Gun ownership
-
As I see it responsible gun owners, sellers, government and manufacturers are at the heart of the problems with guns. It's certainly easy enough for the government to pass a law, or an amendment in this country, to ban guns and remove them from the population, however it takes away one more thing that someone can do. It may be small and dumb to some, but for others it's important and that isn't what matters. In my opinion it means people aren't responsible enough to have them. That's a sad and pathetic thing to me. What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
wolfbinary wrote:
What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
The government has been doing this for ages. In fact, ALL governments have done this. My college history prof had a simple system for seeing what the common man was doing. "Check the laws of the state and church. When they pass a law, 9 out of 10 times it is because everyone is doing something that pisses them off. The church stated 'It is unchristian to shoot a fellow christian with a bow.' which translates to 'Quit effing shooting our knights off their horse with your damn bows!' Laws rarely get passed saying 'Oh yes, that's awesome, it is okay.' It is pretty much always to stop someone from doign something that they hadn't thought to restrict yet." FDA is there to restrict stuff because given the chance, companies would sell stuff that could kill you and not tell you and happily take your money. The flip side is that they all watched a horrible propaganda movie called "Reefer Madness" and thought it was real even after the disclaimer at the beginning. FCC is there to make sure people aren't broadcasting in bands that would cause issues and to regulate some of the content on TV. Given a chance to sell more ad dollars most networks would gladly step well over the line of decency for what a kid has access to. The flip side is they step in when small groups of fanatics decide they don't like something and do a petition bombing. (guy on guy kissing was protested at an awards show but no one blinked when guy-girl kissing was done, wardrobe malfunction...) Responsible gun owners are a good thing. Unfortuneatly they are becoming more and more the minority of gun owners.
-
It's a tricky nut this one. On the one hand, you have those who have guns either because they want to be able to protect themselves or it's required in their day to day lives (law enforcement, farmers, etc.) with Law enforcement, the reason they'd carry them is because they're facing guns already so theoretically a ban on them would mean less of them to face and you'd only have to carry less lethal weaponary. On the other hand you have the people who really really aren't responsible enough to be carrying a weapon either because it's more of a confidence item or because they're just unhinged to begin with. From what I recall, firearms licences would not be able to take these into account. I myself, am pro-gun control law. I belonged to a rifle club here because I enjoyed target practise and it really helped with hand eye coordination and focusing. Weapons were kept in a secure safe with regular inspections from local constabulary. I consider this one end of the scale. On the other end you have people who go hunting with assault rifles. It's completely their Right to do so too and I wouldn't dispute that it isn't because that's how things are right now. The question would be how responsible they are with them and would *you* be happy knowing such a powerful weapon were in their hands? I dislike Nanny State politics as much as the next man but really there's no real way to gauge responsibility in a legal definition so really the only way to check it would be monitoring of every gun owner, which is completely unfeasible. So in constant monitoring versus banning of guns, the ban would be one that could be implemented easier. I'm open to definitions on how to determine responsiblity ahead of giving someone a license but I don't see it happening sadly and yes, agreed, some minority will usually spoil it for everyone else.
JHizzle wrote:
It's a tricky nut this one.
I would agree, and this discussion about it usually goes something like "rabble rabble rabble, constitution" or "rabble rabble rabble dead kids" neither of which is of much help in creating a solution or addressing societal issues. Don't get me wrong I understand the likely hood of this.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
The government has been doing this for ages. In fact, ALL governments have done this. My college history prof had a simple system for seeing what the common man was doing. "Check the laws of the state and church. When they pass a law, 9 out of 10 times it is because everyone is doing something that pisses them off. The church stated 'It is unchristian to shoot a fellow christian with a bow.' which translates to 'Quit effing shooting our knights off their horse with your damn bows!' Laws rarely get passed saying 'Oh yes, that's awesome, it is okay.' It is pretty much always to stop someone from doign something that they hadn't thought to restrict yet." FDA is there to restrict stuff because given the chance, companies would sell stuff that could kill you and not tell you and happily take your money. The flip side is that they all watched a horrible propaganda movie called "Reefer Madness" and thought it was real even after the disclaimer at the beginning. FCC is there to make sure people aren't broadcasting in bands that would cause issues and to regulate some of the content on TV. Given a chance to sell more ad dollars most networks would gladly step well over the line of decency for what a kid has access to. The flip side is they step in when small groups of fanatics decide they don't like something and do a petition bombing. (guy on guy kissing was protested at an awards show but no one blinked when guy-girl kissing was done, wardrobe malfunction...) Responsible gun owners are a good thing. Unfortuneatly they are becoming more and more the minority of gun owners.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The government has been doing this for ages. In fact, ALL governments have done this.
