consistent across the board (Chicago’s laws, for example, being the national norm), uniformly enforced, and enforced with particular care at the borders.

-Yes, feel free to point me in the right direction concerning the criminal usage of the heavily regulated automatic firearms in comparison to the much less regulated usage of semi-automatic firearms and how this comparison supports your argument that laws and regulations really don’t have any impact on criminal behavior.

You’ve brought about excellent points on how regulations work with automatic weapons.
You’ve brought about excellent points on how regulations, to an extent, require a vacuum.

I’m absolutely baffled though with how you see little value for civilian use. Self defense? Home defense? Especially in light of the points you mentioned.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You’ve brought about excellent points on how regulations work with automatic weapons.
You’ve brought about excellent points on how regulations, to an extent, require a vacuum.

I’m absolutely baffled though with how you see little value for civilian use. Self defense? Home defense? Especially in light of the points you mentioned.

-For Home defense I’m of the opinion that a shotgun is far superior to a handgun. Easier to use and maintain, lower necessary skill factor to use accurately, larger intimidation factor, easier to maintain positive control on, etc.

-I completely forgot about self defense away from the house (living in a small town leads one to be more worried about people breaking into one’s house than about being mugged or attacked on the street). Given that we don’t all live in small towns I’d have to conclude that my opinion of “little value for legit civilian use” is incorrect. I’d still love to see handguns banned, but we’d have to address the need for armed self defense away from the home first or have society become comfortable with people walking around with shotguns (neither of which is something I see happening in my lifetime).

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m saying that your examples are not a good comparison to gun laws.

Actually what you stated was “No, because there is no element of good in any of your examples.” and then provide two examples of the good firearms (rather odd that while “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” they do apparently bring freedom and security). Perhaps you could actually explain why you think they aren’t a good comparison? Would you also explain how you came to the conclusion that there isn’t an element of good in medications (aka drugs)? Thanks.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

See handgun regulations in Great Britain, and incidence of crime involving those items.

Could you provide me with a link (I’m assuming you know of one)? I’ve tried finding something useful, but I either end up on the British version of “all guns are evil” sites or the British version of “we need to issue automatic weapons to babies” sites.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Actually what you stated was “No, because there is no element of good in any of your examples.” and then provide two examples of the good firearms (rather odd that while “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” they do apparently bring freedom and security). Perhaps you could actually explain why you think they aren’t a good comparison? Would you also explain how you came to the conclusion that there isn’t an element of good in medications (aka drugs)? Thanks.

Is there any such thing as a “good” abortion?

Is there any such thing as a “good” speeder?

Is there any such thing as a “good” rape?

Is there any such thing as “good” sexual abuse?

 

[vz71]

Um, no I’ve never claimed that. I countered your comments concerning there being no psychological impact in using a firearm to kill versus any other weapon or tool to kill. Perhaps you should reread what I’ve actually wrote instead assuming what I am claiming.

I’ll concede that apparently I haven’t any idea where you are arguing from anymore.

I thought my position was clear a few posts back, and also had made clear what I believed was being stated.

Apparently not.

 

[epan]

I’m saying that your examples are not a good comparison to gun laws.

Well, when you ponder gun control laws, please keep the following in mind. The Constitutional protection of the right to bear arms refers to the right of the citizens to raise a militia when necessary to overthrow the Federal Government. That is the entire point of the constitutional protection.

The question of controlling criminal behavior is another matter, which should not be allowed to infringe on the rights of the large majority of law abiding citizens.

It is natural for the Federal Government to want to reframe the issue as a law and order issue. But it is not one. It is an issue of the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms against the government when it becomes intolerable.

This fact seems to get lost in this discussion.

So, to take this one step further. What sort of weapon do you think a citizen should be allowed to own, if the purpose is to overthrow the US government when required? When viewed in that light, it is unlikely that any restrictions would be constitutional, if one looks at the original intent.

 

[GEddie]

Well, when you ponder gun control laws, please keep the following in mind. The Constitutional protection of the right to bear arms refers to the right of the citizens to raise a militia when necessary to overthrow the Federal Government. That is the entire point of the constitutional protection.

The question of controlling criminal behavior is another matter, which should not be allowed to infringe on the rights of the large majority of law abiding citizens.

It is natural for the Federal Government to want to reframe the issue as a law and order issue. But it is not one. It is an issue of the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms against the government when it becomes intolerable.

This fact seems to get lost in this discussion.

So, to take this one step further. What sort of weapon do you think a citizen should be allowed to own, if the purpose is to overthrow the US government when required? When viewed in that light, it is unlikely that any restrictions would be constitutional, if one looks at the original intent.

If that really is your benchmark, you’d be SOL (sorry, out of luck) unless you have a tank dealer nearby.

In the vanishingly unlikely event that the USA were to go into tyranny, it already has tanks and the resisters would have to face them.

Since the country would almost certainly not survive such a conflict in its current form, it would be better just to put up with it than to try resistance. IMNAAHO.

 

[Nacho45]

If that really is your benchmark, you’d be SOL (sorry, out of luck) unless you have a tank dealer nearby.

In the vanishingly unlikely event that the USA were to go into tyranny, it already has tanks and the resisters would have to face them.

Since the country would almost certainly not survive such a conflict in its current form, it would be better just to put up with it than to try resistance. IMNAAHO.

Finland, Soviet Union, Winter War. History shows us it is very possible to not only stand against overwhelming forces, but also to hold them at bay and win. Human history is literally peppered with similar stories.

If American citizens ever are in the position they must protect themselves from their own government, you can bet the government will not win. Imagine how many people are on active duty right now. Then imagine 30 years’ worth of former military members. Add to the former members many of the active duty who would protect America’s citizens rather than slaughter them. Mix in the majority of the reserves (to include National Guard) would also stand by America’s citizens (since that is who they are) and the overwhelming experience of those who are no longer on active duty…no matter what the government could throw at its people, the people would win. This country is not designed for tyranny and if it attempted, it would be overthrown within weeks, if that long.

Now, while I agree with epan’s post, I do not agree it is the only reason we are allowed to keep and bear arms, but it is the most important.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

14 year old Girl shot Dead by step father , the Girl was thought to have been a burglar .
This shooting occurred in Colorado… Was the shooter of stable mind?
Was the Shooter a trigger happy believer in his right to bear arms ?
Well there is another innocent life cut short because of stupidity…