What's new

Gun Control

I think there is a much higher percentage of people that are irresponsible with guns than there are people who experience gun accidents, just like most people who text while driving don't don't have collisions or most people who don't secure their cleaning chemicals also don't have poisoned kids.



I accept that the part of gun culture you interact with, read about, etc. has deep appreciation for that destructive power. I wish that appreciation extended further into issues like careful licensing and screening for not just mental health, but the knowledge and willingness to maintain proper care, but that's difficult in a partisan discussion. However, you are not the only type of gun owner, and you don't represent nor experience the entirety of the gun culture. As you said, there are a huge number of gun owners; we shouldn't pretend this represents some monolithic group with a common gun culture.



I think that's true for many control advocates, but there are also many who served in the military, are hunters, etc. There is no more a single gun control culture than there is a single gun culture.



First, that's not necessary, as many societies do just fine with far fewer guns.

However, I agree they are entrenched in US culture, and that will not change in my lifetime. Not once in this entire thread have I said we should or could try to remove guns from our society. We just disagree on what the best way entails.

There are roughly 100 million gun owners in the U.S. In 2008 there were 10,886 deaths from guns. Even if each one of those deaths was from a different gun owner that means only .0001% of gun owners were involved in a shooting that resulted in a death. (excluding suicides and accidents)

These laws do not deter criminals. They simply limit the rights of people already proven to be law abiding citizens.

Unacceptable no matter how people try to paint it.
 
There are roughly 100 million gun owners in the U.S. In 2008 there were 10,886 deaths from guns. Even if each one of those deaths was from a different gun owner that means only .0001% of gun owners were involved in a shooting that resulted in a death. (excluding suicides and accidents)

These laws do not deter criminals. They simply limit the rights of people already proven to be law abiding citizens.

Unacceptable no matter how people try to paint it.

everyone is a law abiding citizen - until they're not...

Oscar Pistorius is (or was?) a law abiding citizen, and yet, however the final verdict turns out, he did use a gun to shoot and kill his girlfriend

I don't generally understand or agree with One Brow's arguments, but in this instance, he actually makes sense. I'm just not sure exactly how it applies to this discussion.
Originally Posted by One Brow
I think there is a much higher percentage of people that are irresponsible with guns than there are people who experience gun accidents, just like most people who text while driving don't don't have collisions or most people who don't secure their cleaning chemicals also don't have poisoned kids.
 
I know most of those responding in this topic will vehemently argue against what I'm about to say, but I think we need a long-term campaign to demonize guns much the way we've demonized drinking and driving, driving without a seat belt, cigarette smoking and other behaviors. And similar to how we're now trying to make folks feel that it's unacceptable to be texting while driving.

We need stronger laws, and enforcement of laws, and penalties to punish those who use guns to commit a crime. Stronger penalties to punish irresponsible gun owners whose children somehow get access to their guns, penalties to punish someone whose gun was stolen but never reported as such until it turns out the gun is used to commit a crime.
 
everyone is a law abiding citizen - until they're not...

Oscar Pistorius is (or was?) a law abiding citizen, and yet, however the final verdict turns out, he did use a gun to shoot and kill his girlfriend

I don't generally understand or agree with One Brow's arguments, but in this instance, he actually makes sense. I'm just not sure exactly how it applies to this discussion.

So now you want to start legislating responsibility? To what degree?
 
I know most of those responding in this topic will vehemently argue against what I'm about to say, but I think we need a long-term campaign to demonize guns much the way we've demonized drinking and driving, driving without a seat belt, cigarette smoking and other behaviors. And similar to how we're now trying to make folks feel that it's unacceptable to be texting while driving.

We need stronger laws, and enforcement of laws, and penalties to punish those who use guns to commit a crime. Stronger penalties to punish irresponsible gun owners whose children somehow get access to their guns, penalties to punish someone whose gun was stolen but never reported as such until it turns out the gun is used to commit a crime.

Stronger laws - depends on the laws
Enforcememnt of laws- I agree
Penalties to punish those that use a gun ina crime - I agree in prinicipal
Not reporting a stolen gun - I agree

Demonizing guns? No thank you. Might as well demonize cars.
 
I know most of those responding in this topic will vehemently argue against what I'm about to say, but I think we need a long-term campaign to demonize guns much the way we've demonized drinking and driving, driving without a seat belt, cigarette smoking and other behaviors. And similar to how we're now trying to make folks feel that it's unacceptable to be texting while driving.

We need stronger laws, and enforcement of laws, and penalties to punish those who use guns to commit a crime. Stronger penalties to punish irresponsible gun owners whose children somehow get access to their guns, penalties to punish someone whose gun was stolen but never reported as such until it turns out the gun is used to commit a crime.

Well. the only thing I vehemently disagree with is that guns themselves should be demonized. I think irresponsible, reckless, negligent, dangerous, behaviors with guns should be demonized. But I agree 100% that penalties for any sort of misuse of guns should be severe. I'd add to your list harsh penalties for brandishing to discourage concealed carry permit holders from casually using the firearm they posses to intimidate people.
 
