Honest and open debate on gun control

[M14 Shooter]

What reaction do you think people should have to situations like Charleston, school shooting, the shooting in the movie theater, or any of the other seemingly random acts of murder using at least handguns?

The same people that tell us to blame the extremists, not Islam, for 9-11?
Kinda answers itself, doesn't it?

 

[PratchettFan]

So you agree that gun control is useless. As I said, I'm all for improving education.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying in light of the OP, education would be a good choice in helping to reduce gun crime, seeing as banning guns is not an option.

That sounds like what you are saying to me. Education may well reduce crime. Frankly, I think repealing all drug laws would reduce it a heck of a lot more and certainly remove a major money source for criminal gangs. But you are clearly agreeing that gun control won't do it.

No, I'm not saying taking guns away from people wouldn't do it. I think taking guns away from people could reduce the murder rate quite a bit. However I think education is also a great idea for helping society in general.

I don't ever thing one thing will suddenly solve all the problems.

Fine.

In 1950, the gun murder rate was 5.1 per 100,000. That was before all of the gun control legislation. After the implementation of the major gun control laws including banning a lot of rifle types, the murder rate almost doubled. Many of those laws have been toned down and a lot of prohibitions removed and the gun murder rate in 2010 was 5.3, essentially the same as it was before the gun laws.

So explain to me how gun law will reduce the murder rate. Because the actual facts seem to indicate the contrary.

 

[PratchettFan]

I read it. There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread. You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited. Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.

But, if it will help. I have no problem with what you are suggesting. I just see no relevance to this thread.

Flipping hell.

So what you're suggesting is this. That you want people to come up with ways of taking guns away from people without taking guns away from people? So, you sit there thinking yourself superior because no one can do something that is impossible? Right? So this is all a waste of time?

Actually we're talking about gun control in another sense. I get that you don't get it. If you want to reduce gun crime (I'm not sure many people actually do) then there are ways to do it without even getting near guns.

It's gun control. It's controlling how people use guns. It's stopping "bad people" from getting guns by reducing the number of "bad people" because they have had a decent education.

You're thinking very simplistically. I'm thinking pro-actively. But then the right doesn't seem so interested with pro-active.

I'm sorry you just don't get what I'm saying. I'm sorry thousands of people will die because too many people don't get what I'm saying. You don't have any answers as to how to reduce gun violence. I do. You dismiss them, fine. You have to put up with thousands on people getting killed, maybe one of them will be you or a member of your family or a friend of yours.

The point about what the 2A means was in response to the argument of whether fully automatic weapons were protected by the 2A or not. They're not. So, you can ban fully automatic weapons without infringing on the rights protected in the 2A.

I made my point. You don't get it, I understand this. It was a separate issue.

This is the definition of "pro-active" - doing anything you can think of when you can't think of anything useful to do. That fits your position perfectly.

I am not looking for ways to take guns away from people. I am looking for solutions that actually work. I have yet to hear a single suggestion that works. Now you have suggested improvements in education to reduce the number of "bad guys". Hell, I'm all for improving our education system. But what exactly does that have to do with taking guns away from people? There is no connection. There are lots of suggestions I could make to improve our justice system, reduce the amount of crime, etc. but not a single one of them has anything at all to do with the 2nd amendment. And since this thread is about the 2nd amendment, it seems pointless to bring them up here.

So I assume you agree with me that limiting access to guns is a useless exercise.

Again, you're being obtuse. It doesn't help your cause at all.

No. You are being irrational.

Do you want a slagging match or something?

No. I assumed you did.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns.

Someone steals your car, you're responsible for the people he runs over?
How does this prevent criminals from getting a gun?

 

[M14 Shooter]

485 posts... no sound responses.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

485 posts... no sound responses.

You forget who you're dealing with. Intellectually deficient liberals who respond with emotions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

485 posts... no sound responses.

You forget who you're dealing with...

On the contrary... I know -exactly- who I am dealing with.
They happily prove my point for me.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry, that first world distinction does not work....you guys say if you put strict gun laws in place gun violence will go down......they have extreme gun control in most 3rd world countries and gun murder rates that are way beyond the U.S.....so gun laws aren't the issue....passive populations lead to lower crime rates in Europe, and Japan......

European criminals get guns easily, they just don't use them.

