A Poll About Gun Control

[unigel]

Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.

 

[Intense]

This is the CDZ. Keep it civil. No insulting or putting down other posters.

 

[eflatminor]

Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.

Anyone who wants a book should have to prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime committed by someone influenced by that book as a result of not securing it.

Cool with that?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Management that is completely ineffective. You seem to have missed that reality. Here is the truth – firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit. That management consists of tightly regulating all weapons that are machine guns and completely banning more explosive weapons such as RPGs or over the shoulder SAMs and other exotic and deadly weaponry. Regulations already exist. What the gun control advocates are asking for is MORE regulation. All I ask is that they provide a modicum of evidence that such regulation does ANYTHING to increase the safety of the populous. Such data is not provided of course because it does not exist.

Again, I reiterate, it is NOT incumbency upon those that do not want to restrict current rights to somehow prove that gun regulation will cause harm. That is not required for those that want to keep the rights that we already have. Those that want to restrict the right are required to establish a sufficient state need and the facts has established that no state need is present given that gun control simply does not work.

They decry the use of incidents like Sandy Hook because they illicit emotional response without logic or facts to back them up. There is a reason that such discussions only take place when a national tragedy takes place: the facts are completely against the gun control advocates. We see the standard appeals begin to take hold even in your response. Phrases like ‘turn every school into a fortress’ are emotional garbage created to illicit an emotional response considering no one has tried to change schools into a ‘fortress.’ Instead, they mention that responsible teachers should arm themselves against this type of attack – a completely reasonable approach. Of course the advocates for control turn that into an emotional attack by parsing words and calling it a ‘fortress.’

Further, no one has advocated for ‘unfettered access’ to firearms. This is yet another complete falsehood predicated by the control advocates to avoid discussing the facts. All they are advocating for is NOT increasing the ineffective regulations. As a matter of fact, the NRA advocates for BETTER enforcement of existing regulations. That is not unfettered. There are already a myriad of protections and regulations controlling access to firearm in America.

We have had a discussion about what to do about firearms. The problem is that the losing side of that argument refuses to accept fact and instead want to impose their will on the rest of the nation so they can feel better. Fortunately, my rights are not subject to how others feel about them.

How can you say this
when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?

I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?

of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.
Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?

The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe

In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.

Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.

The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.

Bullshit!

Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.

Yes, because our laws concerning other issues have been 100% effective so we cannot/should not pass any laws that save only a few thousand lives every year.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's a good point about AZ. I live here and if it weren't for the border areas I am convinced the violent crime would be closer to the other states on the same list.

I agree the comparison is not perfect, but at least comparing states puts the comparison within the context of the same federal constitution.

Very likely. The border area drags the entire state down with the large amounts of drug trafficking that is done through there. It truly is a mess. It is those nuances that really make comparisons across differing geological areas quite difficult. It’s why I deplore comparisons against places like England. The differences are so vast that any comparisons are meaningless (as you pointed out earlier). Even the method that crime is reported is completely different.

Americans have to get their drugs someplace, you know.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.

uh-oh ...

There is absolutely no place in this discussion for logic and responsibility.

If someone gets shot, its their own fault for getting in the way of the bullet. And, as we saw in another thread, even 5year olds should carry guns to school.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.

Anyone who wants a book should have to prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime committed by someone influenced by that book as a result of not securing it.

Cool with that?

As soon as people THROW bullets, just as they can with books, that comparison MIGHT make a little sense.

But, probably not.

All the comparisons and silly "ban cars" points ignore the very basic and most important fact -

Guns/bullets have only one purpose.

 

[Ernie S.]

Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.

If someone robs you and buys dope with your money, should you be charged with possession?

 

[Ernie S.]

How can you say this
when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?

I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?

of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.
Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?

The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe
Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.

The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.

Bullshit!

Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.

Yes, because our laws concerning other issues have been 100% effective so we cannot/should not pass any laws that save only a few thousand lives every year.

In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

 

[Ernie S.]

Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.

Anyone who wants a book should have to prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime committed by someone influenced by that book as a result of not securing it.

Cool with that?

As soon as people THROW bullets, just as they can with books, that comparison MIGHT make a little sense.

But, probably not.

All the comparisons and silly "ban cars" points ignore the very basic and most important fact -

Guns/bullets have only one purpose.

Yes! Their sole purpose is to punch holes in paper.

 

[eflatminor]

Guns/bullets have only one purpose.

Yes, to propel a projectile.

Wow, imagine all we could outlaw!

 

[numan]

Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.

The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?

Nice non-objective and inflammatory opinion.

What is inflammatory? Merely an observation and a question.

I will admit that the question was rhetorical.

.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.

The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?

Nice non-objective and inflammatory opinion.

What is inflammatory? Merely an observation and a question.

I will admit that the question was rhetorical.

.

An inflammatory statement followed by an inflammatory question. Don't bullshit me.

 

[FA_Q2]

In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

Pshaw. That is easy. I’ll do it in 7 so there!

It would simply read: it is now illegal to shoot someone.

That will work

 

[FA_Q2]

How can you say this
when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?

I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?

of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.
Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?

The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe
Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.

The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.

