Gun Control

[alive]

I'm agaisnt bailing out companies, and im agaisnt the govt stealing my natural rights. Hell, im agaisnt smoking bans too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA...922&page=79

[Dr. B]

Gun control? You mean like using 2 hands?

I'm a gun advocate. Criminals are criminals: it's a fair assumption to say that they aren't going to care what is legal and what is not. I wouldn't if I were a crook. Law-abiding citizens have the advantage of not being transgressed upon by other law-abiding citizens. Why extend that to protection to somebody who is willing to take advantage of it?

That being said, schools are no place for guns. It's a trade-off I'm willing to accept. Introducing firearms into a classroom would spawn more problems more periodically than the occasional gunman opening fire. When irrationality takes over, a person uses whatever tools are at his disposal. I'd rather not have a classroom turn into a shootout in a dramatic situation. Stray bullets kill to, hero.

[Capt. Morgan]

Personally I am against gun control but I also think more people should be trained in how to properly use them and be safe with them. I think one of the biggest problems with having guns in homes with children is that parents don't teach their children how to be safe around them rather than just telling them to stay away and to not touch them.

[ColibriDon]

The only form of gun control I approve of is accuracy.

Teach people how to be safe with guns, teach them how to respect guns so that they can treat them safely and minimize accidents.

I hate it when people try to blame murders on guns. A loaded gun is completely harmless unless it's fired. The people who fire it and kill people are either insane, or just ignorant of gun safety.

[Voski]

My government teacher would alway say that he has excellent gun control. Then pretend to shoot a gun.

[erufiku]

Gun Control doesn't work; case in point: Canada. People who're determined to get a gun will procure it one way or another. If all those assholes knew they're risking to get a shot for stealing or robbing people we wouldn't have the dubious distinction of having one of the highest crime rates (including violent crimes) in the developed world.

[mushrat]

I shall return later to tell the ongoing saga of getting thrown out of my local wal-mart for carrying my pistol. Needless to the the district manager is STILL appologizing.

[echotc]

I am also against gun control. There was recently an issue in my county where a man was ticket for carrying openly without a permit, which is perfectly legal in PA. For the next month everybody in the county with a gun open carried. '
It just irks me when the cops know less about gun laws then the citizens.

Also, cops are bad shots. I was at the range a few months ago with a cop practicing for his yearly test. He was bad!! I was shooting better with my snub nose .357 then he was with his service pistol!

[neil555688]

Gun free zone have only led to more targets, and teaching children how to use and respect guns in a controlled environment will 1. reduce accidents and 2. make all those gangstas on TV look like the dumb asses they are. Edited March 13, 2009 by neil555688

[Sonthert]

Mark down one liberal that disagrees with the ACLU on the subject of gun control. Gun control is absurd. Reducing crime or gunshot deaths has no bearing on the whole matter. The founding fathers believed the citizens should be armed to protect themselves from threats, both foreign and domestic. If the government gets unruly, we need guns so we can go shoot them and replace them with new leaders. If we don't have guns and the government oversteps its bounds and usurps our rights...how do we fight back? Harsh words? Mismatched wardrobes? Angry letters? We need to have guns in a free society to protect us from those people, foreign or domestic that would seek to take our rights from us. Its easy to take rights away from a cow and lead it to slaughter. Give that heifer a gun and you're going to think twice about trying to take away that cow's rights....assuming the cow has hands. Regret to inform the majority of the liberals that living in a free country has sharp edges and guns are a necessary sharp edge to remain free.

Death is a foregone conclusion. Being free isn't.

[Woodsytheowl]

What bothers me about condoning open arms is the lack of consideration of individual rage. Sure, I can trust myself with a gun, but I would be scared shitless to trust others with that liberty.

[mushrat]

What bothers me about condoning open arms is the lack of consideration of individual rage. Sure, I can trust myself with a gun, but I would be scared shitless to trust others with that liberty.

no one said being free was always safe. but its the price we pay for being free. Also, if eveyone carried a gun, if someone did pop off, there would be other's there to take care of it. Unlike being stuck in a shooting agllery when soemone opens fire in a Mall or other business where guns aren't permitted.

[ilikemyusername]

me, i carry an axe.

[Sonthert]

What bothers me about condoning open arms is the lack of consideration of individual rage. Sure, I can trust myself with a gun, but I would be scared shitless to trust others with that liberty.

