GasBandit
Staff member
Charlie, in all probability.One of us does not realize that the other being sarcastic, but I'm genuinely not sure which it is.
The only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a 5 year old with a gun
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
oh, oh ,oh! since I renewed I also get a "razor sharp" NRA knife for free!
"Clay Pigeons are fuckers! They don't even eat... flies!"
GasBandit
Staff member
This is this debates' "Hey rapists stop raping." C'mon, man. Next you'll be telling me I can't hug my children with nuclear arms.
And as it should be the guy was charged for it
I'm late to the party as always. And I'm sure this has been discussed so many times before (it's a forum that's more than a week old), so I'm probably just opening up doors that don't need to be opened. And most of what I'm going to write is just going to be stuff we've all heard. Please feel free to ignore me if you don't agree with the below information. I'm not going to have my mind changed on the subject, as I'm sure those who disagree will be like-minded on that. We're free to discuss the subject however if you'd like, so long as we keep from making low punches.
My stance on this matter will always be that there needs to be radical change in gun laws.
*Waits for the booing to end*
I just had this very annoying back and forth with a currently unfriended individual via my facebook regarding this article and the statement it makes.
And no I didn't unfriend him because he disagreed with me. I unfriended him because he resorted to wishing ill upon my family to teach me a lesson about wanting to remove guns from households.
During my "conversation" with him it was clear that he'll be one of those "pry it from my cold, dead hands" chaps. Between insulting my intelligence and his links to pictures with pro-gun quotes on them, he made it very clear that his beliefs are...
1) Guns laws would take guns away from the good guys.
2) Guns protect your family from harm.
3) The founding fathers were very clear that the 2nd Amendment was very important.
4) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Regarding item 1: Guns provide the owner with a feeling of power. This power often includes the feeling of safety. You feel safe when you are powerful, and it's a hard feeling to argue with. But as any one with basic comic book knowledge can tell you "power corrupts.". Not only do you feel safe, but you'll also start to feel superior. It's inevitable. What's worse is if you start carrying it around with you, so no matter where you go you feel more powerful. Eventually there is going to be temptation. And please, don't tell me it doesn't happen. If in the middle of a heated argument with someone your mind ever so briefly flashes to the thought of "Why should I listen to this ass? I have a gun." then you have proved my point. Whatever the situation is that makes you angry enough to even consider using your gun in a completely unnecessary situation, you are one step away from being the "wrong hands" that many speak of. Sure we have very limited (inefficient) background checks where the "idea" is to keep these guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. That's fine and dandy. And even if it worked, consider this: You could be the most sane, and stable individual EVER when you get that gun of yours. But what happens when years (decades even) down the line you suddenly decide you've had enough shit and the world is going to fucking pay? A good guy is one lost job/failed relationship away from being a bad guy.
2) My father owns hunting rifles and a few handguns. When my brother and I were growing up in the household we got training and were licensed to shoot them. At no point however did my father believe that was enough to keep us safe. Those guns were locked up in a safe, and the ammunition locked up in an entirely different safe. Was this effective from keeping any accidents from happening? Absolutely. I mean there is an exception to everything, but I feel that if guns must be in a house this is the best way to keep family members from fatally shooting themselves or each other. But now how about keeping the house safe from burglars or assailants? Oh we'd be fucked. Not unless the burglar agrees to wait patiently while we got the guns and ammo out of the individual safes.
What's the other option? Keep your handgun/rifle within easy access of you and (by default) your kids. And this is why we have accidental shooting deaths. Sure it's negligence. But if people argue that guns are for safety reasons, then the only reason they haven't been called negligent yet is because no one has killed themselves in their household and brought it to the authority's attention.
3) We've all heard the quotes of the founding fathers. "Those who give up security for freedom will lose both and deserve neither" etc. The 2nd Amendment is the big one that keeps psychos well armed. Okay. So what's the problem? Perspective.
At the time of writing the Constitution the founding fathers felt that they were being wise by including an amendment that allowed citizens to arm themselves in case they were called upon to defend their homes and land from either invaders or the possibility of a corrupt government. And at the time that was a pretty wise decision. We lacked a decent military at the time, and the "militia" was essentially every able farmer with a gun. Their contributions during the Revolutionary War shaped the country for us. Can't argue that.