Bullshit!

Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.

Yes, because our laws concerning other issues have been 100% effective so we cannot/should not pass any laws that save only a few thousand lives every year.

Except that I have shown in this thread that passing more gun laws would result in saving 0 lives per year. You are making an assumption that has been shown as a bald faced lie. Bring the evidence to the table; you have already been given plenty that refutes such an assertion.

 

[RKMBrown]

of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.
Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?

The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe
Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.

Bullshit!

Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.

Yes, because our laws concerning other issues have been 100% effective so we cannot/should not pass any laws that save only a few thousand lives every year.

In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

Make the laws that prevent citizens from protecting their children in school zones, a felony.

Then charge the governors of said states with 2nd degree homicide.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.

Anyone who wants a book should have to prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime committed by someone influenced by that book as a result of not securing it.

Cool with that?

As soon as people THROW bullets, just as they can with books, that comparison MIGHT make a little sense.

But, probably not.

All the comparisons and silly "ban cars" points ignore the very basic and most important fact -

Guns/bullets have only one purpose.

You are confusing the word purpose with the word use. People have purposes, inanimate objects have uses.

That said, guns and bullets most certainly have a distinct use. One for which it is specifically designed. This use may also be carried out with a car, a knife, a baseball bat, or a cast-iron skillet, although the design of these things is not so specific. Regardless, they may all be employed to murder, hunt, defend, even hammer a nail if one was idiotic enough to do such a thing.

It is your failure to recognize the distinction between use and purpose that, IMHO, is the primary flaw of your argument. Once you can make that distinction, I believe you will be able to have a more mature discussion about arms and arms rights.

 

[numan]

You are confusing the word purpose with the word use. People have purposes, inanimate objects have uses.

Re-writing the dictionary, are you?

.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You are confusing the word purpose with the word use. People have purposes, inanimate objects have uses.

Re-writing the dictionary, are you?

.

Any discussion of Constitutional rights is a philosophical one. Any discussion of purpose is therefore philosophical. The philosophical context of purpose is one of human action or will. Guns do not load bullets into themselves, nor do they fire them of their own volition. Human beings do that through a series of actions that requires an intent. It is important to realize that while guns are designed to kill, they possess no purpose of their own. They are merely a tool that can either be used or misused, just as a car, a baseball bat, or a cast-iron skillet can be used or misused. It is the idea that guns have a purpose of their own, that they somehow kill by themselves without the aid of a human purpose or intent appears to be the impetus of most far left opinions on the matter.

If you did not get that point and are deciding instead to attempt a semantic derailing of that point, go for it, but I know better. You offer nothing more than childish jabs that fail to deliver even a jot of the devastation you clearly believe they do.

 

[Wyld Kard]

From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.

Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?

From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.

Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.

The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.

Swiss parliament gets tough in weapons debate. - swissinfo.ch

Although it is still possible for a former soldier to buy his firearm after he finishes military service, he must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit......When I meet Mathias, a PhD student and serving officer, at his apartment in a snowy suburb of Zurich, I realise the rules have got stricter than I imagined. Mathias keeps his army pistol in the guest room of his home, in a desk drawer hidden under the printer paper.....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country - and for me it is an honour to take care of it. I think it is a good thing for the state to give this responsibility to people.".....

In America then, gun ownership is about self-defence whereas in Switzerland it is seen more in terms of national security. To many traditionalists, a gun in the home has become a metaphor for an independent, well-fortified Switzerland which has helped to keep the country out of two world wars...."Forty-three per cent of homicides are domestic related and 90% of those homicides are carried out with guns," he says.

In his office at Zurich University, Professor Martin Killias, director of criminology at Zurich University is flicking through research papers about gun-related homicides....
"But over the last 20 years, now that the majority of soldiers don't have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence and a dramatic decrease in gun-related suicides. Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago. "

Swiss citizens - for example hunters, or those who shoot as a sport - can get a permit to buy guns and ammunition, unless they have a criminal record, or police deem them unsuitable on psychiatric or security grounds. But hunters and sportsmen are greatly outnumbered by those keeping army guns - which again illustrates the difference between Switzerland and the US.

Prof Killias cannot hide his anger with those in America who use Switzerland to illustrate their argument that more gun ownership would deter or stop violence.

"We don't have a gun culture!" he snaps, waving his hand dismissively.

"I'm always amazed how the National Rifle Association in America points to Switzerland - they make it sound as if it was part of southern Texas!" he says.

"We have guns at home, but they are kept for peaceful purposes. There is no point taking the gun out of your home in Switzerland because it is illegal to carry a gun in the street. To shoot someone who just looks at you in a funny way - this is not Swiss culture!"

Street violence has gone up in recent years in Switzerland but there hasn't been an increase in gun-related incidents.

BBC News - Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way

Members of the Swiss army keep their weapons – fully automatic assault rifles or pistols – and a small emergency supply of ammunition at home. According to the Swiss Constituition, upon completion of all required military service, the gun becomes the property of the individual soldier. Assault rifles are then transformed into semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, military-issue weapons, often generations old, are kept in Swiss households.

Gun Owners of Vermont | Gun Ownership in Switzerland