[subego]

I mean...

Freedom of speech doesn't exact the price of letting Stormfront be there?
Freedom from government snooping doesn't exact the price of making it easier for criminals to hide their activities?
Freedom to reproduce doesn't exact the price of children born to utterly horrible parents?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were being flip.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm sure I've said this already, but I'll say it again.

Freedom has a price.

Yeah, but we can also agree some of those prices aren't worth it.

(Well, AMericans can't agree, but other countries can)

[subego]

Everybody is going to do their own equation for whether a particular freedom is worth the price.

That's a far cry from there's only one freedom which exacts a price.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean...

Freedom of speech doesn't exact the price of letting Stormfront be there?
Freedom from government snooping doesn't exact the price of making it easier for criminals to hide their activities?
Freedom to reproduce doesn't exact the price of children born to utterly horrible parents?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were being flip.

I never claimed that there was only one freedom that carried any price, I claimed there was only one freedom where the price was lots and lots of people every year dying needlessly just because some people like to play with guns.

Before we embark on the inevitable lines of argument, no you can't ban guns overnight in the US because for a long time after you did that the death toll would be enormous. What you can do is question the view that they are a necessary part of society (not even a worthwhile question when you look at every other developed society on Earth) in the hope that people will start to realise that thousands of innocent lives is a stupid price to pay so that you get to play with guns. And yes that is the transaction when you cut through the dishonesty and political BS that goes with it.

To summarise: The practicalities are very tricky, but the first step is realising you have a problem.
I have no intention of arguing that you should have much much tighter control and regulation of firearm ownership, I only wish to argue that you should aspire to that.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I never claimed that there was only one freedom that carried any price, I claimed there was only one freedom where the price was lots and lots of people every year dying needlessly just because some people like to play with guns.

More people die in car accidents (by a few orders of magnitude), but we still allow almost anyone to have a driver's license, all because people are in a hurry to get where they're going or don't like public transportation (aka. "playing" with cars).

[Snow-i]

Yeah, in fact I can't think of any freedom that doesn't have a hefty price.

Not to mention that every other developed nation in the world relies on the US for global security and keeping tyranny in check. Do you really think Poland or even any part of Europe would be able to develop without the US's military and economic backing? The 2nd amendment is only really important in the US because it ensures that the world's strongest military stays squarely in civilian hands, no matter how many pens and phones the government uses.

And just to preempt the silly argument I know is coming, the US military would not stand a chance against the US populace without utterly destroying the very supply of resources required to keep it going (our economy). The guns make sure they won't try.

If you were really interested in keeping people from needlessly dying, you would favor much stricter requirements for driver's licenses among a myriad of other mechanisms that cause needless carnage.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I never claimed that there was only one freedom that carried any price, I claimed there was only one freedom where the price was lots and lots of people every year dying needlessly just because some people like to play with guns.

Before we embark on the inevitable lines of argument, no you can't ban guns overnight in the US because for a long time after you did that the death toll would be enormous. What you can do is question the view that they are a necessary part of society (not even a worthwhile question when you look at every other developed society on Earth) in the hope that people will start to realise that thousands of innocent lives is a stupid price to pay so that you get to play with guns. And yes that is the transaction when you cut through the dishonesty and political BS that goes with it.

To summarise: The practicalities are very tricky, but the first step is realising you have a problem.
I have no intention of arguing that you should have much much tighter control and regulation of firearm ownership, I only wish to argue that you should aspire to that.

I'm not really sure to go with this.

If you honestly think my position is that we should stomach the deaths caused by the free flow of arms for play, I understand the venom in your post.

OTOH, by summarizing my position in such a false, and self-serving manner, you're showing so much disrespect towards my intelligence, I don't see the point in discussion.

If you feel like discussing (rather than deriding) someone who has come to their own reasoned and honest conclusion about this (which happens to differ from yours), I'll be here.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

More people die in car accidents (by a few orders of magnitude), but we still allow almost anyone to have a driver's license, all because people are in a hurry to get where they're going or don't like public transportation (aka. "playing" with cars).

Yawn.

Cars have massive a tangible benefit to society. Apart from the convenience of being able to get places faster and the effects that has economically, if you consider the emergency services then they probably save way more lives than they take. Try stitching someone up in a moving horse drawn carriage. Or travelling to work on the back of an Uzi.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yeah, in fact I can't think of any freedom that doesn't have a hefty price.

The freedom of speech doesn't really come with a hefty price. I'll take having to hear the opinions of idiots occasionally over preventable deaths any day.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Not to mention that every other developed nation in the world relies on the US for global security and keeping tyranny in check.

Drivel. And irrelevant. I'm not suggesting that the armed forces should ever be disarmed. They wouldn't be armed forces then, just forces. Maybe spent forces.
Even if global security were to hinge entirely on US participation, its your service men and women doing the work, not

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you really think Poland or even any part of Europe would be able to develop without the US's military and economic backing?

Of Course.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The 2nd amendment is only really important in the US because it ensures that the world's strongest military stays squarely in civilian hands, no matter how many pens and phones the government uses.

There are plenty of other militaries capable of causing significant mischief and they don't seem to need to rely on civilians to keep them in check.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And just to preempt the silly argument I know is coming, the US military would not stand a chance against the US populace without utterly destroying the very supply of resources required to keep it going (our economy). The guns make sure they won't try.

Well I guess if there really is a good reason for you all to keep your guns then one day we'll find out if your assertion is correct.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If you were really interested in keeping people from needlessly dying, you would favor much stricter requirements for driver's licenses among a myriad of other mechanisms that cause needless carnage.

Actually I do. The UK government treats drivers like a cash cow. They keep dumbing down the rules so that dumber and dumber people can keep driving. If it were up to me for example, if you got caught drinking and driving then your vehicle would get seized and either sold or crushed. If it wasn't yours, you'd be liable for it to the owner too. None of this ban them for 6 months then let them do it again crap.
A car in the wrong hands is also a lethal weapon and if they really wanted to improve road safety they should be raising the standard of drivers.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not really sure to go with this.

If you honestly think my position is that we should stomach the deaths caused by the free flow of arms for play, I understand the venom in your post.

OTOH, by summarizing my position in such a false, and self-serving manner, you're showing so much disrespect towards my intelligence, I don't see the point in discussion.

If you feel like discussing (rather than deriding) someone who has come to their own reasoned and honest conclusion about this (which happens to differ from yours), I'll be here.

Its really nothing personal but its like my feelings on religion. I can't really express them in a way that someone religious won't take some offence.

My position is actually really very very reasonable. Yours frankly isn't. The arguments that are always levied in favour of guns are easily dismissed but it makes no difference because the people that like them just like them too much. It basically is another kind of religion to many of you. There is a logical disconnect, and there is dishonesty there too which I include because some of you are smart enough to realise that your arguments are weak but you make them anyway. The rest just parrot back whatever they heard at the last NRA meeting or whatever.

-Rifles are fine unless they are fully auto. These are tools and hence have a place in society;
-Shotguns are also tools, I don't think you really need magazines that hold two dozens shots though;
-Handguns have very limited scope (in a society where they aren't already widespread). Police sometimes need them, vets and licensed game wardens for euthanising large animals. Thats about it;
-Automatic weapons have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people quickly. Only the police and the military have need of these and the police only very rarely;
-I have no issue with any kinds of weapons being available for use at properly regulated premises (that are not trivial to get licenses for). I don't even see why you can't own whatever you want if its kept with such a license holder in their high security storage and only fired on site in controlled conditions;

The above rules should be adequate to satisfy almost all arguments to keep relaxed gun control except for the one about a check on the government.
I do acknowledge that in practical terms this cannot be achieved in a short space of time It is my position that a more reasonable compromise such as this should be the sort of situation that you aspire to achieving one day.

