Gun Control

Gun Control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Gun Control (7/31/2015 3:43:56 AM)
I need to explain something to me. In terms that aren’t emotional, but are rational. No conjecture, no links, just your thoughts. WHY SHOULD GUNS BE REMOVED FROM THE HANDS OF US CITIZENS WHEN WE DON’T REMOVE ALL WEAPONS FROM THE HANDS OF PEOPLE? Please remember that the following kill, maim, destroy, etc. and why we aren’t banning them as well. Please use in context. A deadly weapon, sometimes dangerous weapon, is a statutory definition listing certain items which can inflict mortal or great bodily harm. In addition, deadly weapon statutes often contain "catch all" provisions which describe abilities used to designate other implements as deadly weapons. Whether an item can actually inflict such harm often does not affect the designation. For example, an unloaded gun or a gun with a trigger lock are often treated like any other firearm. A weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons." Any gun, knife, sword, crossbow, slingshot or other weapon which can cause bodily harm to people (even though used for target shooting). If a person is harmed by such a weapon that is left unguarded, improperly used, or causes harm even to a person who plays with it without permission, the victim or his/her survivors can sue PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1 AND 100,000,000 IS STATISTICS WHICH DON’T MATTER. Seems arguments get changed to gun arguments so lets get it on.

bounty44 -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 4:13:48 AM)
ken I disagree in part with your capitalized statement---statistics/incidences, etc. do matter. if its violence in general that's the issue (and I trust some of it might be), then you are possibly more inclined to criticize the tool used most often, and most successfully. and it makes more sense to. also, even though yes guns can be used for other than shooting people or committing violence against others (either defensively or offensively), one can put forth its their primary purpose. almost all other "deadly weapons" you could think of do not have their primary purpose in violence. that is, yes baseball bats can be used to kill people, but on the whole, bats are for baseball. imagine trying to make baseball illegal?

bounty44 -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 4:19:26 AM)
really odd double post...

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 4:21:29 AM)
I think this boils down to the argument of 'difference of degree rather than of kind', Ken. For some, it must be shown that weapons other than guns are different 'in kind' from guns in regard to their danger to others. Pretty much anything is a danger, given that view, from a bunch of keys and even a ballpoint pen. For other people, the demand isn't as strong: such people only need to be shown that guns are so many degrees more dangerous than, say, knives or cudgels.

KenDckey -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 5:01:06 AM)
Bounty thank you for your opinion. I forgot to add...statistics are all relative. If my history serves me, edged weapons and arrows have killed more people since they were first developed than guns. Automobiles kill more people annually than guns in the US. Therefore I am trying to rule out these types of arguments and focus on why guns only. Peon, you too, thank you, If you are talking degree, may I suggest that I agree that a gun has longer range, but a knife, ballpoint pen, spoon, etc don't run out of ammunition are are close quarter combat type weapons.

MAINEiacMISTRESS -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 6:23:17 AM)
The real difference being guns make it less intimate; the shooter is standing a safe distance away, with no risk of harm to themselves and the victims are mere OBJECTS to be picked off, whereas a knife/club/etc., require the attacker take risks to their own safety if the victim is able to fight back. Bludgeoning/stabbing someone is also more sadistically gratifying, on a very primitive level. Either type of attacker is equally at fault.

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 6:49:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I need to explain something to me. In terms that aren’t emotional, but are rational. No conjecture, no links, just your thoughts. WHY SHOULD GUNS BE REMOVED FROM THE HANDS OF US CITIZENS WHEN WE DON’T REMOVE ALL WEAPONS FROM THE HANDS OF PEOPLE? 1) Not removed -- better regulated 2) Because we don't have anywhere near the crime nor that magnitude of the crime with other weapons. Whether that's a good basis, constitutional, good idea, effective, etc is another argument. But that's why.

KenDckey -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 6:57:05 AM)
Maineiac I equate that to degree of anger, amount of gore, and so on. The difference being a couple hundred meters or a meter. One aimed shot can do what compared to several jabs or hits can do (due to the ability to fight back). Fear comes into play as well. One can hide behind something at distance where CQB must be done at arms length. However, what real difference does it make? Both in your sense amount to killing. What about the other uses for these tools? Not addressed. It goes on the assumption that they can only be used against people, or at least that is my take. Ever try to run a deer down so you can beat it with a club. Should I find a stick or rock to do in my horse when it needs to be put down? Personally I kill engineer stakes from home depot, usually at ranges from 100 meters and up whether I use a rifle or pistol. That is a 1.5 inch target at distance. Unfortunately my eyesight and steadiness aren't what they used to be and the damned thing continue to roam the earth. Death to engineer stakes lol and their damned sharpie smiley faces. LOL I have been confronted in my apartment by a group of hippies during Viet Nam War that were armed with knives and a 9 shot .22 revolver (recovered by the police). My fellow soldiers and I grabbed knives and chased them off. After my friends departed, I armed myself with a M1 carbine and my trusty 45 cal surplus army pistol (designed to stop people high on drugs). They came back nightyly for a week until I moved. The party was my going away party. I awoke once to an armed robbery in my home on Christmas morning with my grand kids in my house. My trusty .32 cal lever action rifle chased them off. On another occasion my grandkids invited a bunch of other kids over at 2 am. The kids told me I couldn't make them leave. My trusty .32 cal lever action saddle rifle convinced them otherwise. When one put his hand in his pants I told him that nothing other than hand, lent and air better come out of that pocket as I was jacking a round in the chamber. That one nearly started a gang war when I told my co-worker gang members about the incident. They wanted to pay them a visit with baseball bats and steel pipes. I have actually only shot at people once and I was in the Army and we were ambushed while I was stationed in Africa. Have no clue if I hit anyone. Don't care. All I know is that we got the hell out of there. That was very intimate to me because my brother-at-arms were in danger.