That doesn't mean it's right. Most people just go down the path of least resistance. Holding leaders accountable isn't either.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
FDA is there to restrict stuff because given the chance, companies would sell stuff that could kill you and not tell you and happily take your money. The flip side is that they all watched a horrible propaganda movie called "Reefer Madness" and thought it was real even after the disclaimer at the beginning.
Companies aren't people. The people in them however should be held responsible. People tend to step on others in whatever means necessary to get money, no surprise here.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
FCC is there to make sure people aren't broadcasting in bands that would cause issues and to regulate some of the content on TV. Given a chance to sell more ad dollars most networks would gladly step well over the line of decency for what a kid has access to. The flip side is they step in when small groups of fanatics decide they don't like something and do a petition bombing. (guy on guy kissing was protested at an awards show but no one blinked when guy-girl kissing was done, wardrobe malfunction...)
Parents and the public can decide whether or not they watch TV, listen to radio, etc. However I do understand that government has a role to play, but companies don't have morality, ethics, etc since they're not people. The only goal a company has it to make money.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Responsible gun owners are a good thing. Unfortuneatly they are becoming more and more the minority of gun owners.
Very true. Guns are very dangerous and some people treat them like harmless furniture.
-
As I see it responsible gun owners, sellers, government and manufacturers are at the heart of the problems with guns. It's certainly easy enough for the government to pass a law, or an amendment in this country, to ban guns and remove them from the population, however it takes away one more thing that someone can do. It may be small and dumb to some, but for others it's important and that isn't what matters. In my opinion it means people aren't responsible enough to have them. That's a sad and pathetic thing to me. What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
-
As I see it responsible gun owners, sellers, government and manufacturers are at the heart of the problems with guns. It's certainly easy enough for the government to pass a law, or an amendment in this country, to ban guns and remove them from the population, however it takes away one more thing that someone can do. It may be small and dumb to some, but for others it's important and that isn't what matters. In my opinion it means people aren't responsible enough to have them. That's a sad and pathetic thing to me. What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
There are really two sides to the gun control issue in the US... Before I start, let me make it clear that I'm not siding with CSS. He's against gun control, but he also doesn't understand the issues, or even know what the hell he's talking about. The "Right to Bear Arms" (Second Amendment): "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " There are actually a couple different ways of looking at this infamous amendment. The anti-gun people generally interpret this as giving the people the right to form an organized militia (The wording is unclear). The pro-gun people think that it entitles every citizen to own a firearm. The purpose of the amendment is the key. When you look at the context, the Bill of Rights (Of which this is one component, for you non-USians), was basically a list of things that the Brits did that pissed off the founding fathers, and a few ideas on how to make sure that never happened again. They saw that an uncontrolled government was likely to become corrupt, so built in some safeguards against it. If you look at from that viewpoint, they might have been saying that the people should be armed, to protect themselves in case the government becomes the enemy. If you look at it the other way, it just says that the people should be armed to protect themselves from an invading army (Provide for the "security of a free State"). So if you see it as a safeguard on government, gun ownership is really a necessity. If 1984 became a reality (More than it already is), widespread gun ownership would be our protection against Big Brother. If you see it in the context of national defense, it's pretty much obsolete with the advent of a professional army. Now, as for safety and crime statistics... I think everyone's missing a key issue here. Why should the rule be the same everywhere? If you're in the middle of a rural area, with miles between you and your nearest neighbor, you may very well have to defend yourself against either natural predators (Animals) or criminals. I'm not saying people should be stocking their own personal armories with shelves upon shelves of military-class assault rifles, but it may make sense to own a pistol, a shotgun, or a non-automatic rifle. If you're living in the middle of a densely-populated city, the situation changes. There are dozens or hundreds of people within earshot at any given time, and there's enough of a police prese