"you guys", what do you mean "you guys"?

You need to understand the difference between different countries before you come on here telling me stuff you seem not to understand.

You think European criminals easily get guns then just don't use them? Are you being serious?

European criminals just don't use guns as often as our criminals do.....it is a feature of their criminal culture. When they want to use guns, though, they get them easily, according to European law enforcement officials.

 

[2aguy]

isis grew because obama pulled our troops out...unlike any other place in the world, like Germany, Italy, Japan,.....we still have troops there from World War 2 and they are peaceful........Irag and Afghanistan were also stable.....it all fell apart after obama came in and started apologizing for the U.S.

The world has gone to shit under obama's management, not Bush's.....

If guns are banned in Tunisia, and Europe and their criminals and terrorists get them easily, you are just making the case that gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Are you freaking serious?

ISIS has been in development since the Soviets were in Afghanistan. They became far more adept at what they were doing with practice in Afghanistan after 2001 and then in Iraq from 2003 they were getting really good at it.

Obama pulled out troops because BUSH signed the order and the Iraqs wanted the US out.

The instability in Iraq started when Bremer A) got Bush to give him sole power in running the country and B) he disbanded the Iraqi army and police, making many men trying to make a living unemployed. The only people willing to employ them were insurgents. If you hadn't noticed Iraq was not stable from 2003 onwards.

The world was going to shit from 2003 and the invasion of Iraq. To blame Obama shows you're just being partisan.

Laws are law. In the US there are laws preventing people from land locked states from whale hunting. Many laws aren't enforced. A law is only as good as the enforcement that is put in place.

South Africa has guns, people need them, because laws are not enforced across the board. Go across the border to Mozambique or Zimbabwe, you don't need a gun, crime is not a problem. Why? Well in Mozambique the army/police are on the streets with guns and if you mess around you're going to get shot by the authorities. In Zimbabwe it's merely that Mugabe's in charge and you'll not get very far.

You seem to like twisting everything you come across to fit your view of the world.

You're talking about different countries as if you've actually been there and experienced what it's like and understood why things happen. But I get the distinct feeling you don't have a clue. And I'm not meaning this in a manner to insult, I'm tired and rubbish at writing, however this is my take on things.

Yes.....gun laws enforced by a police state...that works. Look at Japan....they too have a police state. And obama was't held to that agreement.....he didn't have to remove the troops he did so because he doesn't believe in the United States and it's role in keeping the peace. So he pulled the troops before the job was done...again, we have troops in Germany, Japan, Italy......since World War 2 and Iraq and Afghanistan were stable as was the rest of the middle east.....then obama came in and now we have the nightmare...isis only made gains after the idiot pulled our troops out.

Not partisan, honest and objective and able to see the real world, not a partisan view which you obviously have.

 

[frigidweirdo]

European criminals just don't use guns as often as our criminals do.....it is a feature of their criminal culture. When they want to use guns, though, they get them easily, according to European law enforcement officials.

Do you not think that the ease of getting guns in the US is part of the problem? How much would a gun cost in the US? How much would a gun cost in Europe?

I'm betting it's more expensive, and criminals are less likely to want to use their guns for fear of losing something expensive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes.....gun laws enforced by a police state...that works. Look at Japan....they too have a police state. And obama was't held to that agreement.....he didn't have to remove the troops he did so because he doesn't believe in the United States and it's role in keeping the peace. So he pulled the troops before the job was done...again, we have troops in Germany, Japan, Italy......since World War 2 and Iraq and Afghanistan were stable as was the rest of the middle east.....then obama came in and now we have the nightmare...isis only made gains after the idiot pulled our troops out.

Not partisan, honest and objective and able to see the real world, not a partisan view which you obviously have.

"he doesn't believe in the United States and it's role in keeping the peace."

Are you kidding me? The US is the BIGGEST threat to global security in the world right now. They don't "keep the peace" in any sense of the word.

Have you heard of the Powell Doctrine?

The only reasons the US will go to war are if:

1) US vital security interests are threatened. (there are others, I'm sure you know them)

So, the first thing the US thinks about is whether the interests of the US are threatened.

So, Iraq, well, OPEC was threatening US interests by being a cartel and pumping up oil prices at a time when the US wanted lower oil prices.
Afghanistan was for various reasons, the first appeared to be to make Muslims the common enemy so the right could get everyone aboard their anti-Muslim program.

