Gun control

[AtomicMouse1950]

And you plan is confiscation right? Because that'll take up the guns from criminals who would follow the confiscation laws. Just as well as they follow the murder laws, the felony gun ownership laws, the stealing laws.

Hey it worked well in Australia. :biggrin1:

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

You've done it throughout this thread. Whenever someone posts that we need tougher gun control laws you post that criminals would break the laws to get guns just as they do now. Your argument is that no new gun control laws are needed because criminals ignore the law. Not such a stretch to then say that we get rid of all laws because people break them anyway.

http://www.lpsg.com/328871-gun-control-89.html#post4514246
http://www.lpsg.com/328871-gun-control-80.html#post4510477
http://www.lpsg.com/328871-gun-control-7.html#post4467589
http://www.lpsg.com/328871-gun-control-7.html#post4467605
http://www.lpsg.com/328871-gun-control-4.html#post4466967


" Criminals mock society's laws. More laws mean that they'll just break more of them." -H0neymustard

A valiant effort on your part... but Honeymustard misses the point no matter what you post to the contrary. I try to, but it's like talking to a stone wall.

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

I can't see why anyone would poopoo that idea. Nothing wrong with voluntarily relinquishing one's guns.

Well that's good to hear. Local communities, such as Los Angeles and other communities, are doing just that, buying back guns. What I think should also be bought back not only guns, but licences of those who've been diagnosed with mental disorders, who have gun licences.

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

Hey AM:
Quote:
In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
-from CDC
According to those that love their guns more than they love anything else,(my opinion), driving a car impaired with alcohol(since driving is a privilege, and not a right) doesn't properly equate with gun violence in any way whatsoever. Killing people with a gun of any type drunk, Shouldn't happen either, unless the NRA approves of that as well. Which I'm thinking they probably Do.

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

You're the one, who wanted to focus on military styled weapons, and wanted to nit-pick about them in particular. IF you ask me,(which you're not) I don't like GUNS at all. I know what they can do, being a former military man. I have no problem with hunting rifles. You don't need an AR-15 to kill a deer or duck or turkey.

There's ZERO nitpicking being done by me.

First, you say it's ONLY military styled weapons that are killing children. In other words, no child is dying from any gun except the aforementioned weapons. Then you say (correctly I might add) a gun is a a gun, and that my argument (yours actually) is ridiculous. Now, you stand by your initial (incorrect) claim, which is contradicts your middle claim that all guns are dangerous.

However, while you're incorrect, let's say I'm nitpicking and be done with that angle of the debate. What is YOUR solution to the gun violence problem, since your amended "guns are guns" argument admits that the military styled assault weapons are not the problem?

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

In Southern California there is a fired cop on the loose in the mountain ranges of Los Angeles, who has gone berserk and has killed a few cops, and they're looking for him. He has knowledge of all kinds of weapons, and has survival training. Armed and very dangerous. So going nuts happens to the best of people, who are trained to kill with assault styled weapons, or a shot-gun for that matter.

 

[redneckgymrat]

Of course it can happen to anyone. We're only human. Wouldn't it seem prudent to be able to defend yourself from him, and to do it proactively?

 

[Fuzzy_]

^Does "proactive" mean "hunt him down"?

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

Of course it can happen to anyone. We're only human. Wouldn't it seem prudent to be able to defend yourself from him, and to do it proactively?

Not the cop who got fired and went on a rampage and killed a cop or two.

 

[redneckgymrat]

^Does "proactive" mean "hunt him down"?

Har-dee-har-har.

Proactive, in this context, means to take responsibility for your own safety.

If this madman were to show up at your door and threaten you, you have several options available to you, one of the more obvious to many in this thread being to run away and, if he doesn't "git'cha," survive long enough to call the police. In other words, to *re*act to the situation, and hope for the best.

A more proactive stance to take would be to take responsibility for your own safety, and be prepared for the situation. To put it in Darwinian terms, it would provoke a fight or flight response.

There is a saying among gun enthusiasts, that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

I can think of no more relevant example than this.

Delegating responsibility for your own safety to someone else like the police, then calling them and begging them to come protect you, and especially when considering dispatch/travel delays, seems like a very ineffective strategy when faced with imminent danger.

 

[h0neymustard]

I thought only cops should have guns.

 

[Fuzzy_]

Har-dee-har-har.

Proactive, in this context, means to take responsibility for your own safety.

If this madman were to show up at your door and threaten you, you have several options available to you, one of the more obvious to many in this thread being to run away and, if he doesn't "git'cha," survive long enough to call the police. In other words, to *re*act to the situation, and hope for the best.

A more proactive stance to take would be to take responsibility for your own safety, and be prepared for the situation. To put it in Darwinian terms, it would provoke a fight or flight response.

