ok people..the smoking Gun...your take on Gun control...

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by darthmomm, Oct 29, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    I agree with JediSmuggler . . . let's hear some sensible argument for taking away my preciousssssses :)

    Oooh, and please don't say that we should take guns away because they kill innocent people. I'd be forced to point out that mop buckets kill innocent people, along with numerous other kinds of buckets, not to mention trash bags and strollers.
    Then you'd be [face_blush] and, well . . . ehhh, who cares. Do whatever you want.

    ;)
  2. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    The only way to make sure that no physchopath legally has a gun or that no more accidental deaths are caused by a legal gun or that no more school shootings happen with legal guns is to take away all the guns. Then, the police would have a much easier job of tracking down who owns illigal guns.
  3. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Well.........

    by that event, as they are showing in britain and australlia........when you take away the guns from those law abiding citizens that registered theirs, the only ones with guns are the criminals.

    That is thing about the Gun Control movement- They are anti-gun, anti-responsible gun owners....and they are almost always pro-criminal, and criminals are the biggest winners in the gun control debate.

    For example...it gets overlooked by the media intentionally, but in the 70's and early 80's, alot of left wing judges came to power, judges who would let gang members out of prison after serving just a few years of a sentence that was not long enough to begin with. These criminals would go back out, commit more crimes...get busted....get released again....commit more crimes.......

    and all the time, the brady campaign woudl be screaming about more gun control laws that target gun owners instead of going after criminals.

    I have NEVER seen the Brady Campaign or other anti-gun organizations campaign against criminals, campaign for harsher sentences for criminals, and such. They always seem to oppose them, because coming down on criminals is what the NRA wants.......
  4. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    KaineDemo:

    There are several problems with that.

    First, you never addressed why I had to pay the price for those who had misused it. This would probably be contested VERY strenuously, and you'd have a LOT of people who will NOT turn them in.

    Second, you have yet to explain how taking away MY guns will address the misuse of guns by the criminals and nutcases. They seem to have no trouble finding ways to get them in England, which passed a broad gun ban.
  5. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    Are you serious? Are you trying to say that crimes carried out with guns in Britain are worse than the crimes with guns in America?? This argument is so clear cut and simple its reciculous. The last school shooting i heard of in Britain was about when i was 7. In America, however, they seem to be happening every couple of years, if not more frequently than that. Care to explain why that is? I'll give you three guesses. You think your guns are more important than the lifes lost each time someone goes wacko with their "precious".
  6. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    The school schootings that occured in America were caused by mentally disturbed, emotionally scarred individuals, who used guns as a tool, a means to an end. It is not the guns fault for the killing, but the person(s) that did so.
    Like it or not, there is a social cost when it comes to having our rights. The 1st amendment argueably has caused the most deaths, because we are able to say whatever it is we care to say(until it infringes on anothers' right), but we still have that right. The KKK exists, despite most people hating it, and they have caused deaths by their own words/beliefs, yet are protected by the 1st amendment...should we get rid of that right too? Controlling what people say would stop hateful words...stop riots...but no, in order for me to have that right, I have to deal with people who abuse them and we have to be vigilant in order to have them.

    Taking guns away from the citizens will only
    hurt the law-abiding kind, not the criminal element. This Utopia that people desire can never come to be, because of those who prey on the weak with weapons, and I have a right to life first and foremost, and that means defending it by any means possible and that goes with any other right I have, which includes owning a gun to protect those rights.

    "He who sacrifices Liberty for Safety deserves neither"-Ben Franklin

    Remember that,
    Ciou-See the Sig
  7. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    I would say that while shootings are down in Britain, robberies and rapes have skyrocketed. Criminals know they don't need to fear their victims anymore. As a result, while fewer people are getting shot and killed, more people are getting robbed and raped, and it is done so with impunity on the minds of the criminals. They know the police can't be everywhere.
  8. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    Actually TripleB, crime in Britain is at its lowest. Are we to belief there are just loads more mentally disturbed people in America than most other countries? In most school shootings, where did the kids get the guns? From their parents, who had thm perfectly legally. How many deaths would it take for you to realise the only way forward is to ban the gun? Violence or show of force is not the answer to everything as most of you seem to think. The right to free speech and the right to own a weapon meant to kill are two different things.
  9. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    KaineDamo:
    Those two rights were put in for different reasons.

    The First Amendment was to make sure nobody could be silenced because they hold an opinion that people in power might not like.