The last article I linked was very similar to a number of others I have seen. It gives the impression that these sorts of incidents are reasonably common in the US. I recall reading one almost the same as above but with a larger family. Parents were fighting, Dad guns everyone down. I think there was maybe 6 kids in this family though and one survived. In the space half an hour or so, a 13 year old girl lost both her parents and all 5 of her siblings as well as being seriously wounded herself. All she will have left to show for that is the house where it all happened, so chances are she would end up selling that and losing all her happy memories in order to try to lose the unhappiest one. Her entire world just vanished in a matter of minutes.
Its much harder to do something like that with a knife. (Yes, I can guess arguments before they come too). Just imagine killing 5 of your children with a knife or bat rather than a gun. Closing your eyes and pulling the trigger on your knife isn't an option.

Yes its possible to kill your family with any number of household objects but I don't remember seeing too many incidents like that. Not compared to the number of stories of people shooting their families. Thats why the 'guns don't kill people' argument falls down. Its the same reason there are so many obese people. Burgers don't make people fat, people do. Right?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yawn.

Cars have massive a tangible benefit to society.

No they don't, not compared to the benefits of not having them; lower pollution, less of a burden on our limited natural resources, and far fewer deaths (1.3 MILLION people died in car accidents last year).

Apart from the convenience of being able to get places faster

That's what it's ALL about, convenience. When something is convenient we'll ignore the deaths of millions to keep it available. However, guns aren't convenient, they're a chore, they have no practical use except to kill and intimidate, but that's exactly why they're needed. A government that has no fear or respect of its citizenry will eventually do whatever it wants to them, rights only exist when there's a degree of might behind them.

and the effects that has economically, if you consider the emergency services then they probably save way more lives than they take. Try stitching someone up in a moving horse drawn carriage. Or travelling to work on the back of an Uzi.

EMS only makes up .0001% of vehicles, and goods can be moved much more efficiently by ship and rail (a diesel locomotive can travel >400 miles on a single gallon of fuel, while towing a ton of freight), the overwhelming majority of vehicles are for convenience. So, it's an overwhelming YES, we don't mind that millions die just so we can get around faster? Interesting...

Still yawning? Try some coffee.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yeah, in fact I can't think of any freedom that doesn't have a hefty price.

Hefty? Are there prices higher than death? Arguably free speech and privacy can lead to deaths, but none gets the straight-line cause-effect like firearms.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Not to mention that every other developed nation in the world relies on the US for global security and keeping tyranny in check. Do you really think Poland or even any part of Europe would be able to develop without the US's military and economic backing?

Let's not pretend we have a giant military out of some kind of altruism. It's completely self-serving from an economic, security, and emotional stand-point.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The 2nd amendment is only really important in the US because it ensures that the world's strongest military stays squarely in civilian hands, no matter how many pens and phones the government uses.

This is a bit grandiose, isn't it? The implication is somehow the army is scheming to take us over if only we weren't armed. Have we even seen military coups in first-world western countries in the past couple decades?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If you were really interested in keeping people from needlessly dying, you would favor much stricter requirements for driver's licenses

Still beating that dead horse, eh?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its really nothing personal but its like my feelings on religion. I can't really express them in a way that someone religious won't take some offence.

My position is actually really very very reasonable. Yours frankly isn't. The arguments that are always levied in favour of guns are easily dismissed but it makes no difference because the people that like them just like them too much. It basically is another kind of religion to many of you. There is a logical disconnect, and there is dishonesty there too which I include because some of you are smart enough to realise that your arguments are weak but you make them anyway. The rest just parrot back whatever they heard at the last NRA meeting or whatever.

-Rifles are fine unless they are fully auto. These are tools and hence have a place in society;
-Shotguns are also tools, I don't think you really need magazines that hold two dozens shots though;
-Handguns have very limited scope (in a society where they aren't already widespread). Police sometimes need them, vets and licensed game wardens for euthanising large animals. Thats about it;
-Automatic weapons have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people quickly. Only the police and the military have need of these and the police only very rarely;
-I have no issue with any kinds of weapons being available for use at properly regulated premises (that are not trivial to get licenses for). I don't even see why you can't own whatever you want if its kept with such a license holder in their high security storage and only fired on site in controlled conditions;

The above rules should be adequate to satisfy almost all arguments to keep relaxed gun control except for the one about a check on the government.
I do acknowledge that in practical terms this cannot be achieved in a short space of time It is my position that a more reasonable compromise such as this should be the sort of situation that you aspire to achieving one day.

The last article I linked was very similar to a number of others I have seen. It gives the impression that these sorts of incidents are reasonably common in the US. I recall reading one almost the same as above but with a larger family. Parents were fighting, Dad guns everyone down. I think there was maybe 6 kids in this family though and one survived. In the space half an hour or so, a 13 year old girl lost both her parents and all 5 of her siblings as well as being seriously wounded herself. All she will have left to show for that is the house where it all happened, so chances are she would end up selling that and losing all her happy memories in order to try to lose the unhappiest one. Her entire world just vanished in a matter of minutes.
Its much harder to do something like that with a knife. (Yes, I can guess arguments before they come too). Just imagine killing 5 of your children with a knife or bat rather than a gun. Closing your eyes and pulling the trigger on your knife isn't an option.

Yes its possible to kill your family with any number of household objects but I don't remember seeing too many incidents like that. Not compared to the number of stories of people shooting their families. Thats why the 'guns don't kill people' argument falls down. Its the same reason there are so many obese people. Burgers don't make people fat, people do. Right?

It may surprise you to learn how much overlap we have, opinion wise.

When it comes to guns versus other implements for purposes of killing: there's a reason guns displaced almost every other weapon on the battlefield even though at the time, they took a whole minute to reload.

Fully automatic weapons should be regulated. Your analysis of what they're for only applies to crew-served automatic weapons, but that's not relevant to whether I'm comfortable with them being regulated.

As you say, handguns have a limited scope. Said scope is people who need to carry a weapon all day. In a society without the number of handguns we have, there are few people who can demonstrate this need. One must also acknowledge the side-effect of being small and light enough to carry all day is being easy to conceal. The people this benefits most are those with nefarious intent.

But hey, I think access to rifles is a vital check against the government. I must be some tinfoil hat ****head, right? Just keep shitting on me because you have an inability to behave in any other way.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That's what it's ALL about, convenience. When something is convenient we'll ignore the deaths of millions to keep it available. However, guns aren't convenient, they're a chore, they have no practical use except to kill and intimidate, but that's exactly why they're needed. A government that has no fear or respect of its citizenry will eventually do whatever it wants to them, rights only exist when there's a degree of might behind them.

Convenience = useful. Cars are useful, guns are not. No other country feels the need to have them to keep their government in check.
Cars are needed for people to live the way they want to, guns are not.
Since we are talking about costs in lives, there will come a point where you need to have a bloody revolution or two just to justify these costs otherwise its all those lives wasted for nothing.

I'm also not sure you can reasonably argue that your government fears or respects you because of guns if indeed they fear or respect you at all.

Its quite amazing how many of you cite this reasoning of keeping your government in check but it just doesn't hold up to any logical scrutiny. Is it your contention that any (let alone all) other developed democratic countries are in a significantly worse state than yours with regards to the relationship between government and citizenry? If not then your argument clearly has no merit.

Its also worth noting that while plenty of democrats probably exercise their right to keep arms, the numbers must be heavily skewed towards the republicans. In the event of any militia action the current pathologically partisan society would make any unanimous decision to overthrow a government unlikely and the consequences incredibly dangerous. If for one side more than the other.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

But hey, I think access to rifles is a vital check against the government. I must be some tinfoil hat ****head, right? Just keep shitting on me because you have an inability to behave in any other way.

Like I say, rifles are a perfectly valid tool for hunting and controlling animal populations. Its not actually that hard to get one in the UK if you want one. If you find them sufficient to keep to the government in check then we appear to have reached a sensible idealogical compromise.