BUT...
Now we have a very well armed Military that keeps us safe from threats to our society. Everyone has the right to join said military, which keeps it stocked with people who just want to make a difference and keep their families safe. (God bless them all). So what is the point of having a gun in the house, if the military is already handling the threats from invading forces situation for us? Is the world going to suddenly be exposed to movie-logic and N. Korea is going to parachute into small-town U.S.A and start executing civilians? And what about our government going rogue and turning against Americans? (Which I assume will happen while a Democrat is in office considering we're the only ones trying to disarm people). Let's say we look past the part about how it's unlikely that everyone in the U.S. Military will turn against America and start killing innocents. Let's say it does happen.
How exactly is Burt Gummer (who I assume all gun nuts aspire to be) going to defend his himself against the government, when the government doesn't even have to be in the same state to take him out?
Need yet another example of how perspective changes everything? Founding fathers were kinda okay with slavery too. Few of them were certainly on board with freeing the slaves at the time, but apparently it wasn't really a priority.
4) First of all a gun is a tool. Yes it can be logically argued that it requires a person to use said tool, but a gun is a tool with the intended purpose of killing someone. You could say I could kill with a car, but the intended purpose of a car is NOT to kill. People can jump out of the path of a car. Not likely out of the path of a bullet (This example is to compare efficiency of the two tools). It is true that killers do not need guns to be killers. Guns simply make killers more efficient. (Nowadays we may as well adopt the saying "Nukes don't decimate millions of people. People decimate millions of people.")
If you claim otherwise then consider what you are implying; A killer without a gun, would be just as efficient at killing with any other "weapon". So if the killer had say, a bat, then he would have to be just as likely to kill as many people with that bat as he would with a semi-automatic rifle. I suppose this could happen... if he had access to a nearly unlimited number of bats that he could hurl at high velocity at a rate of 45-60 per minute.
My stance on this matter will always be that there needs to be radical change in gun laws.
*Waits for the booing to end*
I just had this very annoying back and forth with a currently unfriended individual via my facebook regarding this article and the statement it makes.
And no I didn't unfriend him because he disagreed with me. I unfriended him because he resorted to wishing ill upon my family to teach me a lesson about wanting to remove guns from households.
During my "conversation" with him it was clear that he'll be one of those "pry it from my cold, dead hands" chaps. Between insulting my intelligence and his links to pictures with pro-gun quotes on them, he made it very clear that his beliefs are...
1) Guns laws would take guns away from the good guys.
2) Guns protect your family from harm.
3) The founding fathers were very clear that the 2nd Amendment was very important.
4) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Regarding item 1: Guns provide the owner with a feeling of power. This power often includes the feeling of safety. You feel safe when you are powerful, and it's a hard feeling to argue with. But as any one with basic comic book knowledge can tell you "power corrupts.". Not only do you feel safe, but you'll also start to feel superior. It's inevitable. What's worse is if you start carrying it around with you, so no matter where you go you feel more powerful. Eventually there is going to be temptation. And please, don't tell me it doesn't happen. If in the middle of a heated argument with someone your mind ever so briefly flashes to the thought of "Why should I listen to this ass? I have a gun." then you have proved my point. Whatever the situation is that makes you angry enough to even consider using your gun in a completely unnecessary situation, you are one step away from being the "wrong hands" that many speak of. Sure we have very limited (inefficient) background checks where the "idea" is to keep these guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. That's fine and dandy. And even if it worked, consider this: You could be the most sane, and stable individual EVER when you get that gun of yours. But what happens when years (decades even) down the line you suddenly decide you've had enough shit and the world is going to fucking pay? A good guy is one lost job/failed relationship away from being a bad guy.