    The Second Amendment was put there for protection of life, limb, and liberty in cases where there ain't another option. The estimates of the number of times guns are used in self-defense exceeds two million per year.

    The reason crime in general is up in the U.K. is because the criminals know that someone who protects himself and his property will get worse treatment from the government than the criminals who broke into the person's home.

    Furthermore, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did ban the gun, and if anything, Germany, the Soviet Union, and China went BACKWARDS, not forwards. You want a utopia, and that ain't going to happen. Human nature never changes. There are still people who think they are so good they can tell others how to live their lives.

    Furthermore, I do not think your position is fair to the law-abiding citizens who choose to own guns. To denigrate us as unconcerned about the misuse of guns is unfair as well. I want the folks who misuse guns put away for a very long time.

    You are throwing out other principles this country was based on. Principles that still matter. Innocent until proven guilty. The right to be secure in my home. The right to protect myself, and to have the best available means to do so.

    The only thing that can CONSISTENTLY give a good person a fighting chance against an armed bad person is a gun. It's the one thing that can give a petite woman a chance against a serial rapist built like an NFL linebacker.

    Or, since I am not willing to "move forward" in your mind, does this mean I not worthy to exercise my rights or that I am less of a person than you are?
  10. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    there was a story in Britain of a house owner who shot dead two teenagers that broke unarmed into his house. He got convicted of murder.And rightly in my opinion. We're not in the Wild West here
  11. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Tukafo:
    I have read articles about this incident as well. Both of the burglars had lengthy records, and had been turned out on society multiple times.

    Furthermore, your attitude is dead wrong on this case. What should a homeowener do? Wait for the burglar to assault or kill a family member?

    I don't have a family yet, but I hope to eventually. I find attitude quite callous, personally. The fact is that I intend to be a sheepdog to protect my family from the "wolves" out there. Sorry if you find that barbaric, but in my opinion, it's a better option than ALLOWING that criminal to harm a member of my family.

    Good grief, that's acting like Neville Chamberlain. "Please don't hurt me," does not work against those sociopaths. The only thing they will understand is when you stand up in self-defense.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people should shoot to protect a wallet or a stereo. But I can't read a burglar's mind. how do I know he is just there for the stereo or TV? What if I make that assumption, and it turns out he is a serial killer, and I just happened to be the wrong person to cross his path? Letting him have his way with me is a LOT more uncivilized than acting as that farmer did.
  12. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    Sorry, Jedi Smuggler, I should have actually said that I agreed that he got convicted, I didn't agree he was convicted for murder (it should have been manslaughter in my eyes).

    Self-defence is one thing. No argument about that. But the law does not give you the right to kill somebody who wanted to steal your TV. That's inappropriate and barbaric.
  13. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Tukafo:
    Again, what am I supposed to do? Wait for the guy to start stabbing or strangling me or a family member?

    I said earlier, the burglar can have the TV or the stereo. But if I were to shout "Stop!", and if he makes a movement that looks like he is going for a gun or some other weapon, or if he gets close to the bedrooms where I am sleeping, then things will change. Then I will take measures, and I intend to survive that encounter.

    Does that make me guilty of manslaughter?
  14. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    I think a court needs to look at cases like what you describe and use common sense whether self-defence can be applied. I remember vaguely a case in the US a couple of years ago where somebody shot a guy 57 times in "self-defence". He got convicted for murder.

    I know it sometimes seems that criminals get a better deal in court than the victims. I don't know if that's true but one of the ground principles of jurisdiction has been "In dubio pro reo" ever since the Romans.
  15. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    My Latin is a little rusty, but I will fall back on one other observation:

    "A man's home is his castle."

    Personally, I think a lot of this does require common sense, but you probably also ought to brush up on self-defense law in the United States. If you can, you ought to look for stuff by a part-time law enforcement officer, full-time self-defense instructor, and part-time writer named Massad Ayoob.

    http://www.ayoob.com

    I'd recommend his books "In the Gravest Extreme" and "The Truth About Self-Protection". They will give you a pretty good idea of what self-defense law is in the States.
  16. Tukafo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    Sorry, "in dubio pro reo" means something like "if in doubt decide in favour of the accused"
  17. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Sounds good to me.

    Sadly, I have the impression when people launch at gunowners in general, that principle of "when in doubt, decide in favor of the accused" often is tossed out the window.