When you park on the street, do you open your door in traffic, that is, do you stand between your car and traffic in some fashion? Most people do, if somebody wanted to kill somebody they could just sideswipe a person standing there. Most people trust other people enough to stand there, believeing someone is randomly going to run them down...why would you assume a person with a gun was more dangerous? The overwhelming majority of people are good and moral enough to own guns and not go on killing sprees, or lacking the courage, if you're a misanthrope, anyhow it doesn't happen this much, except with people who got their guns illegally in the first place, so making more laws would seem pointless. Some of the conservative guys around here would say that might lead to more violent crime, honest, law-abiding citizens being deprived of guns. I wouldn't guess either way, nor do I have any proof of what I'm saying, but guns have been around for hundreds of years. There weren't killing sprees hundreds of years ago from guns, most killers used non-guns, if you look at killers of the past. Canada has, per capita, more guns than the U.S., yet far less violent crime, so the number of guns aren't obviously the problem. Its illegal to own guns in Mexico, yet their violent crime rate is quite high. The problem is one of society, not guns. Perhaps the violence could be linked to the same idea that we should ban guns because of crime rates regarding guns. Proposing that or asking that question is media suicide. Not just that banning guns cause crime, but the violence in American society is a product of hostility between the "Police State" mentality and the "People State" mentality and the level of distrust that has been instilled in society by the Media and our leaders. Similar to blaming cars for the number of fatal auto collisions, we aren't asking about the people driving/shooting, the conditions of the cars, the roads or how the traffic is regulated. Instead these voices try to blame everything on one principle that couldn't possibly be the only part to the problem and probably won't do much anyhow, seems a little stupid. More laws still aren't the solution, it just functionally makes more criminals.

Just a thought.

[Rani]

I'd like to point out that the first thing that happens in a totalitarian society is that they strip the general populace of the ability to defend themselves. For that reason alone I will never vote for any kind of gun control . You're free only as long as you can defend and maintain your freedom.

'Rani

[SimplexCoda]

I'd like to point out that the first thing that happens in a totalitarian society is that they strip the general populace of the ability to defend themselves. For that reason alone I will never vote for any kind of gun control . You're free only as long as you can defend and maintain your freedom.

'Rani

Im going to agree with rani. First of all its against the constitution to take away my firearms. How ever i have to say that im glad i havent bought a single one of my guns from a store or a place that i was forced to register it.

[Hippo_Master]

I still don't get why we just don't tax guns into oblivion.




Oh wait.. Republicans and Christians, I forgot.

[SimplexCoda]

I still don't get why we just don't tax guns into oblivion.




Oh wait.. Republicans and Christians, I forgot.

I might be misreading this but im taking as your pro gun control.

[Hippo_Master]

I still don't get why we just don't tax guns into oblivion.




Oh wait.. Republicans and Christians, I forgot.

I might be misreading this but im taking as your pro gun control.

Oh yeah guns definitely need to be controlled. We are taxing tobacco to pay for children's healthcare when we should just tax these items people have sick obsessions over. Just like Chris Rock said.

[Sonthert]

I still don't get why we just don't tax guns into oblivion.




Oh wait.. Republicans and Christians, I forgot.

I might be misreading this but im taking as your pro gun control.

Oh yeah guns definitely need to be controlled. We are taxing tobacco to pay for children's healthcare when we should just tax these items people have sick obsessions over. Just like Chris Rock said.

Yeah, not like tobacco.

We could just tax cars, they kill a lot more people in the U.S. than guns do. Maybe we should just increase taxes on gasoline. Tax those cars into oblivion. Just tax items that people have sick obsessions with. They just kill too many people. Its always amusing when people propose to tax things that they don't like...like tobacco (or guns). I don't see a lot of pro-tobacco people advocating increases in tobacco taxes. Perhaps if you don't like increased tobacco taxes, you should be a little more reluctant to propose other things get taxed, just because you don't like them. I think that opinion set is why our government sees fit to cut into our liberties because people who don't agree with them like the idea of preventing other people from using/doing them. If people would practice the time-honored democratic process of tolerance of other people who we don't agree with, things might be better in the U.S. for everyone instead of different groups of people going after other peoples interests/hobbies or beliefs.

Of course, I guess some people will say that any given thing is a sick obsession...its a matter of opinion...whether they belive in the golden rule "Do into others as you would have them do onto you." If a person wants to infringe on other people's liberties, they should be prepared to have their liberties infringed on.


For the record, I'm an atheist and a democrat. Not a christian nor a republican. I'm also opposed to gun control. On the other hand, I don't make generalizations about other groups of people...that definitely sounds like a republican to me...if I were inclined to believe in making generalizations about people.

[judgeposer]

For the record, I'm an atheist and a democrat. Not a christian nor a republican. I'm also opposed to gun control. On the other hand, I don't make generalizations about other groups of people...that definitely sounds like a republican to me...if I were inclined to believe in making generalizations about people.

Nice parting shot! lol...touché.

[Woodsytheowl]

When you park on the street, do you open your door in traffic, that is, do you stand between your car and traffic in some fashion? Most people do, if somebody wanted to kill somebody they could just sideswipe a person standing there. Most people trust other people enough to stand there, believeing someone is randomly going to run them down...why would you assume a person with a gun was more dangerous?

I think the problem with this analogy is the difference between the capabilities and context of running someone over with a car and shooting someone with a gun. You could make any example out of the trust we have for our society and individual freedoms, but carrying weapons could be potentially harmful in consequences that are more direct. It seems like there are more variables in any other arguments that involve our rights to harm others than gun control.

It's interesting you made this point though because it's relative to what I immediately thought about with the right to carry: road rage.

The overwhelming majority of people are good and moral enough to own guns and not go on killing sprees, or lacking the courage, if you're a misanthrope, anyhow it doesn't happen this much, except with people who got their guns illegally in the first place, so making more laws would seem pointless.