2) My father owns hunting rifles and a few handguns. When my brother and I were growing up in the household we got training and were licensed to shoot them. At no point however did my father believe that was enough to keep us safe. Those guns were locked up in a safe, and the ammunition locked up in an entirely different safe. Was this effective from keeping any accidents from happening? Absolutely. I mean there is an exception to everything, but I feel that if guns must be in a house this is the best way to keep family members from fatally shooting themselves or each other. But now how about keeping the house safe from burglars or assailants? Oh we'd be fucked. Not unless the burglar agrees to wait patiently while we got the guns and ammo out of the individual safes.
What's the other option? Keep your handgun/rifle within easy access of you and (by default) your kids. And this is why we have accidental shooting deaths. Sure it's negligence. But if people argue that guns are for safety reasons, then the only reason they haven't been called negligent yet is because no one has killed themselves in their household and brought it to the authority's attention.
3) We've all heard the quotes of the founding fathers. "Those who give up security for freedom will lose both and deserve neither" etc. The 2nd Amendment is the big one that keeps psychos well armed. Okay. So what's the problem? Perspective.
At the time of writing the Constitution the founding fathers felt that they were being wise by including an amendment that allowed citizens to arm themselves in case they were called upon to defend their homes and land from either invaders or the possibility of a corrupt government. And at the time that was a pretty wise decision. We lacked a decent military at the time, and the "militia" was essentially every able farmer with a gun. Their contributions during the Revolutionary War shaped the country for us. Can't argue that.
BUT...
Now we have a very well armed Military that keeps us safe from threats to our society. Everyone has the right to join said military, which keeps it stocked with people who just want to make a difference and keep their families safe. (God bless them all). So what is the point of having a gun in the house, if the military is already handling the threats from invading forces situation for us? Is the world going to suddenly be exposed to movie-logic and N. Korea is going to parachute into small-town U.S.A and start executing civilians? And what about our government going rogue and turning against Americans? (Which I assume will happen while a Democrat is in office considering we're the only ones trying to disarm people). Let's say we look past the part about how it's unlikely that everyone in the U.S. Military will turn against America and start killing innocents. Let's say it does happen.
How exactly is Burt Gummer (who I assume all gun nuts aspire to be) going to defend his himself against the government, when the government doesn't even have to be in the same state to take him out?
Need yet another example of how perspective changes everything? Founding fathers were kinda okay with slavery too. Few of them were certainly on board with freeing the slaves at the time, but apparently it wasn't really a priority.
4) First of all a gun is a tool. Yes it can be logically argued that it requires a person to use said tool, but a gun is a tool with the intended purpose of killing someone. You could say I could kill with a car, but the intended purpose of a car is NOT to kill. People can jump out of the path of a car. Not likely out of the path of a bullet (This example is to compare efficiency of the two tools). It is true that killers do not need guns to be killers. Guns simply make killers more efficient. (Nowadays we may as well adopt the saying "Nukes don't decimate millions of people. People decimate millions of people.")
If you claim otherwise then consider what you are implying; A killer without a gun, would be just as efficient at killing with any other "weapon". So if the killer had say, a bat, then he would have to be just as likely to kill as many people with that bat as he would with a semi-automatic rifle. I suppose this could happen... if he had access to a nearly unlimited number of bats that he could hurl at high velocity at a rate of 45-60 per minute.
Who the hell is this point addressed to? Do you actually know of anyone that only isn't a murderer because he doesn't have a gun handy? This seems to be a huge, flawed leap in logic with no real evidence. It actually reminds me of the religion argument where someone suggests that the only think keeping everyone from raping and murdering everyone all day long is the bible saying not to.
Well, despite the fact that it could be argued that someone didn't kill because he lacked the proper tool to do so, that post was NOT intended for that reason. What it does imply is that a gun is a very powerful tool that can make someone feel superior to others. In the wrong hands you get Aurora and Sandy Hook. Are we willing to say that just because the majority of people can keep their temptations to misuse their firearms at bay, we should keep assuming that everyone is A-OK and those kind of massacres are just the bad apples and nothing more? For every bad apple we get 10-20 innocents that have to pay the price for it. What percentage of the population suffering qualifies as "enough is enough"?
Noted after I replied. Sorry about that. Edited my post above to elaborate.