I think that might be a first. And not just here on MacNN.

[BadKosh]

Personal protection is MORE than a convenience. I guess you've never thought about the phrase "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"? In fact guns are useful.

A bad guy wouldn't go into a business and try to rob them if they knew the employees were carrying heat.
They go to places where liberal stooges have set up gun free zones or banned guns.
Then, only the bad guys have the guns.

Now, just think how many bad guys are getting over our borders and then get released by the idiot feds, over the local LEO's protests.
The chances are going up that we might face one of the bad guys. I'd rather have a gun than a smile.

[The Final Dakar]

Badkosh, you're more frothy about liberals than usual. Effect of the election season?

[BadKosh]

Naaa, fatigue.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Convenience = useful. Cars are useful, guns are not. No other country feels the need to have them to keep their government in check.

Your perception of what is "useful" is irrelevant, since it's a freedom that you can't fathom to begin with. However just because cars may be more useful in daily life doesn't justify 1.3M deaths /year for what is largely a personal convenience.

Cars are needed for people to live the way they want to, guns are not.

Very ironic. At the root level, yes they are.

Since we are talking about costs in lives, there will come a point where you need to have a bloody revolution or two just to justify these costs otherwise its all those lives wasted for nothing.

When will we stop slaughtering 400k children every year, just so we can travel around in 4,000lb death machines? Will someone think of the children?!

I'm also not sure you can reasonably argue that your government fears or respects you because of guns if indeed they fear or respect you at all.

Given how hard some special interest groups (a good many funded by foreign lobbies) have fought to suspend that right, they understand the implications. An armed citizenry is the check against tyranny and just because you may not need them now doesn't mean you never will. All societies fail, and eventually so will yours and mine.

Its quite amazing how many of you cite this reasoning of keeping your government in check but it just doesn't hold up to any logical scrutiny. Is it your contention that any (let alone all) other developed democratic countries are in a significantly worse state than yours with regards to the relationship between government and citizenry? If not then your argument clearly has no merit.

It holds up, your logic is colored by your own culture and has nothing to do with ours, so for us it's crap.

Its also worth noting that while plenty of democrats probably exercise their right to keep arms, the numbers must be heavily skewed towards the republicans. In the event of any militia action the current pathologically partisan society would make any unanimous decision to overthrow a government unlikely and the consequences incredibly dangerous. If for one side more than the other.

Nope, last numbers I saw were (R) 49%, (D) 44%, (I) 7%, not a huge difference at all.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Personal protection is MORE than a convenience. I guess you've never thought about the phrase "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"? In fact guns are useful.

A bad guy wouldn't go into a business and try to rob them if they knew the employees were carrying heat.
They go to places where liberal stooges have set up gun free zones or banned guns.
Then, only the bad guys have the guns.

Now, just think how many bad guys are getting over our borders and then get released by the idiot feds, over the local LEO's protests.
The chances are going up that we might face one of the bad guys. I'd rather have a gun than a smile.

You're cherry-picking sound bytes and arguing against them. I'm not saying you should ban guns, I'm saying you should want to. If there were far fewer in circulation then protection would be far less of an issue. If living far from police assistance, chances are you have other reasons to own rides anyway and I think they'd be pretty effective as a deterrent and a defence.

The sad thing is that the pro-gun crowd who are so terrified of the armed bad guys fight tooth and nail against regulations which are the best way to try and keep the guns away from the bad guys in the first place. This rather damages your argument I'm afraid.

This doesn't take into account how many people actually become 'bad guys' because they are hard up and they have a nice, simple, easy way to go and get quick cash by picking up a gun and taking it from someone else.
We get armed robberies too of course, but the process is more like "I want to rob a bank, I need to get some guns" rather than "I have some guns so I could always go and rob a bank/liquor store/etc".

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Your perception of what is "useful" is irrelevant, since it's a freedom that you can't fathom to begin with. However just because cars may be more useful in daily life doesn't justify 1.3M deaths /year for what is largely a personal convenience.

When will we stop slaughtering 400k children every year, just so we can travel around in 4,000lb death machines? Will someone think of the children?!

You aren't considering intent. How many of those car deaths were the result of people deciding "I'm gonna get in my car and kill myself/others"? Not very many I bet. How many were a result of children getting into a car and accidentally running over a family member because they left the keys within reach?

Almost of all of those road deaths are accidents. Almost all of those people would have been sitting down when they died along with a good many more so perhaps we should ban sitting down. Everyone would have breathing when they died so maybe thats bad for you too?

Its certainly true that education, driving standards and stronger punishments for DUI might help the numbers (drastically) fall, but thats another discussion. Accidents happen everywhere but we legislate for health and safety to prevent injures. Builders wear hard hats, cops wear body armour but some reason regulating things designed specifically to kill is unthinkable?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Given how hard some special interest groups (a good many funded by foreign lobbies) have fought to suspend that right, they understand the implications. An armed citizenry is the check against tyranny and just because you may not need them now doesn't mean you never will. All societies fail, and eventually so will yours and mine.

Societies fail with or without guns. The revolution might be costlier at the time without them, but at least that price is more likely to be paid by people willing to make that sacrifice. Letting people die because one day it might benefit others is a little bit like throwing virgins into volcanoes don't you think?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It holds up, your logic is colored by your own culture and has nothing to do with ours, so for us it's crap.

There is no your truth and my truth. There is just truth or not.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Nope, last numbers I saw were (R) 49%, (D) 44%, (I) 7%, not a huge difference at all.

OK thats actually interesting, what about the actual number of guns per person though?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You aren't considering intent.

Indeed I am, it's called vehicular homicide and it happens every day in all parts of the world. Road rage kills more people than intentional shootings.

Societies fail with or without guns. The revolution might be costlier at the time without them, but at least that price is more likely to be paid by people willing to make that sacrifice. Letting people die because one day it might benefit others is a little bit like throwing virgins into volcanoes don't you think?

I can't think of a single country with an armed citizenry that's succumbed to a dictatorship. There's a reason why gun rights are the first that are stripped when one attempts to take power, because history has shown that it's impossible to oppress a people who are shooting at you.

There is no your truth and my truth. There is just truth or not.

Universal truth? That's for religion, not civil law.

OK thats actually interesting, what about the actual number of guns per person though?

People who collect and keep a large number of firearms are more diligent about their safe use and care than those who only have one. Regularly I've had visitors come to my home expecting to find guns everywhere, but all of them leave disappointed because they never see any, unless I take one out of a locked (and well-hidden) safe to show them. Brits are especially comical, thinking we must have assault rifles and handguns laying out in plain view.

[ghporter]

I want to ban stupid, ignorant people, period. A properly informed individual who is not sociopathic should in no way be equated with an ignorant, antisocial, "me first" type of jerk who has poor impulse and temper control. There is no reason for anyone to fear me having a firearm, unless they attempt to harm me or my family. On the other hand, there is a whole lot of reason to be very concerned about someone with a history of antisocial behavior. In Texas, the background check for a concealed handgun license is pretty extensive, since there are a whole lot of offenses that can disqualify someone from that license. I don't know how other states do it, but I am all in favor of such background checks.

But the issues we've been discussing aren't really about people who went by the rules. It's been about people who either weren't really good candidates for a concealed carry license, or didn't have one in the first place. NO state's laws allow an individual to just shoot someone for knocking at the front door, no state allows for use of force (let alone deadly force) because of nuisance noise, etc. The issue is whether or not someone behaves as if they are a member of society. I'm talking about following basic rules (the stuff a lot of us learned in kindergarten) and behaving as if other people have rights too, instead of acting like the whole world is just a nuisance and intentionally in one's way just to be in the way.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You're cherry-picking sound bytes and arguing against them. I'm not saying you should ban guns, I'm saying you should want to. If there were far fewer in circulation then protection would be far less of an issue.

