How To Argue For Gun Control.

About five years ago, my family was at our campground rental and a neighbor had a birthday party for their friend's birthday.
The lady across from us had her BF there, I could tell from our convo that he was cranked up on meth. I just walked away. And a few minutes later his GF was begging to leave for the night. He didn't want to, went off and sliced her wrist with a box knlfe. The police were called, he left, saying he was coming back to kill us all. Nearest town was 15 miles away. We waited 30 min. before a sheriff showed up. We had all armed ourselves with pipes, bricks, pans, etc. Sure would have been nice to have a gun to protect ourselves.

Turns out this man was wanted on a warrant for attempted murder before this happened. I believe we have the right to own and know how to use a firearm so we can protect our loved ones, and ourselves from nutjobs like him.
And I believe we should always have this right. First thing I did that week was apply for and get a permit, and a firearm. I want to have a chance to live, and for my family as well.

Yes, nutjobs will always be able to get weapons. But I want to have one to protect myself from them.

 

Mac

LOL - I don’t know they complain when you repeat things then they complain that you don’t repeat things – I do wish you pro-gunners would get together and make up your minds.

But thank you I’ll take this as the go ahead to repeat as much as I like.

 

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So wouldn’t it be prudent to try and lessen that possibility –[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Any gun kept at home, in a car or at place of work would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in being banned from ownership, heavy fine and/or custodial sentence. [/SIZE]

 

Mac

Again we have been through this many times so I have to repeat myself again -
[SIZE=11pt]So, do we have a gang problem or a gun problem? [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Data[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] collected by the National Gang Center, the government agency responsible for cataloging gang violence, makes clear that it’s the latter. There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]finds[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]comparison[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt], there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]According[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] to the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the number of gangs and gang members has been on the rise for some time now, increasing by more than one-third in the past decade. Between 2010 and 2011, for example, there was a 3 percent increase in the number of gangs, but an 8 percent decrease in gang-related homicides. If gang violence was truly driving the gun homicide rate, we should not see gang membership and gun homicide rates moving in opposite directions.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The most recent Centers for Disease Control [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]study[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] on this subject lends further credence to our claim. It examined five cities that met the criterion for having a high prevalence of gang homicides: Los Angeles, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Long Beach, California; Oakland, California; and Newark, New Jersey. In these cities, a total of 856 gang and 2,077 non-gang homicides were identified and included in the analyses. So, even when examining cities with the largest gang problems, gang homicides only accounted for 29 percent of the total for the period under consideration (2003-2008). For the nation as a whole it would be much smaller.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The 80 percent of gang-related gun homicides figure purporting to support Loesch’s claim, then, is not only false, but off by nearly a factor of five. The direct opposite is necessarily true: more than 80 percent of gun homicides are non-gang related. While gang violence is still a serious problem that needs to be addressed, it is disingenuous to assert that the vast majority of our gun problem (even excluding suicides) is caused by gangs.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html[/SIZE]
*
[SIZE=11pt]Comparisons between similar large cities also belie the argument that there is something uniquely violent about America’s urban poor. London has gang violence, drugs and recent riots that make Ferguson and Baltimore look tranquil, yet the Metropolitan police estimate criminals have access to barely 100 guns in a city only slightly smaller than New York. Cities like Glasgow and Liverpool can be shockingly violent places but victims of knife attacks and beatings tend to survive.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]It may be true that the link between guns and a culture of violence goes both ways, but that’s hardly a reason not to try tackle both at the same time.[/SIZE]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/20/charleston-south-carolina-shooting-gun-control-reform-myths

 

Mac

We went through all that –

[SIZE=11pt]According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in being banned from ownership, heavy fine and/or custodial sentence. [/SIZE]

Again to repeat the same thing I said last time (and the times before that) – it is disputed if it is unconstitutional basically this is an ‘I don’t want it’ argument. Those that are serious about trying to tackle the problem are likely to see it as constitutional those that don’t want to do much are likely to say it isn’t as a means of shutting down debate.

We have been through the whole paranoia argument a number of time –

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.
This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.
The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

We have been through all that many, many times, to repeat –

This isn’t tackling the cause of the problem it’s just dealing with the symptom - shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
And as pointed out before many times the US already has the largest prison population IN THE WORLD as share of population and some of the toughest prisons on the planet.

I mean in past discussions you don’t even seem to have given causes much if any thought basically saying you’d hope your god would deal with it.

 

Mac

What was rare?

The the mistreatment of Native Americans?

Slavery (and later mistreatment) of black people?

The dubious wars?

Or the large scale exploitation of the working class and disadvantaged, by the advantaged?

 

Mac

So you are basically claiming that for all the period from the founding of the US in 1776 to 1959 the majority of American’s were morally good?

What’s that old joke – we never had to lock our doors, cause he never had anything worth stealing – thing is that if people did have something worth stealing they often did have locks here is a bit of history -

In the mid 1700s, locks were few in the Colonies and most were copies of European mechanisms. With the founding of the Republic and the new prosperity, there was a growing demand for sturdy door locks, padlocks, and locks for safes and vaults, and so the American lock industry had its start. Each native craftsman had his own ideas about security, and between 1774 and 1920, American lockmakers patented some 3,000 varieties of lock devices. Among was the patent for a "domestic lock," by Linus Yale, Sr. This lock was a modification of an old Egyptian pin-tumbler principle that utilized a revolving cylinder.

