Senate Gun Control

the problem with the "guns can do good" argument is the vast preponderance of evidence shows that this is almost always not the case. you want to make this an argument about opinions when i was only talking about facts. the only actual, honest pro-gun argument is "i like guns. they are fun to shoot." but understandably no one makes that argument because it looks a bit selfish in the face of the slaughter of thousands. so we get all this other nonsense instead.

 

I have already agreed in the very beginning that we should have mental health and background checks on all guns sold throughout the US. I think that is a solid first step.

 

It's a solid first step yes.

Now hows about something that restricts the kind of nonsense guns you have in America and then does something about removing some of these nonsense weapons.

Couple of options knowing that buy back isn't really an option.

AR-15's (and similar) for example can no longer be traded privately. There is a national register set up and if you have one it's yours for life to pass on to your kids or hand into the police for destruction at some point in the future should you so wish. (Bit draconian but it's an idea)

Have a general amnesty for guns that are currently illegal anyway. Hand it in, no questions asked as to how you ended up with it.

Restrict guns to only be able to hold 5 bullets (or less) there is no need to have a gun that spews bullets out at a high rate of knots.

Get rid of stand your ground as a concept as is stupid, you are not judge, jury and executioner. You do not have a right to kill someone as a result of them stealing your stuff. Likewise if someone is stealing your stuff, just let them have it. Most people are insured and no ones life is worth removing over an iPhone, a watch and some cash in your wallet.

Get rid of concealed carry, If you want to carry a gun, display it proudly. It's almost as if you have something to be ashamed of, if you don't you possibly have a hero complex and can't wait for the idea that you may get to "cap someone's ass" in which case you possibly need to be introduced to the mental health evaluation again.


Background checks and mental health cover will help in the long term but you still absolutely, positively have to do something now.

 

We never, at any point, even suggested that people would not simply start using different tools. So why would we provide evidence for something we don't actually believe? Why would you ask us to provide evidence for a claim we never made?

Yes, people would use other tools to kill themselves. Like knives, ropes, and pills.

But, along with being less effective when used for suicide, those tools are also considerably less effective when used to go on a murder spree. It is considerably more difficult to, say, kill 50 people and wound however many others, using a kitchen knife, a rope, or a bottle of pills.

In case you forgot that guns are not only used to commit suicide, but to kill other people as well.

 

I'm lost for words

 

The claim is made that suicides will go down. I am asking for evidence for that claim. Seems pretty simple.

One only needs to google knife killing spree and a slew of results come up, mostly in China where guns are hard to get if at all. Even the US has a few.

When someone wishes to do bodily harm to a person or a group of people, he/she will find a way. Limiting their choices only buys some time and gives you a false sense of security much how many here have stated that those who cling to guns have a false sense of security.

Let me take this on point by point.

Re: the AR-15 registry: Yes it is an idea. Yes it is draconian. Where does it stop? People will create new guns. The next time one of them is used on a shooting spree is it automatically on the list? Not really a fan of it and would fight against it.

Re: General Amnesty: This is a no brainer. Hell, even pay them for it.

Re: 5 Bullets or less: This would outlaw almost every single firearm currently manufactured. You say "high rate of knots" (I assume you mean speed). It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon in the United States. All of these weapons that are used (with the exception of illegally obtained guns) are a single shot per pull of the trigger. If the gun is being used for home defense the five round limit is simply a non starter. I am not a fan of magazine limits at all however I think a 20 round limit would be okay as almost all hand guns would be able to meet this threshold.

Re: Stand your ground: Sorry, not buying it. Maybe if people actually thought they may die for stealing someone else's things then they wouldn't try to do it. I have zero sympathy for a life lost in the commission of a crime. Zero. Now this could open up a whole different debate about socio-economic conditions and how we need to do better by minorities who commit more of these crimes and the like. I am all for programs to help create a level playing field however this is a non starter.