-
There are really two sides to the gun control issue in the US... Before I start, let me make it clear that I'm not siding with CSS. He's against gun control, but he also doesn't understand the issues, or even know what the hell he's talking about. The "Right to Bear Arms" (Second Amendment): "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " There are actually a couple different ways of looking at this infamous amendment. The anti-gun people generally interpret this as giving the people the right to form an organized militia (The wording is unclear). The pro-gun people think that it entitles every citizen to own a firearm. The purpose of the amendment is the key. When you look at the context, the Bill of Rights (Of which this is one component, for you non-USians), was basically a list of things that the Brits did that pissed off the founding fathers, and a few ideas on how to make sure that never happened again. They saw that an uncontrolled government was likely to become corrupt, so built in some safeguards against it. If you look at from that viewpoint, they might have been saying that the people should be armed, to protect themselves in case the government becomes the enemy. If you look at it the other way, it just says that the people should be armed to protect themselves from an invading army (Provide for the "security of a free State"). So if you see it as a safeguard on government, gun ownership is really a necessity. If 1984 became a reality (More than it already is), widespread gun ownership would be our protection against Big Brother. If you see it in the context of national defense, it's pretty much obsolete with the advent of a professional army. Now, as for safety and crime statistics... I think everyone's missing a key issue here. Why should the rule be the same everywhere? If you're in the middle of a rural area, with miles between you and your nearest neighbor, you may very well have to defend yourself against either natural predators (Animals) or criminals. I'm not saying people should be stocking their own personal armories with shelves upon shelves of military-class assault rifles, but it may make sense to own a pistol, a shotgun, or a non-automatic rifle. If you're living in the middle of a densely-populated city, the situation changes. There are dozens or hundreds of people within earshot at any given time, and there's enough of a police prese
About your densely-populated city situation, I quote;
Ian Shlasko wrote:
there's enough of a police presence to protect you most of the time.
You arm yourself for those times that don't fall under your 'most' category. I don't know, I think proportionally there is more crime in an overcrowded area then in a sparsely populated area where you find more cause for gun ownership.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
-
About your densely-populated city situation, I quote;
Ian Shlasko wrote:
there's enough of a police presence to protect you most of the time.
You arm yourself for those times that don't fall under your 'most' category. I don't know, I think proportionally there is more crime in an overcrowded area then in a sparsely populated area where you find more cause for gun ownership.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
EliottA wrote:
You arm yourself for those times that don't fall under your 'most' category.
Fair enough. I'm not saying owning a gun would be useless, but I don't think that, in this type of environment, the benefits outweigh the increased risks.
EliottA wrote:
I don't know, I think proportionally there is more crime in an overcrowded area then in a sparsely populated area where you find more cause for gun ownership.
That's the point. There's a lot more crime in an overcrowded area, but you have to distinguish between the levels of violence in those crimes. Would gun ownership reduce the frequency of minor crimes? Probably. But those crimes that do occur would be more likely to escalate, and result in more serious injuries or deaths. The question you have to ask... If petty crime goes up, but violent crime goes down, isn't that an improvement? Sure, it's not a utopia by any stretch, but the mere fact that you're less likely to die on any given day seems like a benefit to me.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The government has been doing this for ages. In fact, ALL governments have done this.
That doesn't mean it's right. Most people just go down the path of least resistance. Holding leaders accountable isn't either.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
FDA is there to restrict stuff because given the chance, companies would sell stuff that could kill you and not tell you and happily take your money. The flip side is that they all watched a horrible propaganda movie called "Reefer Madness" and thought it was real even after the disclaimer at the beginning.