You are assuming you know my thoughts. You don't share my experiences or the conclusions I have made because of them. Don't tell me how I should think! Another liberal also displays this mental issue here as well.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If living far from police assistance, chances are you have other reasons to own rides anyway and I think they'd be pretty effective as a deterrent and a defence.

WHAT? Like when a guy breaks into my home I should just get in my car and leave? BWA-HAA-HAA-HAA! That is the stupidest thing I've heard in weeks.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The sad thing is that the pro-gun crowd who are so terrified of the armed bad guys fight tooth and nail against regulations which are the best way to try and keep the guns away from the bad guys in the first place. This rather damages your argument I'm afraid.

Again with the ASSumptions that you know what others are thinking. You sure look at everything with those fictional stereotypes, and soap opera situations. This makes your conclusions bogus.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This doesn't take into account how many people actually become 'bad guys' because they are hard up and they have a nice, simple, easy way to go and get quick cash by picking up a gun and taking it from someone else.

Bad guys are born that way. They usually have issues dating back to them being children. These "Bad Guys" also don't follow the laws, so making tougher gun laws wouldn't stop them. A fact that liberals do not seem to grasp.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

We get armed robberies too of course, but the process is more like "I want to rob a bank, I need to get some guns" rather than "I have some guns so I could always go and rob a bank/liquor store/etc".

Again, laws aren't going to stop them. and Again with your idiotic stereotypes. It makes us wonder how anyone in the UK can think rationally/logically at all.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Indeed I am, it's called vehicular homicide and it happens every day in all parts of the world. Road rage kills more people than intentional shootings.

I'm arguing that since cars are used far more often for innocent purposes and guns only have the purpose of killing that you have to weigh the vehicular homicides against the all the gun deaths, intentional or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I can't think of a single country with an armed citizenry that's succumbed to a dictatorship. There's a reason why gun rights are the first that are stripped when one attempts to take power, because history has shown that it's impossible to oppress a people who are shooting at you.

Has it? Have any dictators ever tried to oppress an armed citizenry?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

People who collect and keep a large number of firearms are more diligent about their safe use and care than those who only have one. Regularly I've had visitors come to my home expecting to find guns everywhere, but all of them leave disappointed because they never see any, unless I take one out of a locked (and well-hidden) safe to show them. Brits are especially comical, thinking we must have assault rifles and handguns laying out in plain view.

In our defence, its because there are plenty of them posting youtube videos of their collections and plenty more commenting about doing or wanting to do the same. Luckily guns are not very cheap so most of the total morons can't afford that many.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm arguing that since cars are used far more often for innocent purposes and guns only have the purpose of killing that you have to weigh the vehicular homicides against the all the gun deaths, intentional or otherwise.

Dead is dead, more road deaths will occur, and there will be more next year than there were this year. Society has deemed those deaths to be "acceptable losses". Same goes for cigarettes, alcohol, skydiving, and unsafe sex, and all of those can (and will) kill others as well, by the millions. Worrying about reasonable people who keep guns is the last thing anyone should do, it's the unreasonable people doing pretty much anything that are the problem.

Has it? Have any dictators ever tried to oppress an armed citizenry?

They disarmed them first (Hitler, Lenin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot). It started with registration, then strict licensing, and finally they quietly raided the homes of the remaining gun owners (in the name of "public safety"), which was damned easy because they knew where all the remaining guns were being kept, and confiscated the rest.

In our defence, its because there are plenty of them posting youtube videos of their collections and plenty more commenting about doing or wanting to do the same. Luckily guns are not very cheap so most of the total morons can't afford that many.

A handful of Youtube videos? That's just... It's like judging all of the UK based on clips of chavs in Glasgow huffing paint fumes and igniting their own farts.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You are assuming you know my thoughts. You don't share my experiences or the conclusions I have made because of them. Don't tell me how I should think! Another liberal also displays this mental issue here as well.

I think you've made your thoughts pretty clear on this issue.
While you are of course free to think the thoughts of an asshole, you should expect to be treated as such for choosing to think them.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

WHAT? Like when a guy breaks into my home I should just get in my car and leave? BWA-HAA-HAA-HAA! That is the stupidest thing I've heard in weeks.

That was supposed to say rifles, not rides.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Again with the ASSumptions that you know what others are thinking. You sure look at everything with those fictional stereotypes, and soap opera situations. This makes your conclusions bogus.

This might make more sense in response to other things I may have said but to the part you quoted it bears no relevance. You deny that the gun lobby and its supporters rail against pretty much any tighter regulation of gun ownership? That is a fact that I suspect even most of the pro gun supporters would agree with. It has nothing to do with stereotypes or what people are thinking. Its a clear reference to what they have done/are doing/say they will do again and again forever.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Bad guys are born that way.

Uh-oh...

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

They usually have issues dating back to them being children.

So after they're born then?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

These "Bad Guys" also don't follow the laws, so making tougher gun laws wouldn't stop them. A fact that liberals do not seem to grasp.

Tighter regulations means its more difficult for the bad guys to get the guns. It would take a while to filter down and there are any number of different things that can be done, but if you make it more difficult to get them, people will take more care of them. They will be less likely to lose them, leave them where they might be stolen, sell them for cash in bars when they are hard up or whatever else they do that cause them to get into the wrong hands in the first place.

This is the purpose of those regulations and for some reason gun lovers don't seem to grasp that fact.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Again, laws aren't going to stop them. and Again with your idiotic stereotypes. It makes us wonder how anyone in the UK can think rationally/logically at all.

Are you saying that people don't rob liquor stores in the US? Even if it isn't that common, its pretty much unheard of over here.

And you wouldn't recognise rational and/or logical thought if you fell over it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They disarmed them first (Hitler, Lenin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot). It started with registration, then strict licensing, and finally they quietly raided the homes of the remaining gun owners (in the name of "public safety"), which was damned easy because they knew where all the remaining guns were being kept, and confiscated the rest.

A very quick google on this subject gives me nothing but wing nut pages saying the exact same thing for the first page of results. I don't have the energy to look any further right now.
I will say this list bears a striking resemblance to the one that gets trotted out by religious people trying to impeach atheism and only one or two of them can accurately be considered atheists rendering that argument worthless. I suspect at the very least that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Our firearms have been regulated and licensed for several decades and no tyranny yet. Just muppetry.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

A handful of Youtube videos? That's just... It's like judging all of the UK based on clips of chavs in Glasgow huffing paint fumes and igniting their own farts.

I play a number of online games and they are highly populated with right-wing Americans blathering on and on about their guns. I expect this crowd to shout above their weight but lets just stop denying that there are plenty of them about.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I love how you sidetracked this:

Dead is dead, more road deaths will occur, and there will be more next year than there were this year. Society has deemed those deaths to be "acceptable losses". Same goes for cigarettes, alcohol, skydiving, and unsafe sex, and all of those can (and will) kill others as well, by the millions. Worrying about reasonable people who keep guns is the last thing anyone should do, it's the unreasonable people doing pretty much anything that are the problem.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

A very quick google on this subject gives me nothing but wing nut pages saying the exact same thing for the first page of results. I don't have the energy to look any further right now.
I will say this list bears a striking resemblance to the one that gets trotted out by religious people trying to impeach atheism and only one or two of them can accurately be considered atheists rendering that argument worthless. I suspect at the very least that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Our firearms have been regulated and licensed for several decades and no tyranny yet. Just muppetry.

Riight. Mao banned gun ownership by the citizenry in 1935, then over the next 2 decades slaughtered 20M of his own people, without resistance. Who did he target? The freethinkers, intellectuals, and anyone who wouldn't swear loyalty to the party. Don't worry, though, I'm sure you'll never have to worry about protecting any of the freedoms you have now.