Why not Syria? Well it's not OPEC. No one put enough effort in to suggest that the problems in Syria (a direct line from the instability in Iraq to the instability in Syria) would impact the oil situation in Iraq.

The US is not the world's police. They didn't send troops into Mali. The French did. They didn't send troops into the Ukraine.

Troops are sent ONLY where US interests are at stake. Generally this means OPEC countries.

Since 2001, when there were 4 OPEC countries that opposed the US, the US has managed to invade Iraq (OPEC), bomb Libya (OPEC), help a coup d'etat against Venezuela (OPEC) and put sanctions against Venezuela (Still OPEC), put sanctions against Iran (OPEC) and destabilise the Iranian economy and invade Afghanistan (not OPEC) but for reasons of vengeance against Bin Laden, though the fact that they asked the Afghan Taliban govt to hand bin Laden over and the Afghan Taliban govt didn't even say no, they asked the US to provide evidence against bin Laden as happens with most criminals being extradited. It was all part of the building up for the "War on Terror", Bush used al Qaeda and bin Laden as a way of vilifying Muslims and Islam, in order to make it easier for him to invade Iraq.

Powell Doctrine:
7) Is the action supported by the American people?

Well the invasion of Iraq was. Why? Because Bush made out that Saddam was part of the "War on Terror", he was Muslims and the whole balls about WMD which was basically made up by his "intelligence" agents.

In other news the US didn't invade Syria, it didn't sent troops to Mali, it didn't send troops to Kenya, it didn't send troops anywhere other than

 

[M14 Shooter]

492 posts, no sound response.

 

[Derideo_Te]

492 posts, no sound response.

399 of those posts has been the OP lying that there has been "no sound response" because he ignores all sound responses that he doesn't like thereby making a mockery of his own thread.

 

[PratchettFan]

492 posts, no sound response.

399 of those posts has been the OP lying that there has been "no sound response" because he ignores all sound responses that he doesn't like thereby making a mockery of his own thread.

Nope. There haven't been any. I've been checking.

 

[frigidweirdo]

492 posts, no sound response.

The sort of attitude which suggests the writer of the post is more interested in "winning" than actually debating.

 

[PratchettFan]

492 posts, no sound response.

The sort of attitude which suggests the writer of the post is more interested in "winning" than actually debating.

Nothing to do with winning. A point is being made.

 

[frigidweirdo]

492 posts, no sound response.

The sort of attitude which suggests the writer of the post is more interested in "winning" than actually debating.

Nothing to do with winning. A point is being made.

Really?

The point seems to be that the person writing it is interested in winning.

I've written plenty of stuff here. Everything I write seems to be discussed for a short time, then when people realise they aren't going to "win" they just ignore it. Then they turn around and say that there's no sound response.

As I've already said, you've set this up to be just that. Think of a way of taking guns away without taking guns away. I mean, are you efing serious? Who goes into a debate with a stupid statement like that?

 

[PratchettFan]

492 posts, no sound response.

The sort of attitude which suggests the writer of the post is more interested in "winning" than actually debating.

Nothing to do with winning. A point is being made.

Really?

The point seems to be that the person writing it is interested in winning.

I've written plenty of stuff here. Everything I write seems to be discussed for a short time, then when people realise they aren't going to "win" they just ignore it. Then they turn around and say that there's no sound response.

As I've already said, you've set this up to be just that. Think of a way of taking guns away without taking guns away. I mean, are you efing serious? Who goes into a debate with a stupid statement like that?

No. The point is that not a single person has been able to show how any suggestion regarding the limitation of gun rights will impact gun crime in any way. People have certainly said we should do this or do that, but not a one has said how that would impact the issue or provide any support for it. In fact, the only detailed suggestions came from you and they had nothing to do with guns - you just tagged that we should limit guns as an after thought with no detail at all. Oh, and one other gentleman who suggested general access to background check databases so someone can do a check at a garage sale.

If I'm wrong, point out the post. But don't just say this is a set up because we don't acknowledge what isn't there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. The point is that not a single person has been able to show how any suggestion regarding the limitation of gun rights will impact gun crime in any way. People have certainly said we should do this or do that, but not a one has said how that would impact the issue or provide any support for it. In fact, the only detailed suggestions came from you and they had nothing to do with guns - you just tagged that we should limit guns as an after thought with no detail at all. Oh, and one other gentleman who suggested general access to background check databases so someone can do a check at a garage sale.