Re Concealed Carry: I would gladly, and proudly, carry openly. I am 100% for open carry. The thing with concealed carry is that in some situations openly carrying can cause more harm than good. In states where open carry is fully legal it still becomes an issue because people freak out when they see a gun. I would propose that gun familiarization courses be offered at the HS level. Not how to shoot it but what they are, what each type is, and what the local laws are regarding carrying it.

 

If I'm breaking into a house with five mates, sorry, but I'm off after the first shot. I mean, I can't think what terrible thing the person would have to have done that I'm still going after them when they've just shot five other people.

"Haha, shove your restricted number of chambers up your arse, you're mine now! Thank you thank you thank you Obama!"

 

I mean, that is a silly argument to make. At most you will have 1-2 people breaking into your home.

Acknowledging that, in a high stress situation such as that you may not hit your target. Hell, police don't hit their target all the time and they have training. Limiting the rounds makes it more likely that you may run out of rounds and your assailant still has enough fight to do you bodily harm.

 

In most houses, you'd probably be able to get off 2-3 well aimed shots before they were on you anyway. Jesus, you make some horrible ****ing arguments.

 

See I look at open carry the same way I look at smoking. People these days freak out at others who smoke in their presence, if peer pressure can have an impact on reducing smoking then maybe just maybe it may work for guns.
The other way I look at this is.
If you're concerned about being mugged but you openly carry your gun that is a open and immediate deterrant. If your gun is concealed you have no chance of using it if someone walks right up to you an presses their gun into some part of you body.

Likewise if concealed carry becomes illegal then anyone caught in possession of a hidden gun on their person who isn't a policeman etc... is automatically charged with a criminal act no if's or buts.


YOU DO NOT NEED A GUN FOR HOME DEFENCE! unless you have made some monumental enemies or have some stupidly expensive stuff in your duplex this is just not necessary. If you get robbed it will happen when you're out.

No one deserves to be killed for stealing stuff. I have no sympathy with them getting a kicking but no one, absolutely no one has the right to be executed by anyone for stealing stuff.


Re the AR-15, I'm on about any gun of this type with legislation against all future guns of this type (Type being a generic term that would need defining)

 

That's just logical, I mean, the best form of defence and self-preservation is to ensure you've got a bullet for everyone in the world, just in case.

I'm trying to leave my snark at that. Your country is really messed up, I'm sorry to say, and it doesn't have to be. You can go back to 1999 and Columbine and look at the same rhetoric on both sides of the "debate," but nothing really changes. The goalposts are moved, that's all.

 

Depends on the home layout, if the intruder is armed, etc etc. It is not clear cut as you seem to make it out to be.

I agree with you on practically every point of the concealed carry.

This is an interesting article about stats regarding burglaries. While I agree with you that you are most likely to be victimized when you are not home, if you happen to be home you are much more likely to be victimized. So I disagree, you do need a gun for home defense.

We won't agree on this. I do not think a person should be executed for stealing stuff however if the person wants what I have, and wants to run away with it even after I have already threatened him with bodily harm. Too bad for him/her. They were warned.

We also won't agree on this. The AR-15 is a perfectly acceptable hunting rifle. It is a semi-automatic firearm.

And that mentality is part of the problem.

 

that evidence was provided, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

So, if gun suicide attempts are 85% successful, then if 23,529 people attempted suicide with guns, then you'd get 20,000 gun suicides annually.

If guns were not available, the worst-case scenario would be that 100% of those 23,529 people switched to the next most successful suicide method, suffocation, with a 69% success rate. That would save 3,700 lives annually. That's a larger number than the number of people who would be killed over the next 12 months in mass shooting domestic terror events. I hope.

In one year, you'd save more lives than were lost in the 9/11 attacks. And you'd save that number every year, unless someone created a better suicide tool than a gun.

 

This is very unfair on your part, and I'm sure you know it. More dishonest participation from you.

It's impossible to provide evidence, because the scenario in question has not been put into practice.

To provide evidence, we'd first have to "get our way" here, and then see how it turns out.