I play a number of online games and they are highly populated with right-wing Americans blathering on and on about their guns. I expect this crowd to shout above their weight but lets just stop denying that there are plenty of them about.

You play games too? Look out, we have gamer talk incoming from the Xbone crowd! I'm convinced.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I think you've made your thoughts pretty clear on this issue.
While you are of course free to think the thoughts of an asshole, you should expect to be treated as such for choosing to think them.

Name calling. Are you like 15 or something?

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

That was supposed to say rifles, not rides.

Careless much?

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This might make more sense in response to other things I may have said but to the part you quoted it bears no relevance. You deny that the gun lobby and its supporters rail against pretty much any tighter regulation of gun ownership? That is a fact that I suspect even most of the pro gun supporters would agree with. It has nothing to do with stereotypes or what people are thinking. Its a clear reference to what they have done/are doing/say they will do again and again forever.

The background checks are useless. Made so by bleeding heart liberal stooges who felt it was somehow bad for the wack jobs to be in mental hospitals, so they got liberal lawyers to get them back on the streets. These same liberal lawyers masde sure that the wack jobs could hide the fact THEY WERE WACK JOBS from employers, school administrators and the authorities. Look at the mental health doctors who had been treating many of the mass shooters and see their contribution to this too. So in reality, those background checks are pretty much worthless except for the most obvious things like police and court records.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Tighter regulations means its more difficult for the bad guys to get the guns.

You ARE living in a fantasy world. More sloppy assumptions by the game boy...

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is the purpose of those regulations and for some reason gun lovers don't seem to grasp that fact.

Again, they DON'T WORK in the real world. Purpose does not imply success. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Careless much?

Good job I don't have any guns or I might be dangerous?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The background checks are useless.

Well since you declare it to be so, it must be so. Thats the end of that then.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Again, they DON'T WORK in the real world. Purpose does not imply success. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And the first thing you do when you don't immediately succeed it give up and don't try again.
Notwithstanding the significant numbers of people that you would term 'responsible gun owners' who work hard to undermine and circumvent the few rules that are in place.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I love how you sidetracked this:

Did I? Banning everything that could possibly kill anyone is one step away from being Judge Death.

My point still stands unrefuted. Useful things that might kill you when abused are still useful and maybe we can learn to abuse them less. Things which are designed only to kill people and serve no other purpose and directly cause many, many innocent deaths while having only a theoretical benefit to society are really a bad idea. without stricter rules and regulations at the very least.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You play games too? Look out, we have gamer talk incoming from the Xbone crowd! I'm convinced.

Not Xbox games and not FPS games if that makes any difference. A wide spectrum of people play the games I'm talking about but there are large numbers of gun enthusiasts. I'll accept the proportions might be skewed slightly but unless 90% of all gun nuts play these particular games I think maybe you underestimate their prevalence. Or understate it to suit.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Tighter regulations means its more difficult for the bad guys to get the guns.

This is so wrong it's painful. It's easier for me to buy most guns on the grey and black markets than it is to get them "by the book". I buy mine from authorized, licensed dealers and brokers because I believe in the system and want to help keep it healthy, not because of convenience or price. Now ask yourself, "Self, what would a criminal do?" "Well, self, he'd go for the easy, untraced, cheaper way, of course!"

How can that be!? We have nearly half a billion firearms available illegally and privately (avoiding BG checks) in this country. Passing stricter laws against law-abiding, decent citizens (the only folks who will pay attention to those laws to begin with) won't keep those guns out of the hands of people who want to do bad things with them. It's basic common sense.

Why not clean up all the illegal guns? It's dangerous, more dangerous than even the war on drugs, and no politician wants to spearhead a campaign that will cause (yet another) open war in their cities. It's expensive, maybe if we (the USA) weren't already losing the battle against narcotics, we could make a dent in the problem, but as it stands now it's an almost impossible notion.

"The UK did it!" Yeah, you guys "cracked down" by confiscating ~60k hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Woohoo. "GG, bra!" Multiply that by 1000 (adjusted for your much smaller population of ~60M) and you'd be in a similar situation. Again, anti-gun laws, focused on restricting legitimate firearm purchases and ownership in the US, only work to keep them out of the hands of people who aren't the problem to begin with, it's just ignorant feel-good legislation that actually makes the problems worse.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Did I? Banning everything that could possibly kill anyone is one step away from being Judge Death.

My point still stands unrefuted.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Useful things that might kill you when abused are still useful and maybe we can learn to abuse them less.

Like guns, of course. (You ignore hunting, target shooting, and home defense as a deterrent, none of which kills anyone.) A person can own a gun, use it for target practice, hunting, and defense without placing them or their loved ones at risk. Whereas cigarette smoking will kill you, harm those closest to you, and place a huge financial burden on society as a whole (as doctors fight to keep your stupid ass alive). Like driving, it's acceptable too, and one of the main reasons is because it's a huge cash cow for the government via taxation. "They ban guns because they care if people are hurt!" Bullshit. If that were the case, every "civilized" country in the world would have outlawed cigs decades ago. In the real world, lung cancer and emphysema are more terrifying than any firearm... but they don't make a loud, scary noise when they claim another victim. When a fag kills someone it isn't as dramatic and doesn't make for as much of a story on the telly.

Not Xbox games and not FPS games if that makes any difference.

It doesn't.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm arguing that since cars are used far more often for innocent purposes and guns only have the purpose of killing that you have to weigh the vehicular homicides against the all the gun deaths, intentional or otherwise.

I'd like to see your data on this. There are literally millions of firearms in the US, and 99.9999% of them are used for non-homicidal purposes. Some of us like to put holes in paper, knock cans off of fence posts, and otherwise innocently use firearms. In fact there are a huge number of firearms owners who never, ever, use their firearms for anything but legitimately recreational purposes.

On the other hand, automobiles are used in a very large number of events that could be defined as vehicular homicide, or vehicular manslaughter, or vehicular assault. Autos aren't inherently innocent, nor are firearms inherently non-innocent. It is the human that uses those machines that provides the innocence or non-innocence. People have murdered others with all manner of devices, none of which are inherently evil. But guns are different how?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I'd like to see your data on this. There are literally millions of firearms in the US, and 99.9999% of them are used for non-homicidal purposes. Some of us like to put holes in paper, knock cans off of fence posts, and otherwise innocently use firearms. In fact there are a huge number of firearms owners who never, ever, use their firearms for anything but legitimately recreational purposes.

I'll give you the innocent part but shooting cans is hardly useful compared to to driving yourself to work or to the shops or to a hospital.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On the other hand, automobiles are used in a very large number of events that could be defined as vehicular homicide, or vehicular manslaughter, or vehicular assault. Autos aren't inherently innocent, nor are firearms inherently non-innocent. It is the human that uses those machines that provides the innocence or non-innocence. People have murdered others with all manner of devices, none of which are inherently evil. But guns are different how?

This is pretty poor from you.
Vehicular homicide is a legal term which sounds like intent but almost always isn't. You get charged because you are expected to drive responsibly and you failed because you ran over someone due to lack of attention, DUI or whatever other reason.
Intent for the purposes of this discussion is when you see someone on the street and decide "I'm gonna run that guy over in my car". Does it happen? Of course. Does it happen often relative to people drinking, overestimating their abilities, texting on phones, going too fast, doing their makeup in the rear view mirror, staring at a lingerie model on a billboard, etc, etc? Of course not.