There is a saying among gun enthusiasts, that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

I can think of no more relevant example than this.

Delegating responsibility for your own safety to someone else like the police, then calling them and begging them to come protect you, and especially when considering dispatch/travel delays, seems like a very ineffective strategy when faced with imminent danger.

No need for begging. Police officers are more than happy to come and protect you. There are many civilized countries where only the police and military have guns, and they have low victimization rates.

Delegating law enforcement to trained officers of the law seems totally reasonable.

 

[redneckgymrat]

No need for begging. Police officers are more than happy to come and protect you. There are many civilized countries where only the police and military have guns, and they have low victimization rates.

Delegating law enforcement to trained officers of the law seems totally reasonable.

Okay, let's do a hypothetical. Since it is a current event, let's assume that the rogue cop currently terrorizing California is standing in front of you, having broken down your door, and is threatening to harm your family.

Let's also assume that you managed to call the police, and they agreed to come and help you. They're dispatching an officer to your location, right now.

What keeps him from harming you or your family during the 10-30 minutes before the police arrive?

 

[Eric_8]

You're the one, who wanted to focus on military styled weapons, and wanted to nit-pick about them in particular. IF you ask me,(which you're not) I don't like GUNS at all. I know what they can do, being a former military man. I have no problem with hunting rifles. You don't need an AR-15 to kill a deer or duck or turkey.

Sir, I'm not going to be insulting, but what exactly are you reading? YOU said, for the umpteenth time, that "It's not guns that are killing children, but it's " Military style Assault Weapons" that are." Again, this is why we're caught on this tangent, because YOU made a woefully incorrect argument. I never wanted to focus on it, but did so in hopes to get you to amend your initial argument, which you've yet to do.

Let's quote again: in the very post you quoted contained my saying, "What is YOUR solution to the gun violence problem, since your amended "guns are guns" argument admits that the military styled assault weapons are not the problem?

Again, what is YOUR solution? I'm pretty sure that's asking YOU your opinion?

What about this are you not comprehending?

 

[Fuzzy_]

redneckgymrat,

So much fear. So much obsession about guns. Yes, that .0001% hit-by-lightening chance that gun advocates use to rationalize owning a gun to "defend their family" from crazed gunmen. They are far more likely to die from a fall or unintentional poisoning, but it's really all about the guns and one-in-a-million situations.

You seem determined to portray police as inept and unwilling to help. You don't need to "beg" them to help you, you don't need to negotiate with them to get them to "agree" to help you, and they could arrive well before 30 minutes.

One of Fuzzy's hypothetical retorts could get a bit gory with the resulting crime scene with blood from an entire family due to one person's over-confidence in his ability to protect his family. Nonetheless, you still have the choice to either run like hell or play the hero. It's your choice.

If you're unable to run, and you believe that the intruder is trying to harm you or your family, that's a different story. In many States, you have a legal right to stand your ground and try to protect yourself or your family, and many people choose to shoot rather than run because, in America, it feels safer to shoot. Maybe that's why that intruder ended up with six bullets in his face this week, or why that mother asked for legal advice for permission to shoot a potential intruder last week. Is running considered to be unamerican? Maybe weak? Maybe more dangerous than shooting? It's a very odd phenomenon.

 

[Eric_8]

redneckgymrat,

So much fear. So much obsession about guns. Yes, that .0001% hit-by-lightening chance that gun advocates use to rationalize owning a gun to "defend their family" from crazed gunmen. They are far more likely to die from a fall or unintentional poisoning, but it's really all about the guns and one-in-a-million situations.

You seem determined to portray police as inept and unwilling to help. You don't need to "beg" them to help you, you don't need to negotiate with them to get them to "agree" to help you, and they could arrive well before 30 minutes.

One of Fuzzy's hypothetical retorts could get a bit gory with the resulting crime scene with blood from an entire family due to one person's over-confidence in his ability to protect his family. Nonetheless, you still have the choice to either run like hell or play the hero. It's your choice.

If you're unable to run, and you believe that the intruder is trying to harm you or your family, that's a different story. In many States, you have a legal right to stand your ground and try to protect yourself or your family, and many people choose to shoot rather than run because, in America, it feels safer to shoot. Maybe that's why that intruder ended up with six bullets in his face this week, or why that mother asked for legal advice for permission to shoot a potential intruder last week. Is running considered to be unamerican? Maybe weak? Maybe more dangerous than shooting? It's a very odd phenomenon.

They COULD, there's the key! Would you stake your life on it? There's been a decent amount of instances just this week where armed intruders (guns and knives) were kept at bay by gun wielding owners. It's possible cops might have arrived in time. It's also possible they would have been slaughtered by the intruders.

If I'm in their shoes, it's not a chance I'm willing to take.

and fuzzy, the idea of running is placing your life in the hands of another...not very comforting to many. Especially if it's in your house...where do you run in that case?