If I'm wrong, point out the post. But don't just say this is a set up because we don't acknowledge what isn't there.

Oh, I didn't realise you were using THAT duff argument.

So, basically what you're trying to tell me is that until something has been proven it should not be implemented, but it can't be proven until it is implemented.

People can show that reducing gun ownership massively can lead to lower gun crime. It's called every other first world country in the world. But then again the argument back will simply be "well that's not America" or, as I've seen lately "well this and that third world country has gun control and high murder rates" etc etc.

You know, there are people who want to find the truth, and people who want to hide the truth. You seem to be the latter. Are you at all interested to know if gun control could work, or just interested in "proving" that gun control doesn't work?

The big problem in the US is the whole culture. The whole gun culture that exists. Kids grow up with guns in society and this causes a massive impact. Guns are available. You don't need back ground checks, you don't need all of this, because you can just go rob someone's house and find their guns and take them for your own. And because guns are so normal, no one is going to batter an eye lid that you have a gun.

Any gun control implemented needs to take into account that the US has such a gun mentality. Until you've gone through a generation of people who haven't grown up with guns, then you're not going to see a change.

But that's never going to happen.

DC made strict gun laws. So what? You just go to Virginia and get yourself a gun, it's not hard, and it's not far away.

In the UK if you want a gun without a license you're going to have to pay big money for the gun. Stealing one is a difficult option as they're not normal.

This is a very complex issue, one which is always going to get broken down and torn apart because you're always going to look for instant success or no not bother trying kind of attitude.

And the fact that people keep coming on and saying "blah blah posts and still nothing" it's because you've set it up to be nothing. You set the limitations and ANYTHING that gets even close you slam down with your limitations.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. The point is that not a single person has been able to show how any suggestion regarding the limitation of gun rights will impact gun crime in any way. People have certainly said we should do this or do that, but not a one has said how that would impact the issue or provide any support for it. In fact, the only detailed suggestions came from you and they had nothing to do with guns - you just tagged that we should limit guns as an after thought with no detail at all. Oh, and one other gentleman who suggested general access to background check databases so someone can do a check at a garage sale.

If I'm wrong, point out the post. But don't just say this is a set up because we don't acknowledge what isn't there.

Oh, I didn't realise you were using THAT duff argument.

So, basically what you're trying to tell me is that until something has been proven it should not be implemented, but it can't be proven until it is implemented.

People can show that reducing gun ownership massively can lead to lower gun crime. It's called every other first world country in the world. But then again the argument back will simply be "well that's not America" or, as I've seen lately "well this and that third world country has gun control and high murder rates" etc etc.

You know, there are people who want to find the truth, and people who want to hide the truth. You seem to be the latter. Are you at all interested to know if gun control could work, or just interested in "proving" that gun control doesn't work?

The big problem in the US is the whole culture. The whole gun culture that exists. Kids grow up with guns in society and this causes a massive impact. Guns are available. You don't need back ground checks, you don't need all of this, because you can just go rob someone's house and find their guns and take them for your own. And because guns are so normal, no one is going to batter an eye lid that you have a gun.

Any gun control implemented needs to take into account that the US has such a gun mentality. Until you've gone through a generation of people who haven't grown up with guns, then you're not going to see a change.

But that's never going to happen.

DC made strict gun laws. So what? You just go to Virginia and get yourself a gun, it's not hard, and it's not far away.

In the UK if you want a gun without a license you're going to have to pay big money for the gun. Stealing one is a difficult option as they're not normal.

This is a very complex issue, one which is always going to get broken down and torn apart because you're always going to look for instant success or no not bother trying kind of attitude.

And the fact that people keep coming on and saying "blah blah posts and still nothing" it's because you've set it up to be nothing. You set the limitations and ANYTHING that gets even close you slam down with your limitations.

Again, lots of claims and all unsupported. And yes, I am using THAT duff argument that unless you can show that limiting my rights is going to do anything then I see no reason to limit my rights. You want to make the change, not me. It isn't my job to show it won't work, it's yours to show it will.

So yes..... blah blah posts and still nothing.