As for inanimate objects being inherently non-innocent, we are talking about something which is designed to kill and only to kill. That is its primary purpose. Comparing it to a car, a wrench or a kitchen knife is frankly disingenuous for someone of your intelligence. Your gun cannot be driven to work, it won't do up a bolt or (efficiently) slice a steak.
You could get more mileage comparing it to a baseball bat whose primary purpose is recreation which is your only additional usage case for firearms but at the end of the day its much more difficult to kill someone with a baseball bat even with intent (thats why guns were invented) and by accident its next to impossible. Plus banning them would be silly, you may as well ban sticks and for their ubiquity in your country, guns do not grow on trees.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Sure it does. I made a good point, you responded with a bunch of stuff that I had already refuted before you said it and have refuted again since. You on the other hand haven't addressed my point with a valid counter of your own.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Like guns, of course. (You ignore hunting, target shooting, and home defense as a deterrent, none of which kills anyone.) A person can own a gun, use it for target practice, hunting, and defense without placing them or their loved ones at risk.

Do I ignore hunting? No. I clearly stated that rifles are tools that have a clear use which doesn't involve killing humans. You don't shoot deer with a Glock or a Mac 10. You shouldn't anyway.
Target shooting is fun but this can be safely done on licensed premises, no need to keep guns in the house.
Home defines can be achieved with rifles, especially if you live remotely far from police assistance. I'll grant you they aren't ideal in a small room, but there is a benefit to not being able to easily point and shoot at suspected intruders in the dark. People do shoot their relatives by mistake.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Whereas cigarette smoking will kill you, harm those closest to you, and place a huge financial burden on society as a whole (as doctors fight to keep your stupid ass alive).

A good analogy but only insofar as the tobacco corporations are a lot like the gun makers. 5 year-olds don't get given 'my first cigarette' for their birthday then accidentally kill their 2 year old sister with it.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Like driving, it's acceptable too, and one of the main reasons is because it's a huge cash cow for the government via taxation. "They ban guns because they care if people are hurt!" Bullshit. If that were the case, every "civilized" country in the world would have outlawed cigs decades ago. In the real world, lung cancer and emphysema are more terrifying than any firearm... but they don't make a loud, scary noise when they claim another victim. When a fag kills someone it isn't as dramatic and doesn't make for as much of a story on the telly.

Smoking can be easily done so the only risk is to yourself. Many developed countries are slowly squeezing them out of favour anyway and will likely ban them in due course.
Go rob a bank or a liquor store with a cigarette or get angry and murder your family with one and maybe you'll have a point.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

This is so wrong it's painful. It's easier for me to buy most guns on the grey and black markets than it is to get them "by the book". I buy mine from authorized, licensed dealers and brokers because I believe in the system and want to help keep it healthy, not because of convenience or price. Now ask yourself, "Self, what would a criminal do?" "Well, self, he'd go for the easy, untraced, cheaper way, of course!"

How can that be!? We have nearly half a billion firearms available illegally and privately (avoiding BG checks) in this country. Passing stricter laws against law-abiding, decent citizens (the only folks who will pay attention to those laws to begin with) won't keep those guns out of the hands of people who want to do bad things with them. It's basic common sense.

Why not clean up all the illegal guns? It's dangerous, more dangerous than even the war on drugs, and no politician wants to spearhead a campaign that will cause (yet another) open war in their cities. It's expensive, maybe if we (the USA) weren't already losing the battle against narcotics, we could make a dent in the problem, but as it stands now it's an almost impossible notion.

"The UK did it!" Yeah, you guys "cracked down" by confiscating ~60k hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Woohoo. "GG, bra!" Multiply that by 1000 (adjusted for your much smaller population of ~60M) and you'd be in a similar situation. Again, anti-gun laws, focused on restricting legitimate firearm purchases and ownership in the US, only work to keep them out of the hands of people who aren't the problem to begin with, it's just ignorant feel-good legislation that actually makes the problems worse.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. I guess its my fault for not spelling it out in simpler terms.

You have more illegal guns than anyone else. Do you really think this is nothing to do with the fact that you also have more legal guns than anyone else?
If its impractical to buy back or seize a worthwhile proportion of the illegal guns, then you have to take steps to restrict the future supply so that the rate at which those guns are lost, seized routinely or destroyed through wear or accidental means is higher than the rate at which "responsible" gun owners are having them stolen, losing them or selling them for a fast buck.

Clearer now?

So next you will start rambling about how all the guns actually come from Mexico (will you also claim that Obama sold them?) Are they built by Mexican companies? I would think there are regulations that could help with this too, assuming there were any truth to it.

[BadKosh]

Jeez.. guns will sit on a table and rust away if left alone. you are ignoring PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. What about THE PEOPLE who choose to use guns in crimes, including illegally buying guns? You argument is typical liberal drivel.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'll give you the innocent part but shooting cans is hardly useful compared to to driving yourself to work or to the shops or to a hospital.

That depends on your point of view.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is pretty poor from you.
Vehicular homicide is a legal term which sounds like intent but almost always isn't. You get charged because you are expected to drive responsibly and you failed because you ran over someone due to lack of attention, DUI or whatever other reason.
Intent for the purposes of this discussion is when you see someone on the street and decide "I'm gonna run that guy over in my car". Does it happen? Of course. Does it happen often relative to people drinking, overestimating their abilities, texting on phones, going too fast, doing their makeup in the rear view mirror, staring at a lingerie model on a billboard, etc, etc? Of course not.

It all comes down to "responsible use" of either item. Irresponsible use of an automobile is often deadly, and we have an ongoing and extremely difficult problem with chronic irresponsible (i.e. drunken) driving. More people die on the road due to irresponsible driving than die due to all issues involving firearms (in the US).

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

As for inanimate objects being inherently non-innocent, we are talking about something which is designed to kill and only to kill. That is its primary purpose. Comparing it to a car, a wrench or a kitchen knife is frankly disingenuous for someone of your intelligence. Your gun cannot be driven to work, it won't do up a bolt or (efficiently) slice a steak.
You could get more mileage comparing it to a baseball bat whose primary purpose is recreation which is your only additional usage case for firearms but at the end of the day its much more difficult to kill someone with a baseball bat even with intent (thats why guns were invented) and by accident its next to impossible. Plus banning them would be silly, you may as well ban sticks and for their ubiquity in your country, guns do not grow on trees.

There are a lot of tools that started out with one purpose, but are now used for many other purposes. And as I pointed out, far more people use firearms for non-lethal purposes than for lethal purposes, so your statement that firearms are "only to kill" is apparently oversimplified, or you are intentionally ignoring the vast majority of firearms uses that don't grab headlines.

As for "primary purpose" of other items, sure, there are many items that aren't very useful for other purposes. You can't fasten a bolt with a baseball bat or kitchen knife, you can't drive a chain saw to work, and you can't compose an email on a rappelling rope. Yet all of those items can also be used to inflict harm on humans, even if that's not their "intended purpose."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Jeez.. guns will sit on a table and rust away if left alone. you are ignoring PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. What about THE PEOPLE who choose to use guns in crimes, including illegally buying guns? You argument is typical liberal drivel.

What about them?

They are always going to exist to some extent. The extent is bound to be greater in a culture that is so fond of guns so the first step in trying to change that is to put in place extra controls and in order to to try to restrict the supply and make it more difficult get a gun and commit a crime.

If I were motivated, I could get a gun and rob a bank and I'm confident that with good planning I could probably succeed but despite the fact that I am perpetually broke its not something that has ever entered my head as a seriously genuine option.

And what is your answer to the bad guys? Shoot them?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

That depends on your point of view.
It all comes down to "responsible use" of either item. Irresponsible use of an automobile is often deadly, and we have an ongoing and extremely difficult problem with chronic irresponsible (i.e. drunken) driving. More people die on the road due to irresponsible driving than die due to all issues involving firearms (in the US).

And yet cars, drugs, chemicals and pretty much everything else even potentially harmful is more regulated than guns.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There are a lot of tools that started out with one purpose, but are now used for many other purposes. And as I pointed out, far more people use firearms for non-lethal purposes than for lethal purposes, so your statement that firearms are "only to kill" is apparently oversimplified, or you are intentionally ignoring the vast majority of firearms uses that don't grab headlines.