 

[Fuzzy_]

They COULD, there's the key! Would you stake your life on it? There's been a decent amount of instances just this week where armed intruders (guns and knives) were kept at bay by gun wielding owners. It's possible cops might have arrived in time. It's also possible they would have been slaughtered by the intruders.

If I'm in their shoes, it's not a chance I'm willing to take.

Yes, lots of "coulds". Shooting somebody "just in case" doesn't seem like a proper response from a legal or moral perspective. If your cornered and some guy has a knife pointed at you, fine... shoot the fucker. If someone is jimmying your front door, run out the back door. It's the kind of thing people might have done long before guns were "needed".

They could be drug addicts who don't give a shit about you and just want to raid your medicine cabinet then take off. Are you prepared to defend yourself in court if you can't prove that you had to shoot him in self defense?

and fuzzy, the idea of running is placing your life in the hands of another...not very comforting to many. Especially if it's in your house...where do you run in that case?

You run out the door, out the window, into the garage. If you have only one exit in your home then you should call your local fire department and have that corrected.

 

[Eric_8]

Well that's good to hear. Local communities, such as Los Angeles and other communities, are doing just that, buying back guns. What I think should also be bought back not only guns, but licences of those who've been diagnosed with mental disorders, who have gun licences.

can you post sourcing as to where this is actually being done, because this is what I found:

Gun Confiscation Bill Proposed in California: ‘We Can Save Lives’ | TheBlaze.com

This proposed bill is a gross violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[redneckgymrat]

So much fear. So much obsession about guns. Yes, that .0001% hit-by-lightening chance that gun advocates use to rationalize owning a gun to "defend their family" from crazed gunmen.

Just out of curiosity, do you carry a spare tire in your trunk? Same basic logic. It's not fear, it's the realization that bad things *do* happen, occasionally.

As for this "rationalize owning a gun" nonsense...I don't have to rationalize it. I have that right. And I may or may not choose to exercise it, that is the freedom we each have.

Your side of the argument (and you, personally) is arguing that gun rights should be restricted and even taken from law abiding citizens. Notice...law abiding citizens. That's an important detail.

Your position places the requirement of arguing your beliefs, upon you. Go ahead and try to convince me that, because of the misdeeds of .00001% of gun owners, that we all need to be treated as potential criminals.

You seem determined to portray police as inept and unwilling to help. You don't need to "beg" them to help you, you don't need to negotiate with them to get them to "agree" to help you, and they could arrive well before 30 minutes.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who chooses to serve, whether they be military or law enforcement.

But I'm a realist. Police can not, and should not, be everywhere, all the time. Unless they are physically in your house during an attack, there *will* be some measurable response time...and that response time is usually between 10 and 30 minutes.

I'm not badmouthing the police. I'm stating fact. Unless they're already in your house, they have to get in their squad cars and TRAVEL there, which creates a delay. And, during that delay, you are at the greatest risk.

If you have the ability to defend yourself, it places you in a stronger position, and provides you more options.

But I find your phrasing interesting. I'm trying to portray police as inept...isn't that exactly what you're doing, when you stereotype legal gun owners as rowdy and irresponsible yahoos?

Nonetheless, you still have the choice to either run like hell or play the hero. It's your choice.

I touched on this earlier, when I mentioned the fight or flight response.

Flight is not always an option. Being prepared for *both* choices would seem the most prudent course of action.

Unnecessarily removing any option from the table is ultimately self-defeating.

 

[Eric_8]

Yes, lots of "coulds". Shooting somebody "just in case" doesn't seem like a proper response from a legal or moral perspective. If your cornered and some guy has a knife pointed at you, fine... shoot the fucker. If someone is jimmying your front door, run out the back door. It's the kind of thing people might have done long before guns were "needed".

They could be drug addicts who don't give a shit about you and just want to raid your medicine cabinet then take off. Are you prepared to defend yourself in court if you can't prove that you had to shoot him in self defense?


You run out the door, out the window, into the garage. If you have only one exit in your home then you should call your local fire department and have that corrected.

First off, get real in your hypothetical...I'M WHITE! No jury in this country would convict me for shooting a drug addict attempting to break into my house and steal my goods!

Fuzzy, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but are you kidding me? Why would any person flee their home when they could easily (one would hope) protect themselves from intrusion. To me, retreating in the hypothetical you raised is spineless. If someone is trying to break into my home, I will not care about his or her intentions. My personal domain is being grossly violated, and you expect me to scatter like roaches when a light is flicked on? No sir, that is insanity to me.

Every single thing you mentioned is more strenuous than loading and firing a weapon.

Fuzzy, I can't stress it enough that I do not think you're stupid, but that is one of the craziest arguments I've heard from you.