You live in a terrifying world. Everyone is a monster waiting to happen, and the only think keeping them from doing so is lack of a gun. I'm actually for increased gun control, but your points seem so out of left field that they don't make any sense to me.
I guess my point is that everyone gets mad. Everyone gets upset. Most people have safe and decent methods of dealing with that anger and are no threat to anyone. But to say we don't all have brief thoughts of revenge at some point or another well... we're not all Mother Theresa. But hey. Temptation is normal for everyone. And it honestly doesn't mean much until it's acted upon. That's when you can tell the difference between the men and the monsters. A gun is a very very powerful tool of destruction. I'm not saying that a gun WILL make someone into a murder. I'm saying that access to a gun has the potential to allow someone to make the wrong decision very quickly.
Example: You are on a diet. You come across a free helping of your favorite dessert. You'll probably make a hasty decision you regret later.
I would turn that argument on its head a bit. Regular readers of this forum probably know me as a level-headed sort of fellow who is genuinely helpful and very much acts in such a way as to act for the benefit of society whenever possible. That said, there are quite a few people I genuinely believe the world could benefit from losing. And I'm not talking "that guy who wouldn't stop picking on me in 8th grade" sort of people, I'm talking "that guy who makes a business of callously ruining other people's lives in order to make a profit and gets away with it again and again" sort of stuff.
Now, I'm the owner of several guns, knives, bats, boards with nails in them, etc. But in spite of my vast array of life-ending parephenalia, these idiots go on living. Why? Because I am a Law-abiding citizen and it is illegal to kill them, plain and simple. And from a practical standpoint, I could probably kill only one consummate jackass before I was caught, tried, and imprisoned, and, in my opinion, there is no single individual out there whose death is worth my freedom.
I know people have violent thoughts and fantasies, and so long as they remain fantasies, I have no problem with that. It is not illegal to want to kill people, and it is not illegal to own the means to kill people. It is only the actual killing of people which is illegal.
--Patrick
Now, I'm the owner of several guns, knives, bats, boards with nails in them, etc. But in spite of my vast array of life-ending parephenalia, these idiots go on living. Why? Because I am a Law-abiding citizen and it is illegal to kill them, plain and simple. And from a practical standpoint, I could probably kill only one consummate jackass before I was caught, tried, and imprisoned, and, in my opinion, there is no single individual out there whose death is worth my freedom.
I know people have violent thoughts and fantasies, and so long as they remain fantasies, I have no problem with that. It is not illegal to want to kill people, and it is not illegal to own the means to kill people. It is only the actual killing of people which is illegal.
--Patrick
Wait, you're saying the only thing keeping you from committing murder is the law?
I think he's saying the only thing that keeps him from murder is the idea of The Rule of Law. If so, it's more a philosophy of right and wrong than just the letter of the law. But I might be mistaken.
I don't think so, he refers specifically to the punitive repercussions.
Not indiscriminate murder, no. Common decency prevents that. I'm what you would consider a nice guy...I pay my bills, love my family, neglect my yard, etc. I catch mice/spiders/etc in my house and release them outside rather than squish 'em. I hate throwing away anything that has any use left in it just because it's old, or that one switch is sticky, etc. I laugh, I cry, I post on Internet fora.
And yes, there are some people I would absolutely love to see dead. I believe they have no redeeming qualities (and in fact, continue to poison the Human race with their continued existence), cannot be reformed, and so deserve to be put down like the rabid scum they are. Why don't I? Aside from the "it's illegal and I would go to jail" part, much of this is based on hearsay/3rd party info, so while I may hate these people* intensely, I have not personally confirmed their deservedness to die to such an extent that I would commit to encouraging it. That said, if I see that one of them goes Brazelton in the News, I will certainly give good ol' Atropos a fist bump.
There are certainly times when it would be perfectly fine to kill another human being. Yes, I just made that statement, and I believe it to be irrefutable. SWAT teams kill hostage-takers, rapists get shot in the act, and you simply can not tell me that you would have felt at all bad about "accidentally" running over Timothy McVeigh with your car in the Ryder rental parking lot (assuming you had knowledge of what he was about to do, of course).