    No offense intended, but I do feel that a lot of the efforts to go after gun owners in this country are grossly unwarranted.
  18. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    And yet, the school shooting thing is still unanswered. *sigh*
  19. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    That is because they can't pull the old defense of saying it was an illegal firearm bought on the black market.

    Those school shootings are PRIME examples of why people don't need guns. Registered firearms taken by kids and used to kill others. Take the guns out of the equation and you have no deaths. Simple as that.

    This also shows why there needs to be mandatory trigger locks on all guns. This is the reason why I dropped my membership of the NRA a year ago. The NRA are stupid not to see that nobody is saying you can't have a gun, but my God you will have a lock on the gun so that when that wacko kid decides to use his parents gun for show and tell or to kill some classmates he may get his hands on it, but he will not be able to fire it.
  20. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    Ah yes, if they didn't have guns blahblahblah. Well these deranged individuals wanted to cause harm, and they would have gotten firearms criminally if they didn't get them from their parents/friends etc. They used the guns as a means to an end, it is the person, not the weapon. It does not matter its design, it is the person who is at fault. I've said before that we have our rights until you prove, I say PROVE, that you cannot have them, so we are going to have to deal with those people that abuse those rights to infringe on others i.e. using a gun to threaten an innocents life though self-defense is something different. Am I justifying their actions, no, what they did was horrible, but the fact of the matter is whether guns are outlawed or not, they would have gotten them or any other kind of weapon because of their intense desire to cause harm on their transgressors, and don't get me started on parental responsibility which everybody seems to be shirking. Ignoring the problem, making quick judgements won't solve anything, but unfortuneatly that is what happened to these kids and it is these same people that think outlawing guns will solve our problems.
    Heh, and to those thinking what I said is an excuse, no, it is only probability. Who knows, maybe they could have built a bomb to blow apart the school, or maybe poisoned the food or any number of things, but again their anger was such that they would have gotten them illegally if need be.

    I've discussed, and you probably read, NRA's stance on gun-locks haven't you? They talk about their position pretty thoroughly and accurately. The way you paint their decision as stupidity does nothing for your arguement and is insulting. They know it doesn't "take away their guns", but they explain their position, and again, it is not in the way you would wish others to believe their position to be.

    Taking guns away won't solve a damned thing. Instead of fearing it, you should learn gun safety, be taught proper respect for firearms. Mystery begets intrigue, intrigue begets desire. If children are taught to fear it or if they misunderstand it...they will be, will be interested in it and possibly "play" with it instead of handling it safely. The heart of the matter is not firearms, but the people who use them, quick fixes are what people want, like you, thinking it would solve the majority of our problems, when the will not.

    Ciou-See the Sig
  21. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    Well sure it's the person who commits the act, however if the tool wasn't there to do it then we wouldn't have a problem now would we?

    The NRA stance on the trigger locks is very stupid in my opinion and that is why I'm no longer a member. Infact I wasn't the only one who cancelled their membership either. There is NOTHING wrong with a trigger lock. It should be MANDATORY. It is nothing more than a safe guard from someone who has no business handling a gun from using it.

    For some DUMB reason the NRA thinks your rights are being taken away when their not. It's the same thing when it comes to mandatory training classes. Why not make it mandatory that if you want a gun then you will learn how to use it. There is no good in owning a gun if you don't know how to use it. Give me a good reason why the NRA isn't for a mandatory requirement of gun training. I know the NRA is glad to offer classes but it should be a requirement. If you want the gun then you will know that gun backwards and forwards.

    The NRA are pure propaganda idiots, because if they truely cared then they would care about saving lives more then bitching and complaining of very sensible and easy recomendations towards making gun owners more responsible and better trained in firearms.

    So until you can tell me why the NRA are so damn narrow minded on this then they are stupid, and are just asking for trouble when they do the things they do.

  22. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    Then we would have to get rid of ALL tools, and that would never come to pass due to their effectiveness.

    No, their reasoning is far from dumb. There is a concept of incrementalization and it has happened in England and Australia, and probably Canada soon enough. The government has and can, little by little, legislate something until it is gone. So you have to work hard and struggle to lessen the effects of it, but people see this as "crazy", "stupid" or "non-sensical" because they do not see the effects in the long run.