I try to argue from a more honest standpoint but I am always met with semantic or legal arguments instead of general, moral or common sense ones. Common tactic from people who ultimately know they are on shaky ground.

How many popular firearms are designed by the manufacturer for sport shooting? I'll grant you there might be a difference or two between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle but they are both still designed to kill things and neither is particularly discriminatory over the species of its target short of large African or aquatic mammals.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

As for "primary purpose" of other items, sure, there are many items that aren't very useful for other purposes. You can't fasten a bolt with a baseball bat or kitchen knife, you can't drive a chain saw to work, and you can't compose an email on a rappelling rope. Yet all of those items can also be used to inflict harm on humans, even if that's not their "intended purpose."

You're really just proving my point for me even further. Your only retort seems to be that recreation is as valid a use case to justify large scale loss of life as the transport network that helped facilitate the industrialisation of the modern world. Really?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What about them?

They are always going to exist to some extent. The extent is bound to be greater

*****in a culture that is so fond of guns***

so the first step in trying to change that is to put in place extra controls and in order to to try to restrict the supply and make it more difficult get a gun and commit a crime.

If I were motivated, I could get a gun and rob a bank and I'm confident that with good planning I could probably succeed but despite the fact that I am perpetually broke its not something that has ever entered my head as a seriously genuine option.

And what is your answer to the bad guys? Shoot them?

No, Put them in jail for a long time. OFF THE STREETS.

You STILL have that disconnect between lawful gun owners and criminals who WON'T follow the laws so those "Extra Controls" would be useless. Gun bans have NEVER WORKED!

The weakness in your arguments is that you see everything as fictional stereotypes.
Your "News" is leftist BS at best. When you've lived in the US for a few decades, get back to us.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Sure it does. I made a good point, you responded with a bunch of stuff that I had already refuted before you said it and have refuted again since. You on the other hand haven't addressed my point with a valid counter of your own.

Hardly, because you've utterly failed to show how attempting to ban an inanimate object (that can't harm anyone on its own) will somehow correct bad behavior. Bad behavior that's perpetrated by people who will ignore your bans anyway. So, through ignorance, you propose to restrict access to people who aren't the problem to begin with... Congratulations, you've created a situation where the only citizens who will possess guns are the last people who should have them.

Do I ignore hunting? No. I clearly stated that rifles are tools that have a clear use which doesn't involve killing humans. You don't shoot deer with a Glock or a Mac 10. You shouldn't anyway.

The difference between an "assault rifle" and a hunting rifle is cosmetic, because, and I know you'll be completely surprised by this, what kills a 200lb deer is just as effective at killing a 200lb man. Feel free to ignore this point, most gun control proponents do.

Target shooting is fun but this can be safely done on licensed premises, no need to keep guns in the house.

No reason not to keep them in the house, because they can't harm anyone unless the person handling it chooses to. No small child should have unrestricted access to a firearm, allowing that is already illegal. "But removing them will cut down on accidents!" Except for the people who are going to ignore your proposed laws to begin with, right? Legislation, on its own, doesn't remove a threat from society, all it does is affect law-abiding citizens.

Home defines can be achieved with rifles, especially if you live remotely far from police assistance. I'll grant you they aren't ideal in a small room, but there is a benefit to not being able to easily point and shoot at suspected intruders in the dark. People do shoot their relatives by mistake.

You don't shoot what you can't visually identify, this is drilled into a person's head over and over again when they take a firearm safety course. Anyway, unless you're talking about a very small space, there's little difference between a rifle, a handgun, and a shotgun, they're all lethal. Hell, many times on this forum I've proposed that a shotgun is better for home defense, anyway (can't easily penetrate walls, wide shot pattern). A handgun is more suited for personal defense away from home, unless you're a true expert at handling one.

A good analogy but only insofar as the tobacco corporations are a lot like the gun makers. 5 year-olds don't get given 'my first cigarette' for their birthday then accidentally kill their 2 year old sister with it.

Smoking can be easily done so the only risk is to yourself. Many developed countries are slowly squeezing them out of favour anyway and will likely ban them in due course.

I've never known anyone who gave their 5 y/o a firearm for their birthday, sounds like an extreme case of very shitty parenting (like the morons who leave their children locked-up in a car in the middle of summer). Can it happen, sure, but so can a 5 y/o stabbing the same 2 y/o with a kitchen knife. Guns can kill people, cigs will kill people. A gun can be fired countless times without ever harming anyone, in any way. Whereas every single cig smoked will contribute to someone's death, and a greater burden on society to try and keep the idiot who is addicted to them alive. Period. Gun manufacturers make products that are entirely harmless on their own, even when used, while cig companies knowingly make products that destroy the lives of millions every year, through addiction followed by a slow, excruciating death. No, they aren't even in the same sport, much less the same ballpark.

If you really think that people can smoke without harming others, then... well... I don't believe you've ever been around a smoker. There's 2nd hand smoke, the social impact of the addiction, AND there's affect their premature death has on their families. I'd rather be shot in the stomach and left to slowly bleed-out, over a span of hours, than suffer from lung cancer (or watch a loved one suffer). The tobacco companies know their products do this, they purposely design every aspect of them to make them as addicting as they can, so they can extract as much money from them as possible until the poor idiot dies while suffocating on his own bile. Care to rethink who is the greater evil, there?

Go rob a bank or a liquor store with a cigarette or get angry and murder your family with one and maybe you'll have a point.

If you're a smoker, you are murdering your family (and anyone else around you), by inches. Even if you go "out" to smoke, when you return you're bringing dozens of carcinogens back in with you for them to enjoy. "Daddy smells bad." "Hush Timmy, just sit there and enjoy the arsenic and cyanide."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No, Put them in jail for a long time. OFF THE STREETS.

You STILL have that disconnect between lawful gun owners and criminals who WON'T follow the laws so those "Extra Controls" would be useless.

You already have the most ridiculous prison population in the world and it clearly isn't working for you.

There is no disconnect and it wouldn't matter if there was. Its not relevant to the points I'm making. The deaths that can be prevented by tighter controls include those where people are shot by accident and those where people that you would term as decent people and responsible gun owners lose their shit about something and kill.
Thoe times where kids raid their parents gun cabinets and take their revenge on their classmates. These are all instances where lives are lost because there are too many guns in the hands of people who cannot be trusted with them and because of the culture of guns that exists.
These incidents happen ALL THE TIME in your country, and people barely seem to notice. Its so routine that you don't seem to realise that it shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Gun bans have NEVER WORKED!

Tighter controls work literally EVERYWHERE else.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The weakness in your arguments is that you see everything as fictional stereotypes.
Your "News" is leftist BS at best. When you've lived in the US for a few decades, get back to us.

Go ahead and keep accusing me of stereotyping because I make the odd wisecrack about gun nuts. (Or possibly its because you still haven't worked out what a stereotype is) I haven't used the word 'ammosexual' in this thread yet, that should make your next post easier.

Is news 'leftist' now just because it reports people who shoot themselves and their family members? These are incidents with few relevant facts for anyone to skew. Shooter kills family then self. Child shoots sibling. Idiot shoots own finger cleaning gun. Bigger idiot shoots nephew in the head in the living room in front of family while showing off new gun. No partisan opinion, these were all from real news stories in the last year or so. and are just a very few of the ones available.


Don't worry about anything I just wrote though, just tell me again how I don't understand its all the bad guys fault, gun nuts don't exist and children being shot all the time is absolutely fine because freedom. ©Fox News

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Hardly, because you've utterly failed to show how attempting to ban an inanimate object (that can't harm anyone on its own) will somehow correct bad behavior.

I can't possibly have failed to show how doing something I haven't advocated doing would have an effect I haven't claimed it would have.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Bad behavior that's perpetrated by people who will ignore your bans anyway. So, through ignorance, you propose to restrict access to people who aren't the problem to begin with... Congratulations, you've created a situation where the only citizens who will possess guns are the last people who should have them.