--Patrick
*No, not Muslims (or any other 'group' for that matter).
I'm sure we all have the fantasies. I think that whether we go through with them or not (even devoid of any repercussions) can vary from person to person. I find it hard to believe I could be capable of killing someone, even if I dwelled upon it for years and years. But I never really can say up until that moment when it either happens or does not. Rest assured I'd have to be very very angry.
No, I don't want to kill anyone, honestly
GasBandit
Staff member
Do you actually think that at this point it is really possible to remove guns from dedicated "bad guys?" I'm pretty sure your unfriend's point was not just that it takes guns away from good people, but that it takes them ONLY from good people, leaving them even more at the mercy of bad people who now feel even more SUPER empowered because they know their victims are unarmed. You think it's coincidence all the recent major shootings have happened in gun-free zones? The states with the highest incidences of gun crime are also generally those with the strictest gun control laws.
It's actually possible to have other storage options for guns other than "Fort Knox" and "Lying on the floor, loaded and cocked." However, even though I do have a shotgun (among other things) that I purchased specifically for use in home defense, I've always said that this argument is irrelevant - that the 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting or home defense, and such debates are tangential to the real issue which you have handily listed next:
At the time of the drafting of the constitution (and thus the 2nd amendment), the musket was the most deadly and efficient military weapon ever devised to be carried by a single soldier. Our current implementation of the 2nd amendment is horrifically neutered. I'm not exactly popular in my sentiment here, but I believe the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment is: if a soldier can carry it, it should be available to be purchased and owned by private citizens. (This is what heads off the next hyperbolic rebuttal about "well why don't we just let people own tanks and nukes then smart guy, huh?" because the 2nd amendment even in the 18th century didn't cover field artillery (they did have cannons back then after all) or things like warships.
But to answer your "what hope does Burt Gummer have" question, you frame the question either incorrectly or dishonestly - as does everyone I've ever heard who makes this argument. You assume that our military, at the behest of our government, would for some reason execute a scorched earth campaign against its own citizenry. Well, if for some insane reason that ever does come to pass, you're right, an AR-15 with a 30 round banana clip won't help against that. But that's the most unlikely of scenarios - it's unlikely that the most tyrannical of federal governments wants to preside over an ash heap. What is far less unlikely is repression and occupation, which can't be done just from the safety of another state, or from the inside of armored vehicles (which as has been shown in other conflicts isn't 100% safe from rabble infantry either). It means at some point, soldiers have to climb out of their tanks and maintain a presence. It means controlling the flow of citizens but not killing them all en masse - which means hidden among them might be combatants you don't know about until it's too late. The answer is always - if tanks, nukes and aircraft trumped infantry always, Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over in their first year. But they don't. Yes, armed farmers can't go toe to toe with military regulars, but they don't and aren't supposed to - even in the revolutionary war, the reason the British suffered so many casualties early on was because they still persisted in marching across fields in formation as in napoleonic wars while the American rebels ran away - until they got to some trees or walls to hide behind and shoot back. An armed guerilla resistance makes an occupation much, much more difficult, costly, and saps the will of the occupier - and the knowledge that a citizenry is armed makes the decision to make oppressive policy that much more difficult.
The meaning of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is not that guns are a tool and not meant to be used for killing, it's that guns don't have a will of their own - the person who kills does. The boston terrorists didn't use guns in their attack (though they did later in their flight from capture, but if they had prepared themselves with a little more foresight they wouldn't have had to try to rob a 7-11 with a cop in it), and they sure as hell didn't use bats... they used bombs. How efficient is that? Timothy McVeigh brought down a federal government building with bombs mostly made of fertilizer. Everything they did was already illegal, but laws didn't stop them - which is the real crux of the "people kill people" argument. If you made guns illegal tomorrow, how long do you think it would take to purge the united states of all privately owned guns? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Would it EVER happen? Sure, the most well-intentioned law abiding citizens would disarm immediately, but they aren't the people you worry about committing violence in the first place, are they? No, the ones you worry about are the ones who will hoard them, hide them under the floorboards or continue to carry them under their hoodies on the street (in cities where strict gun control laws ALREADY make such things illegal, so what really is the difference to them?). Also, suddenly the gun trade with mexico reverses and starts going the other direction. Cocaine and Marijuana are nationally illegal, yet billions of dollars worth cross over into our country to be sold clandestinely every year. Do you really think a blanket prohibition on guns would be any more effective than a blanket prohibition on drugs, or alcohol?