Companies aren't people. The people in them however should be held responsible. People tend to step on others in whatever means necessary to get money, no surprise here.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
FCC is there to make sure people aren't broadcasting in bands that would cause issues and to regulate some of the content on TV. Given a chance to sell more ad dollars most networks would gladly step well over the line of decency for what a kid has access to. The flip side is they step in when small groups of fanatics decide they don't like something and do a petition bombing. (guy on guy kissing was protested at an awards show but no one blinked when guy-girl kissing was done, wardrobe malfunction...)
Parents and the public can decide whether or not they watch TV, listen to radio, etc. However I do understand that government has a role to play, but companies don't have morality, ethics, etc since they're not people. The only goal a company has it to make money.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Responsible gun owners are a good thing. Unfortuneatly they are becoming more and more the minority of gun owners.
Very true. Guns are very dangerous and some people treat them like harmless furniture.
wolfbinary wrote:
Companies aren't people. The people in them however should be held responsible. People tend to step on others in whatever means necessary to get money, no surprise here.
Yep, and now apply that to guns. Oh hey, people should be held accountable and they use whatever means to get money, including guns. Letting the common man have access to military grade hardware scares me as a former soldier. I know what those things could do, and there is NO reason the average Joe needs something that is capable of crippling someone in body armor.
wolfbinary wrote:
Parents and the public can decide whether or not they watch TV, listen to radio, etc. However I do understand that government has a role to play, but companies don't have morality, ethics, etc since they're not people. The only goal a company has it to make money.
Again, the government has to step in to stop someone with power from being a jerk. And look at how many people with "morality" display an amazing lack of it when armed and on a mission. Give a bible thumper an AK-47 and an abortion clinic and you have a recipe for disaster. I want sensible gun control. Seriously, hunting rifles don't need to be automatic. Handguns are more dangerous to your kids than to criminals on your property and they are far too portable/concealable. They really need to be tracked better. I don't want GPS, etc.. But knowing where these guns are going when sold would be nice. People that would not qualify for a gun through normal channels should not be able to skirt the channels without the person selling them the firearm getting in trouble.
-
EliottA wrote:
You arm yourself for those times that don't fall under your 'most' category.
Fair enough. I'm not saying owning a gun would be useless, but I don't think that, in this type of environment, the benefits outweigh the increased risks.
EliottA wrote:
I don't know, I think proportionally there is more crime in an overcrowded area then in a sparsely populated area where you find more cause for gun ownership.
That's the point. There's a lot more crime in an overcrowded area, but you have to distinguish between the levels of violence in those crimes. Would gun ownership reduce the frequency of minor crimes? Probably. But those crimes that do occur would be more likely to escalate, and result in more serious injuries or deaths. The question you have to ask... If petty crime goes up, but violent crime goes down, isn't that an improvement? Sure, it's not a utopia by any stretch, but the mere fact that you're less likely to die on any given day seems like a benefit to me.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would gun ownership reduce the frequency of minor crimes? Probably. But those crimes that do occur would be more likely to escalate, and result in more serious injuries or deaths.
I would have to agree - initially minor crimes would be reduced, but if the criminals expect the victims to be packing, then they would presumably have to be armed (and ready to shoot first). So yes, minor crimes down - major crimes up!
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would gun ownership reduce the frequency of minor crimes? Probably. But those crimes that do occur would be more likely to escalate, and result in more serious injuries or deaths.
I would have to agree - initially minor crimes would be reduced, but if the criminals expect the victims to be packing, then they would presumably have to be armed (and ready to shoot first). So yes, minor crimes down - major crimes up!
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.