Stronger laws - depends on the laws
Enforcememnt of laws- I agree
Penalties to punish those that use a gun ina crime - I agree in prinicipal
Not reporting a stolen gun - I agree

Demonizing guns? No thank you. Might as well demonize cars.

OK, I admit that demonize is the wrong word. But they shouldn't be glamorized, and I do feel that does take place to a certain extent. Sort of like how cigarettes were glamorized back in the 40's and 50's. Or drinking...
 
Screw "stronger" laws. Gun control doesn't work for safety because it is about control not safety. Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws and we see where that has gotten them.
It would be nice if liberals stopped rehashing the same worthless idea every time a psychopath (the ACLU prevents from being committed) does what pschycopaths do.

Let's go the other way and teach safe gun use (they're going to use them anyway.)
Let's have Gun Ed classes in highschool @ age 15/16.
Let's reward people who use guns to save lives and deter crime.
Let's stop punishing people who use guns to protect themselves and others.
Let's get guns into the hands of soccer moms like they were mini vans, instead of the Mexican drug cartel...talk about "fast and furious."

Think about it.
 
OK, I admit that demonize is the wrong word. But they shouldn't be glamorized, and I do feel that does take place to a certain extent. Sort of like how cigarettes were glamorized back in the 40's and 50's. Or drinking...

I agree that they are glamorized more than they need to be. I think people need to be given a healthy repsect for the potential harm they can cause.

I would support:
Linking mental illness records to background checks
Penalties for not reporting a stolen gun
Requiring a shooting course to get a CC (Utah does not require that)
Removing "Gun Free Zones" at public places.
Requiring that guns be kept secured when not in use (gun lock/in a lockable safe)
National campaign to teach gun safety and responsibility

Banning "assault weapons", limiting the size of magazines or clips and a national (or even state) gun registry are not going to solve anything and only penalyze responsible gun owners. Non starters for me.
 
He went of about liberals and not conservatives. If it was reversed one could say that One Brow, you, Jimmy eat jazz...

But hey you want to pretend to be offended so be my guest.

WOE IS ME! Someone said something edgy so I will pretend to act offended so they back down down. Well tuff ****. Each side serves to keep the other honest. If you don't like my stance then go pound sand.

Wow you got way more upset than i thought you would.
I was not being mean, i just found it interesting that you said that the only people being honest in this thread were the people agreeing with you. Thats all. Peace bro
 
Wow you got way more upset than i thought you would.
I was not being mean, i just found it interesting that you said that the only people being honest in this thread were the people agreeing with you. Thats all. Peace bro

Lol, I was not upset at all. They are just words on a computer screen.

You are right that the tone of my post is that my side keeps people honest. I think it works both ways but I work with what I am given. We are good, no worries.
 
OK, I admit that demonize is the wrong word. But they shouldn't be glamorized, and I do feel that does take place to a certain extent. Sort of like how cigarettes were glamorized back in the 40's and 50's. Or drinking...

Do cigarettes or drinking save lives?
 
Couple more gems:

As for what I believe in regarding economics and similar issues, I believe in doing what works, whether it goes by the name "liberal" or "conservative".

What works according to current convention, which may or may not be wrong and definitely includes a blatant disregard for the other side of the equation.

--babe

From Bronco's statistics, there are 2-3 unintentional gun deaths every day, in addition to the 37 homicides and 25 suicides that would not have been deadly if guns were not available. So, do you have any reason to think your depiction happens 55 times a day in the US?

Presumptuous and unsupported. Prove to us that these murders would not have resulted in higher collateral damage death tolls due to a lack of an efficient killing mechanism.
 
So you are willing to let your rights be trampled becasue others commit crimes. Not only that but the laws being passed, or that people are trying to get passed, will not stop those 5%!

You always have to weigh costs and benefits as a part of your decision process (repeat, part of). When I worked in a restaurant, I was in favor of laws that required me to wash my hands after using the restroom, even though it trampled on my right to have dirty hands. If you really want, I can name a dozen other ways I have accepted that the trampling of my rights was appropriate. Among them, I might even find one or two where you would agree. For example, do you think butchers should have the right to sell contaminated meat?

Now, with respect to gun laws, the harms to others tend to be less frequent, and the benefits to the individual somewhat larger, than having dirty hands. So, I think there's a real case to be made for some level of individuals carrying guns and discussion over when it's best to be able to carry. However, that case is not going to be made by saying "It's my right" or using loaded language like "trampled".
 
Screw "stronger" laws. Gun control doesn't work for safety because it is about control not safety. Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws and we see where that has gotten them.

Where has it gotten them, compared to other cities of similar size, population, and income levels with laxer laws?

... (the ACLU prevents from being committed) ...

Who has the ACLU prevented the commitment of?

Think about it.

One of us should, at any rate.
 
Back
Top