No, what "guns don't kill, people kill" really means is that you need to address the underlying causes of the violence, the person, and not the implement. The poverty, the profit to be made from illegal activity, the mental health issues, whatever.
Agreed to your second point. But I don't see how allowing a confirmed sadist to go on making others suffer for his pleasure is any less reprehensible.
--Patrick
Killing someone isn't the only way to stop them.
You are 100% correct, though I think the debate was less about how to stop someone, and whether or not it would be possible for someone to deserve death. Really, I expect the argument to come down the same way as a debate on capital punishment.
--Patrick
It pretty much IS the debate on capital punshment
I admit GB makes a strong argument.
1) I don't necessarily believe that taking away guns will take them from all "bad guys". But I do believe that it will have an impact. Let's look at three recent U.S shootings. Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech. All of them used legally owned weapons. If they didn't have access to those weapons then it could be argued that 72 people would still be alive today. If the killers were intent on killing without the aid of guns I doubt the body count would have been as nearly as bad. The alternative? Locate black market guns? Honestly I'm not much of an expert on that. I wouldn't know where to go. I kinda doubt that every potential killer is going to figure it out on their own. And even if they do, their inquiries into the matter will hopefully be noted by someone of authority who is paid to look into those kinds of things.
Based on an article I read (and please feel free to cross-check the facts), at least 3/4s of theweapons seized in the 60+ mass murders since 1982 were legally owned. This troubles me.
I'd like to go over the other sections that GB touched upon, but I'll have to do it another time. I'm late to run some errands.
1) I don't necessarily believe that taking away guns will take them from all "bad guys". But I do believe that it will have an impact. Let's look at three recent U.S shootings. Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech. All of them used legally owned weapons. If they didn't have access to those weapons then it could be argued that 72 people would still be alive today. If the killers were intent on killing without the aid of guns I doubt the body count would have been as nearly as bad. The alternative? Locate black market guns? Honestly I'm not much of an expert on that. I wouldn't know where to go. I kinda doubt that every potential killer is going to figure it out on their own. And even if they do, their inquiries into the matter will hopefully be noted by someone of authority who is paid to look into those kinds of things.
Based on an article I read (and please feel free to cross-check the facts), at least 3/4s of theweapons seized in the 60+ mass murders since 1982 were legally owned. This troubles me.
I'd like to go over the other sections that GB touched upon, but I'll have to do it another time. I'm late to run some errands.
Get your priorities straight, man. You think errands are more important than arguing with people on the internet?
GasBandit
Staff member
Those are just famous shootings. Last time I checked the metric, over 50,000 intentional shootings happened in the US per year. Maybe you don't know how to find black market guns, but those guns will be brought, and the gunrunners will find somebody to pay for them. What kind of people is it likely to be? Somehow not upstanding citizens, I'm guessing. We can't just let a media with a political axe to grind focus on getting us to set policy according to emotionality. Would it have been better if sandy hook, aurora, or VA tech had been bombings instead of shootings? Does it assuage our conscience to put an end to single instances of "mass" shootings when around 100 children a year are killed by people using guns in chicago, which goes unreported because it just further illustrates the futility of draconian gun control laws?
You know that gun homicides are down 75 percent from 20 years ago. 20 years ago it was 7 per 100,000 so now gun homicides are what about 2.5 per 100,000
You mean ever since the passing of the Brady Bill? Kind of makes a stronger case for gun control than a lack of gun control, doesn't it?
Well it's at the same rate as around the 60s so let's bring back the nfa so I can get me some full auto guns for less than 10k
Or we can say it's down since concealed carry and open carry became widespread except in places like Chicago and dc where gun crime is still rampart despite all of the anti gun bills they have
- Status