But, we do know (evidence was posted by Sepra), that the availability of guns makes successful suicide more likely. You've even said yourself, "some lives will be saved".

So, it stands to reason, that without guns, successful suicides will go down.

Oh, I was well aware that knife killing sprees existed. But, again, that was not the point. No one has argued that people are capable of finding a way to kill, it is the effectiveness of certain ways that is in dispute here. That's certainly relevant, don't you think?

I know I'm wasting my time with someone who is participating dishonestly, but...

In general, when it comes to suicide, murder, and mass murder, guns make people far more successful/lethal, do they not?

In general, a person with a gun has far more potential lethality than a person with a knife, no?

Do you agree?

Simple question. Yes, or no?

 

Whenever I break into houses, I do so with at least six friends, and I always make them go in first.

 

The US has had 35 "notable" mass shootings since Columbine in 1999, gun control laws remain pretty much the same, and yet it's always a shock when a bunch of poor souls are murdered. How does that not bother people? I don't even live in the US, and it's a soul-crushing statistic.

 

Not every point someone makes that is against what you think is dishonest participation and I take offense to the notion that I am participating dishonestly. I am providing my stance and asking what I believe to be reasonable questions. You want to call it dishonest just because you don't like it, that is your business and it is a straw man argument on your part.

Your question is also a trapping question with no real reason to ask it.

Of course a person with a gun has far more potential for lethality. Anyone who would say otherwise is delusional.

Your next step in the argument is to say that because they are more lethal they should be outlawed and that is where we will have our disconnect.

 

Link from department of Justice not a blog spot http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

Highlights from the link

An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.

*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when
a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was
present and violence occurred.

*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home
faced an offender armed with a firearm.

*Households residing in single family units and higher density
structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be
burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member
was present.

*Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for
36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home
and experienced violence during a completed burglary.




So picking up on your BlogSpot. The one thing that lept out at me was the claim that

•The percentage of rapes that occur because of a home invasion incident: 60%.


Scary numbers but the DOJ states its 3% or less.
hmmmmm, me thinks the BlogSpot may have an agenda

 

You'd think, with the supposed profession, human life would actually hold value.

 

It's pretty easy to monitor reported crime in my neighborhood. Because it's reported. And I read the reports. Mostly, people who steal stuff from houses in my neighborhood try to steal stuff when no one around to watch. They steal from unlocked or poorly locked garages. They watch houses and test to see whether they're empty of people before trying to steal stuff from them.

Last week, a group of men in a van checked to see whether a house a block from me was empty, and then kicked in the back door when they decided that no one was home. Unfortunately, they were mistaken. Someone was home. The daughter of my neighbor was in her room. The burglars had rung the doorbell just to see if anyone would answer but the teenage daughter COULD NOT BE BOTHERED TO ANSWER THE DOOR. I put that in all caps, because I am the former parent of a teenager and a soon to be parent of another teenager, AND THIS IS SO LIKE A TEENAGER.

My neighbor's daughter quickly figured out that there were people in the house. I'm not sure what she would have done if she'd had a gun, but since she did not have a gun, she did something extraordinary: she hid in her room until the burglars left. And once they left with a whole bunch of stuff, including tvs, a desktop computer and some jewelry, she called her parents and the police.

Nobody was hurt.

Anyway, just a story, but I really wanted to tell it.

 

Human life is precious and valuable.

That being said I have a right to my life and my property. If you wish to take my property, property that was earned with my blood, sweat, and tears. Property that you have no idea how hard it was for me to obtain or replace. You may very well meet your maker (if I lived in a less restrictive state where I could carry).

If you try to break into my house if my German Shepherd (To add some Star Wars to this conversation he is aptly named Vader) will likely harm you or end your life. If you try to do something to me or my family in my house and the dog can't stop you for some reason, you will likely meet your maker.

So yes, the mentality that we should have sympathy for criminals who steal from others and get harmed in doing it is ludicrous. **** them.

 

It's a nice story, Ken.