Exactly. The more armed people you have, the less chance the unarmed people have if something bad happens. Responsible gun owners know that taking out that gun is effectively committing to killing someone. So do criminals. The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
-
psst It's an Abrams... And completely bad ass[^]
-
psst It's an Abrams... And completely bad ass[^]
If we sold them to Israel, would they rename them as Abrahams?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
If we sold them to Israel, would they rename them as Abrahams?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
no. They'd call it the Wagon or something... They call theirs Chariot...[^] That tank is nto quite so bad ass, but still scary. (Edit, I was thinking of a different tank that they use to use.)
modified on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM
-
Exactly. The more armed people you have, the less chance the unarmed people have if something bad happens. Responsible gun owners know that taking out that gun is effectively committing to killing someone. So do criminals. The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
So do criminals get worse sentences based on whether or not a gun is used?
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
So do criminals get worse sentences based on whether or not a gun is used?
Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#Aggravated_assault[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I read an article once about a guy who bought a tank fix it up and drove it around in town. I forget what town it was, but he used rubber tracks so he wouldn't chew up the road. Cool article. Obviously the weapons didn't work, but as a vehicle it did.
-
There are really two sides to the gun control issue in the US... Before I start, let me make it clear that I'm not siding with CSS. He's against gun control, but he also doesn't understand the issues, or even know what the hell he's talking about. The "Right to Bear Arms" (Second Amendment): "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " There are actually a couple different ways of looking at this infamous amendment. The anti-gun people generally interpret this as giving the people the right to form an organized militia (The wording is unclear). The pro-gun people think that it entitles every citizen to own a firearm. The purpose of the amendment is the key. When you look at the context, the Bill of Rights (Of which this is one component, for you non-USians), was basically a list of things that the Brits did that pissed off the founding fathers, and a few ideas on how to make sure that never happened again. They saw that an uncontrolled government was likely to become corrupt, so built in some safeguards against it. If you look at from that viewpoint, they might have been saying that the people should be armed, to protect themselves in case the government becomes the enemy. If you look at it the other way, it just says that the people should be armed to protect themselves from an invading army (Provide for the "security of a free State"). So if you see it as a safeguard on government, gun ownership is really a necessity. If 1984 became a reality (More than it already is), widespread gun ownership would be our protection against Big Brother. If you see it in the context of national defense, it's pretty much obsolete with the advent of a professional army. Now, as for safety and crime statistics... I think everyone's missing a key issue here. Why should the rule be the same everywhere? If you're in the middle of a rural area, with miles between you and your nearest neighbor, you may very well have to defend yourself against either natural predators (Animals) or criminals. I'm not saying people should be stocking their own personal armories with shelves upon shelves of military-class assault rifles, but it may make sense to own a pistol, a shotgun, or a non-automatic rifle. If you're living in the middle of a densely-populated city, the situation changes. There are dozens or hundreds of people within earshot at any given time, and there's enough of a police prese
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh, and equating gun control with racism is just bloody stupid.
You must be talking about CSS here?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh, and equating gun control with racism is just bloody stupid.
You must be talking about CSS here?
Whatever gave you that idea?[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
So do criminals get worse sentences based on whether or not a gun is used?
Yep. But once you commit to doing a crime with a deadly weapon, you are looking at very hard time. And my point was that responsible gun owners WON'T pull a gun for any reason. Idiots will, and criminals will and at that point, pulling the trigger is not that much worse than just pulling out the gun. So you have a group that knows better than to pull the gun, let alone the trigger. A group that doesn't and hasn't thought about having to pull the trigger. And a group that figures they might as well pull the trigger. You know, I don't like my chances in this scenario. 2/3 are dangerous.
-
Exactly. The more armed people you have, the less chance the unarmed people have if something bad happens. Responsible gun owners know that taking out that gun is effectively committing to killing someone. So do criminals. The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
Perfect argument for banning all gun ownership. :thumbsup: Certainly, since (some) of the police in the UK are routinely armed, the incidence of illegal possesion and use of weapons appears to have increased. (This is not based on any research, just on my personal impression from the media. Of course, there is bound to be some major bias in there, since the media sensationalize most things to boost interest!)
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.