    Reason being, if they legislate gun locks, they will try and legislate other safety measures arguing by using presedence i.e. mandatory safety classes->mandatory safety classes every month->tests to determine if you are mentally fit to own a gun->gun registration->gun licensing etc. etc. ad infinitum. You see, it could, and probably would, lead to more government legislation of a right, the 2nd amendment, something that is supposed to prevent the government from controlling not the other way around and in the end it would lead to gun confiscation...all for the "protection" of the masses when it would only hinder than help. It all comes down to control, and letting the government mandate our rights leads to control, simple as that.

    The NRA does not bitch or complain, and if you knew them as you purporte you do, then you would not be so close-minded, but again you aren't helping yourself by your choice of words. You haven't even given anything, proofwise, to support your claims about the NRA, just opinion and stereotype. They are heavily concerned with saving lives, but also of protecting our rights, people do not understand that our rights come at a social cost, as all of them do.

    So until YOU can offer anything to support your claims, which you cannot, until then.

    Ciou-See the Sig

  23. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    Lets see here. I have two options.

    1. Make trigger locks mandatory, and require mandatory training classes.

    Effect it will in all likely hood cut down by 40 or 50% child related deaths with guns, and cut down on other accidents with guns by making a person master a weapon and by having a safeguard.

    2. Go by what you say Moriarte and by some blue miracle with the trigger law in effect that maybe in 100 years guns will be outlawed. Your argument is a WHAT IF??? It's hear say at best. There is no proof that what you say will happen, however I can tell you that having my two measures in place would cut down on accidents and related deaths with firearms.

    Effect: ????????????? All what if's Moriarte. What if's suck and I and other less brainwashed and sensible gun owners and non gun owners would agree that results of having trigger locks and required training courses is the way to go in the 21st century with the weaponary available. It's the LOGICAL THING TO DO.

    "So until YOU can offer anything to support your claims, which you cannot, until then."

    Don't tell me that I cannot do something. I gave you my reasoning behind my opinion on the NRA. When it comes to things like Trigger locks they become 100% Moronic. There case is nothing but a What if, and what if's don't fly in this world. Results do, so until you can prove to me which you cannot prove that our government is going to eventually take our right to own a gun away then I would have to say to you is find a new argument or angle, because what if's are exactly what they mean. What if. Your looking at a worst case scenario.

  24. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    Lets see here. I have two options.

    1. Make trigger locks mandatory, and require mandatory training classes.

    Effect it will in all likely hood cut down by 40 or 50% child related deaths with guns, and cut down on other accidents with guns by making a person master a weapon and by having a safeguard.

    2. Go by what you say Moriarte and by some blue miracle with the trigger law in effect that maybe in 100 years guns will be outlawed. Your argument is a WHAT IF??? It's hear say at best. There is no proof that what you say will happen, however I can tell you that having my two measures in place would cut down on accidents and related deaths with firearms.

    Effect: ????????????? All what if's Moriarte. What if's suck and I and other less brainwashed and sensible gun owners and non gun owners would agree that results of having trigger locks and required training courses is the way to go in the 21st century with the weaponary available. It's the LOGICAL THING TO DO.

    "So until YOU can offer anything to support your claims, which you cannot, until then."

    Don't tell me that I cannot do something. I gave you my reasoning behind my opinion on the NRA. When it comes to things like Trigger locks they become 100% Moronic. There case is nothing but a What if, and what if's don't fly in this world. Results do, so until you can prove to me which you cannot prove that our government is going to eventually take our right to own a gun away then I would have to say to you is find a new argument or angle, because what if's are exactly what they mean. What if. Your looking at a worst case scenario.

  25. MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 2
    Ok are you ready to be proven wrong?

    Basically there are two options.

    1. Go by what you said which is nothing more than a WHAT IF. It's a worse case scenario. Nothing more Moriarte. You have no proof that this will happen. So until you can prove to me and others that our government will by making it law that trigger locks are requirements and mandatory gun training is required in order to own a gun that this will in some way in 50 or 100 years from now take our right away to own a firearm then come up with another argument or angle, because this is nothing more than a WHAT IF. What if's don't fly in the world but results do.


    Now take my step. Make it required BY LAW that a trigger lock must be on the gun at all times. Plus you must go through a mandatory training class to learn how to master and be responsible with a gun. These two measures will cut down the Accident and death related incidents with firearms. it will cut the child related deaths with guns IN HALF. All that was needed in those school shootings or accidental shootings was something that kept that trigger from firing a bullet. Now those are results and not a what if. Know the difference.

    Your argument and the NRA's argument has been crushed. Next excuse please.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.