Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by MaDef

I did, however thats a different kettle of fish for another thread.

So if foreign nationals kill 3000 Americans then that is a cause to act, but if Americans kill multiple times that number in the same year then there's nothing to be done about it. Am I right?

[Oberon]

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So if foreign nationals kill 3000 Americans then that is a cause to act, but if Americans kill multiple times that number in the same year then there's nothing to be done about it. Am I right?

Well yeah, The right to bear arms (own a gun) is one of the core principles of our constitution. If the gun control crowd wants to limit gun ownership for U.S citizens, then they need to look at amending the constitution.

What exactly is your point? You're trying to get me to compare the response to an act of war by foreigners against a sovereign nation to my response of asinine individuals doing egregious shootings with guns. Thats like comparing hurricanes to earthquakes, both are natural disasters, but preparation for, and response to each are different.

you get a thumbs down for the logical fallacy in your question.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Well yeah, The right to bear arms (own a gun) is one of the core principles of our constitution. If the gun control crowd wants to limit gun ownership for U.S citizens, then they need to look at amending the constitution.

What exactly is your point? You're trying to get me to compare the response to an act of war by foreigners against a sovereign nation to my response of asinine individuals doing egregious shootings with guns. Thats like comparing hurricanes to earthquakes, both are natural disasters, but preparation for, and response to each are different.

you get a thumbs down for the logical fallacy in your question.

I just find it hard to accept a school shooting as 'one of those things', like it's a fact of life. We don't accept terror attacks as a part of life but as an act of war, so why should we accept crazed shootings as part of life?
When a plane crashes, people don't just shrug and say "Well, it happens." there's an investigation and if something in the design of the aircraft is found to be faulty then it's fixed. When a Hurricane strikes or an earthquake hits, people find ways to improve the survivability of infrastructure in that region, they don't just shrug and say "Well, what can you do, it's nature."
How many lives has the seat belt saved since its invention? The air bag? Crumple zones? If we had the same attitude towards vehicle safety as seems to prevail towards firearms then none of those would have been created because a certain number of deaths in vehicle accidents would have been acceptable.
We constantly try to make life safer, if not for us then for our children...sure, sometimes people go too far with it, but other times they do things which do save lives and improve the quality of life for others.

[Buddahaid]

Even though I've used it, the comparison between auto safety and gun safety isn't very good. First of all autos are not meant to kill so safety upgrades are less invasive and passive for the most part. I think you'll only see a gun level of revolt when we are told we can only use driverless cars.

Things like that for guns can work but only for new guns, or newer guns, and while cars have an average age of only ten years, guns don't really wear out nearly as fast and can stay on the road for decades. The newest gun I own is already 70 years old and the oldest is 107 years old for instance.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Even though I've used it, the comparison between auto safety and gun safety isn't very good. First of all autos are not meant to kill so safety upgrades are less invasive and passive for the most part. I think you'll only see a gun level of revolt when we are told we can only use driverless cars.

Things like that for guns can work but only for new guns, or newer guns, and while cars have an average age of only ten years, guns don't really wear out nearly as fast and can stay on the road for decades. The newest gun I own is already 70 years old and the oldest is 107 years old for instance.

This is true, but it's not so much the act of making a firearm safer but the motivation that I'm comparing in this situation. I mean there are some third party things you can use, trigger locks and the like but otherwise it does limit you to newer firearms with the special fingerprint locks and such. So, rather than make the weapons safer, which is a good move for future weapons but won't help older ones, the focus should be making the users safer. If you can't improve the gun, improve the fleshy thing holding it in other words. But just sitting back and saying that there's nothing that can be done is ethically and morally wrong in my opinion anyway.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Oberon

This is true, but it's not so much the act of making a firearm safer but the motivation that I'm comparing in this situation. I mean there are some third party things you can use, trigger locks and the like but otherwise it does limit you to newer firearms with the special fingerprint locks and such. So, rather than make the weapons safer, which is a good move for future weapons but won't help older ones, the focus should be making the users safer. If you can't improve the gun, improve the fleshy thing holding it in other words. But just sitting back and saying that there's nothing that can be done is ethically and morally wrong in my opinion anyway.

Tough one to make people change their behavior and the ones that need to the most are likely the last to comply. For example, why do people still not use seat belts. They're easy to use and new cars are annoying if you don't, but some just won't wear them anyway.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Tough one to make people change their behavior and the ones that need to the most are likely the last to comply. For example, why do people still not use seat belts. They're easy to use and new cars are annoying if you don't, but some just won't wear them anyway.

True that, it certainly won't be easy, but I think that the growing pressure for action with each new killing may create a force in which this sort of option might be the lesser of the two evils.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

In the UK you don't. Regular police there doesn't carry guns, just the armed response teams.

(hell, I wanted to stay out of this thread....)

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

In the UK you don't. Regular police there doesn't carry guns, just the armed response teams.

(hell, I wanted to stay out of this thread....)

Besides, to use the logic already displayed on this topic, guns don't stop burglaries, because the US still has burglaries despite having the 2nd Amendment therefore there's no point in having a gun.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Besides, to use the logic already displayed on this topic, guns don't stop burglaries, because the US still has burglaries despite having the 2nd Amendment therefore there's no point in having a gun.

I think you've just opened Pandora's box and doomed all of us, you doomed us to hell!

[Dowly]

[Betonov]

Good, now we can merge the gun and presidential threads

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I think you've just opened Pandora's box and doomed all of us, you doomed us to hell!

[Betonov]

There was a bank robbery in Ljubljana today.
No injuries, no shots fired, no dead.
The robbers will be aprehended in a few days and this whole mess will be over with a death toll zero.

I shudder to think if some ''well armed citizens'' would have decided to be heroes.