KenDckey -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 7:03:25 AM)
Music. Reasonable, but from my expeience the arguments go toward removal vs regulated. And it depends on the regulation. One example might be the city that allows you to keep a gun in your home but dcoesn't allow you to transport it there or to a new residence if you move.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 7:12:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey WHY SHOULD GUNS BE REMOVED FROM THE HANDS OF US CITIZENS WHEN WE DON’T REMOVE ALL WEAPONS FROM THE HANDS OF PEOPLE? Well trained hands in and of itself can be a lethal weapon. 'because we would have to amputate everyones arms and legs to remove all deadly weapons from society'

KenDckey -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 7:17:20 AM)
Real don't forget their head that can drive noses into the brain. LOL

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 7:18:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I think this boils down to the argument of 'difference of degree rather than of kind', Ken. For some, it must be shown that weapons other than guns are different 'in kind' from guns in regard to their danger to others. Pretty much anything is a danger, given that view, from a bunch of keys and even a ballpoint pen. For other people, the demand isn't as strong: such people only need to be shown that guns are so many degrees more dangerous than, say, knives or cudgels. so in america a court under its whatever is 'reasonable' legal theory could legally pass amputation laws. Its lunacy on its face but it is the theory the courts use now days to kill rights we reserved, death by a thousand cuts.

Zonie63 -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 7:43:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey WHY SHOULD GUNS BE REMOVED FROM THE HANDS OF US CITIZENS WHEN WE DON’T REMOVE ALL WEAPONS FROM THE HANDS OF PEOPLE? I'm not sure that many people want to remove all guns; just have better controls. Personally, I tend to think that gun control won't really solve the deeper reasons why crime happens and why people want to kill. I remember in high school debate class, the three big issues of debate were abortion, capital punishment, and gun control - very controversial issues for discussion - yet also very safe and non-threatening to the power structure. That's why it's a popular topic, since it's one of the few issues that most Americans actually have enough information to be able to weigh in and add their commentary. It's also a very "simple" topic and avoids a deeper cultural or political examination regarding how we treat each other in this country and how much we care for the outcast, disaffected, and the mentally ill. We live in a country where being a hardass is considered a virtue. One can go to any city or visit any message board and find that there's no shortage of insensitive and abusive assholes in this country who are certainly contributory factors in driving more than a few people over the edge. Yet, nobody wants to do anything about that, since it's too deep and complex for superficial minds to comprehend. Also, far too many people have a vested self-interest in defending assholish behavior, so it's far easier and less complicated to just bitch about guns.

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 8:56:39 AM)
Having a gun in the house only increases the chance of a homicide in the home.

KenDckey -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 9:05:34 AM)
Thank you Zonie I appreciate your insight For myself as a general comment. Under the reasonable theory and the better regulated theory. Hypothetically, the "ugly duckling," "nerd" etc theory in HS (something that most if not all teens experience at some point in their lives) where a teen becomes depressed but learns to cope with it as they get older. Or the person going through the stages of grief where depression is common, or under the veteran theory where PTSD is common, I have heard that all these qualify as a lifetime ban on gun ownership. At least in some peoples minds because depression (regardless of degree or ability to cope) is a mental disease.

KenDckey -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 9:07:32 AM)
Cloud so does owning a kitchen knife or baseball bat.

MercTech -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 9:23:22 AM)
Firearms are the great equalizer. It doesn't matter If you weigh 100 lbs and spend most of your time behind a desk or are some sort of adrenaline junky that trains for mixed martial arts a gunshot puts you down just as quickly. Without such and equalizer available, if desired, to the average citizen; the biggest and baddest can assault you and take your property with little you can do about it. The common misconception is that the police are there to protect you but that concept is dead wrong under the law. Police have no obligation to protect an individual. (multiple court precedents) Outside of hugely crowded urban areas; a police presence is often an hour or more away. Some of the loudest proponents of disarming the citizens are ones who have been in favor and in some cases actually ordered shock troops to attack citizens. And, yes, I am thinking of the secret police type raids by SWAT teams. The loudest voices screaming that the citizens can't be trusted to be armed are the same ones funding militarizing police forces. I cannot accept that the fear of a few is in anyway a reasonable cause to curtail my liberty.

KenDckey -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 9:26:47 AM)
Thanks Merc for the insight

Lucylastic -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 9:47:45 AM)
the liberty to take the life of someone cos you are afraid, is what got Tensing charged with the murder of Dubose THis is how the UK police dont have to shoot a crazy bastard wielding a knife. https://www.facebook.com/cbcnews/videos/10153544383304604/?fref=nf

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control (7/31/2015 11:31:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne so in america a court under its whatever is 'reasonable' legal theory could legally pass amputation laws. Its lunacy on its face but it is the theory the courts use now days to kill rights we reserved, death by a thousand cuts. That's why I distinguished between differences of degree and differences of kind, RO. That sort of argument would only be relevant to someone who thinks a human arm that can kill (with a punch, say) is "only" a difference of degree away from a gun that can kill. For those that focus on the difference of degree, the "only" in that sentence means everything.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125