But really are you honestly saying you think there was no criminal activity in the US until the 1960’s and that was because people were more ‘moral’ back then because that is what you seem to be suggesting in this rather fatuous comment.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Magickman [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]OH for fuck sake how many times do I have to repeat myself[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This is not about banning all guns or stopping Americans from owning them it is about prudent gun control to lessen the harm that comes with ease of access to guns within US society for example in trying to limit the possibility that a criminal or someone with a history of violence could gain access to a gun. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So wouldn’t it be prudent to try and lessen that possibility[/SIZE]

 

That's my favorite post you made yet.

BTW I heard bernie sanders say he wants more government and bill weld said he wants less government.
I wish all these anti-trump people would get on the same page.

 

Pen

Great, you are still here; I thought you had bugged out already (my wife bet me you had so I’m glad you are still here).

SO to remind you

YOU SAID - I was reading from the beginning for a few months and all I saw was your inability to defend from criticism

AND I REPLIED - hell I’m game – please give us the examples of where I haven’t addresses a supposed valid criticism?

So over to you

 

Quote- OH for fuck sake how many times do I have to repeat myself

Dude there's no need to talk to me like that. I didn't read all 23 pages of this thread. Who the hell has time to do that in every thread that they speak in?

Quote- [SIZE=11pt]This is not about banning all guns or stopping Americans from owning them it is about prudent gun control to lessen the harm that comes with ease of access to guns within US society for example in trying to limit the possibility that a criminal or someone with a history of violence could gain access to a gun.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Seriously, did I say that? No. I went back and re-read my post. Not once did I call anyone out on this site in my statement. So cool down man.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Get a grip! Read my post and you will see why I feel the way I do. It was not put here to offend anyone, only to explain my personal point of view from life experience.[/SIZE]

 

.

 

magicman

I read you post the first time but ok have read it again and you say –

I believe we have the right to own and know how to use a firearm

I believe we should always have this right

This suggest you thing the right is going to be taken away and since this discussion is about gun control then there is a strong implication that you believe gun control means the banning of guns

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

OK so you were too lazy to read this thread and that’s fine but are you really saying that you haven’t read anything on the gun control stance?

The majority of the pro-gun control people here do not want to stop the right for responsible people to own guns but they do want prudent gun control measures to try and lessen the likelihood that the criminal and irresponsible can get hold of them.

Are you opposed to that?

 

I'm in a hurry so I'll answer this one and maybe the next one and take care of the rest in a week or so (I only come here when I get an email notification and I'm way behind in my email). How would any of your proposals would've prevented any of those instances especially if they were legally owned? Even if they were illegally own I like to see what laws would've prevented those. Also replace "I shot him" with "I stabbed him" and you'll see why gun rights advocates are weary of gun control proposed by the left.

 

Go ahead a repeat as much as you like provided you back up what you claim. I think the people breathing down your neck about repeating yourself are doing so because you may have sources in the beginning but then layer only repeat talking points and your agenda with no data.

 

Mac

As you know, or you should do because it’s been explained to you many many ,many, many, many ,many many times – guns much more dangerous weapon than a knife by and huge margin – yes knives can injure and kill but to a much lesser extent than a gun. So ease of access to guns means the likelihood of a tragic outcome is so much greater

The fact that you are still going back to this discredited argument says a lot about your position.

As I and other have already noted it’s very hard to have a rational argument with someone who sees things irrationally, who’s beliefs trump the rational. As I’ve said if someone can look at the subject of evolution and reject it because of their belief in the supernatural says a lot about the way that person thinks.

 

Balbus, I see you think all guns should be secured in a case and locked.

And how efficient will my use of a weapon to protect myself/family be if, while I'm unlocking my case, myself and/or my family is murdered? I guess that will be one more "gun nut" eliminated from society. How quaint.

This is a very sucky idea in the mind of anyone with any common sense. Yeah, hold on bad guy, while I get my gun out. Just wait a minute, please.

If someone steals my firearm, they will get that lock off easily enough.

 

M&M

I have three safes at work that I can open in about 5 seconds using a pin number. And I’ve been told by other gun owners here that they have safes that they can get into within 3 seconds.

3 to 5 seconds is too long?

*

Again the fear is incredible – I mean some people believe they will be attacked at any moment by people that want to kill them and all their family.

As i say why not try and work toward having a society in which you didn't feel so afraid.

 

Lol, huffington post. The same site who gave Hillary a 90% chance of winning. Anyway once again I inlcluded drug related crimes. You never attacked that.

So you rather have a more violent country in effort to reduce gun deaths? Why?

 

And? How would registration prevent that? I could easily claim someone stole my gun, sand off the serial number, and bury it in my back yard or pass it someone else.

Again, what's to prevent me from burying my guns in my backyard?

Too bad, intellectually we can ignore the constitution for purposes of the debate but in order to enact anything it must first pass constitutional scrutiny. That's how the USA works.

It's not paranoia. Britain required registration and now most if not all handguns are banned. Canada had registration and now AK 47s are banned. The scary rifles were registered here nationwide and up until the early 2000s were banned. California had registration and its now banning scary looking rifles as we speak.

There really isn't an acceptable amount of violence and death but if we make it a point to elimate wary death by banning things then cars would be on the list.

Evidence?

Again, evidence?

They're full of people who committed victimless crimes. They are not filled with Kripts and Bloods.

We aren't punishing the real criminals hard enough.