This seems slightly holistic and hopeful. Considering the amount of inequality and injustices in our society, I wouldn't be willing to put so much faith in our morals.

Some of the conservative guys around here would say that might lead to more violent crime, honest, law-abiding citizens being deprived of guns. I wouldn't guess either way, nor do I have any proof of what I'm saying, but guns have been around for hundreds of years. There weren't killing sprees hundreds of years ago from guns, most killers used non-guns, if you look at killers of the past.

This is precisely what I was referencing in the first quote. The accessibility is a huge factor to the debate. You mentioned earlier the courage it would take to shoot someone but consider how much harder it is through other means.

Canada has, per capita, more guns than the U.S., yet far less violent crime, so the number of guns aren't obviously the problem. Its illegal to own guns in Mexico, yet their violent crime rate is quite high. The problem is one of society, not guns. Perhaps the violence could be linked to the same idea that we should ban guns because of crime rates regarding guns.

I agree with the fallacy of comparing ourselves to other countries because it is all relative. Solid point: the problem IS within our society and that's what needs to be considered.

[tinyj316]

I hate it when Democrat and Republican get thrown around in debates like this one. The party lines are so blurred, and most "normal" people don't associate with either party... they pick and choose from what they want/like, and often times choose from the "lesser of two evils".

That being said, I agree with many of the posts thus far. Decent, law-abiding citizens are the ones that get hurt from gun control laws. People who are looking to break the law with their guns aren't going to obtain them through legal avenues, they're going to get them from a friend of a friend's third cousin's nephew's sister's husband's friend or through the black market. While I personally don't own a pistol, I do own a shotgun and a .30-06 rifle, both of which I use to hunt. Most of the hippie liberals who want to ban guns forget about the whole killing your food thing, they'd rather see you eat grass and tree bark.

There are too many "do-gooders" out there who want to make the world a better place, sticking their noses in other people's business and taking away rights one issue at a time. Those types of people are the ones the constitution was designed to protect us against.

[ColibriDon]

To call guns a sick obsession is an ad hominem attack that is completely irrelevant to the debate over gun control. That's all I'm going to say about that.

As far as the ideas of taxing guns into oblivion, I see one major problem with that, it wouldn't work. Lets take a trip through history. What happened, in our country, when something was taxed extremely high to the point where most people couldn't afford it? If one fails to remember a single event in American history that sounds like this, let me remind you, the revolutionary war. While it was not only fought about taxation, over-taxation was a potent catalyst for the events that transpired during the American Revolution.

Based on history, why would one assume that taxing guns, something our Constitution allows us to have, would change anything or have a different result? One cannot say that simply because people would be more understanding, they would accept it. Afterall, if this were true, the issue of guns would not be an issue.

Taxing guns would lead to a massive underground market that would force innocent, law-abiding people into a world of crime.

Now that it has been realized that gun over-taxation would not work, let's consider the very nature of the gross misunderstanding about the nature of gun-owners, specifically the NRA, the only guns-rights advocate group in the United States.

To assume that guns equal danger in the population's hands is inaccurate, weakly based, and biased. I am a member of the NRA and my Father and I shoot regularly. I shoot pistols at various ranges throughout Florida and I can tell you that the people at those ranges are nothing but safety focused people who have a tremendous respect for the weapons they use. These people simply shoot for pleasure at paper targets in indoor and outdoor ranges as a hobby.

While I think it can be agreed that criminals having guns is bad for society as a whole. To take guns away from a society harms people like myself and other target shooters and hunters. People like us who would never dream of shooting another human being unless our life were in imminent danger and only as a last resort would be the victims of this un-constitutional action.

On a more far-sighted note, once our right to bear arms were to be jeopardized, what is to stop the government from taking more of our rights away? Taking away a single right sets precedent that would only aid the others in being taken away.

Like I said earlier, the only form of gun control I approve of is accuracy. Edited March 17, 2009 by ColibriDon

[SimplexCoda]

I agree completely with don. He did forget to mention Prohibition. Though i cant remember if it started out as high taxes or not. basically the government tried to tell people they couldn't do something and what happened? Alcoholism ran rampant in America. Bootlegging was born. All it did was increase crime and decrease morality when the government tried to tell us what to do.

You also have to consider the fact that if guns are illegal then the people who want to remain within the law will not buy them. But, what about people who have no regard for the law through such actions as theft, rape, and murder? These people already have no regard for law, so whats to stop them from getting a gun if they do not care about law in the first place? The only difference is in this situation the offender knows FOR A FACT that law following citizen they are about to violate has zero means of protecting themselves against a firearm.

Also take a look at places like Mexico. They have extremely strict gun control laws. They also happen to have one of the highest gun-related violence rates in the world regardless of these laws.

A friend and I were once talking about about this issue and I popped off saying everyone should have to carry a firearm. His response was the best weapon is the one that is out. while this is true I really think that people would be much less likely to harm others if they knew they had a way of defending themselves.

I don't honestly feel that it should be mandatory for all people to carry weapons, it was simply used to show my point. But at the same token it is not the governments place to take away our rights to bear arms.