Congratulations to you for following the typical (and frankly brainless) pattern of conservative argument which is to just repeat the same old tired and oft refuted nonsense regardless of its relevance to the point in question.

Its clear that you haven't even been reading what I say. Which is this: You cannot ban guns in the USA, because even if you succeeded the death and crime rates would skyrocket. It might eventually pay off, but it would take too long and cost too many lives.
What I have been saying is not that you should ban guns, even if its just handguns and automatics. You should aspire to get to a point where this can safely and sensibly and happily be done.

This next bit should please you though since you've already tried (and failed) to counter it: Placing tighter controls on ownership and taking steps to water down the gun culture whereby guns are seen as cool would correct SOME bad behaviour. The ready availability of guns provides people with opportunities that they simply don't have in other places. Its only logical that more people will be tempted. This applies as much to the guy who robs a liquor store as it does to the guy who has an argument with his wife and decides to shoot her in the heat of the moment. If the armed robber had to take greater risk and put in more effort would he still rob the store? If the angry husband wasn't used to the idea that he can grab a gun and shoot any time he really wants, isn't it more likely his temper will burn itself out before he murders someone? Thats how bad behaviour can be affected. I've succeeded in showing it, just for you.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The difference between an "assault rifle" and a hunting rifle is cosmetic, because, and I know you'll be completely surprised by this, what kills a 200lb deer is just as effective at killing a 200lb man. Feel free to ignore this point, most gun control proponents do.

You don't need rapid fire to hunt deer and you can defend your home with a hunting rifle or shotgun if you need to. Rifles are tools and should not be banned, "machine guns" are for "when you absolutely have to kill every last ************ in the room" even when they aren't AK-47s. They should not be within easy reach of children or idiots. Sadly this covers most of the population of the world since everyone is an idiot sometimes.



[QUOTE=Cap'n Tightpants;4298261]No reason not to keep them in the house, because they can't harm anyone unless the person handling it chooses to. [?QUOTE]
As long as they are stored securely and responsibly.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No small child should have unrestricted access to a firearm, allowing that is already illegal.

And yet it happens frequently and other children and even trained instructors die as a result and people do not get prosecuted because they have suffered enough due to their loss or because it was god's will or just an accident.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"But removing them will cut down on accidents!" Except for the people who are going to ignore your proposed laws to begin with, right? Legislation, on its own, doesn't remove a threat from society, all it does is affect law-abiding citizens.

Many of those accidents happen to law abiding citizens. We legislate for proper use of cars and other tools. Wear hard hats on building sites, hazmat suits when treating Ebola. We legislate to force or at least encourage people to take the proper precautions when doing something potentially dangerous. Gun get a free pass thanks to the NRA and the arms lobby.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You don't shoot what you can't visually identify, this is drilled into a person's head over and over again when they take a firearm safety course. Anyway, unless you're talking about a very small space, there's little difference between a rifle, a handgun, and a shotgun, they're all lethal. Hell, many times on this forum I've proposed that a shotgun is better for home defense, anyway (can't easily penetrate walls, wide shot pattern). A handgun is more suited for personal defense away from home, unless you're a true expert at handling one.

I have no arguments with any of this and as I mention, I have no design on banning rifles and shotguns which are both legitimate hunting tools. If they double to protect your home, happy days.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've never known anyone who gave their 5 y/o a firearm for their birthday, sounds like an extreme case of very shitty parenting (like the morons who leave their children locked-up in a car in the middle of summer). Can it happen, sure, but so can a 5 y/o stabbing the same 2 y/o with a kitchen knife.

You're right it probably was a fairly extreme case from Kentucky IIRC, but no-one was punished for giving a 5 year old a loaded rifle and then leaving him unsupervised. It would have been much more difficult for a 5 year old to stab a 2 year old deliberately, let alone by accident and I'll bet even the biggest gun retard in Kentucky would know to keep knives out of the way of five year olds while having no issues with guns.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Guns can kill people, cigs will kill people. A gun can be fired countless times without ever harming anyone, in any way. Whereas every single cig smoked will contribute to someone's death, and a greater burden on society to try and keep the idiot who is addicted to them alive. Period. Gun manufacturers make products that are entirely harmless on their own, even when used, while cig companies knowingly make products that destroy the lives of millions every year, through addiction followed by a slow, excruciating death. No, they aren't even in the same sport, much less the same ballpark.

Like I say I still believe the tobacco analogy is best left at the corporate level. You can smoke for 10 years and then get hit by a bus. Good luck convincing the jury you'd have been half a second quicker to get out the way if you weren't a smoker. (Tobacco actually improves your reflexes slightly.)

The inanimate object defence is weak. Guns already get special treatment in this respect when they logically shouldn't. Heroin and Dynamite are harmless if you leave them on their own but one is strictly regulated and the other is 100% illegal outside one or two research labs (I'm guessing). Cars and chemicals and foodstuffs and tools and all manner of other products come with regulations, restrictions, licenses, protective equipment, and health warnings. Guns are inexplicably exempt from adding or increasing any of these measures under the guise that its the first step to the government taking them away Its propaganda and it doesn't exist to protect your freedom, it exists to protect profits.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

If you really think that people can smoke without harming others, then... well... I don't believe you've ever been around a smoker. There's 2nd hand smoke, the social impact of the addiction, AND there's affect their premature death has on their families. I'd rather be shot in the stomach and left to slowly bleed-out, over a span of hours, than suffer from lung cancer (or watch a loved one suffer). The tobacco companies know their products do this, they purposely design every aspect of them to make them as addicting as they can, so they can extract as much money from them as possible until the poor idiot dies while suffocating on his own bile. Care to rethink who is the greater evil, there?

Do I think people do smoke without harming others? No. But theoretically they can. This distinction seems to be important to you when it comes to what people do with guns compared to what the guns do on their own. Thats why I said it. FWIW my father died of lung cancer, or rather the numerous other cancers it caused by spreading all over the place.

You are comparing two industries who do not care about causing innocent people to die in the name of their profits. One might kill thousands instead of millions, but the millions who die at the end of a cigarette do so standing behind one by choice. Those who die by gun are standing in front of it and most of them never chose to be there.
They are both despicable, even if I agree tobacco is worse, it doesn't excuse or even mitigate "big firearms" at all.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Tighter controls work literally EVERYWHERE else.

Proof?

Detroit? Chicago? Atlanta? Washington, DC? New York City?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Proof?

Detroit? Chicago? Atlanta? Washington, DC? New York City?

Key word there was 'else'. Those are all in the US and the regulations are ineffective because all you have to do to circumvent them is drive down the road. Thought the crime rate in NY has done pretty well since they cracked down hasn't it?

Did they tighten regulations in Atlanta? Wouldn't have imagined that would ever get through.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And yet cars, drugs, chemicals and pretty much everything else even potentially harmful is more regulated than guns.

This is because the Constitution already regulates firearms. And the Framers felt that ensuring the populace was able to a) participate in the common defense and b) stand as a group politically in cases of government overstepping its limits. Yes, the Framers did think in those terms. And let's remember that in the late 18th Century the term "regulated" was used to refer to training as well as "controlled".

I used practical examples because you used emotional arguments. Yes, bad people use firearms to do bad things. But bad people also use knives, baseball bats, chain saws, and more items to do bad things. Guns aren't special in any way except that they allow a person to have an effect at a distance. So do cars when a bad person jams down the accelerator into a crowd of people.

Your idea of recreation may not encompass the same things I find recreational, but that's OK. I like hiking, photography, reading, and all sorts of other things. I also like dealing with mechanical things, and I'm quite interested in the interface between the human body and mechanical items. THAT is what target shooting is about, by the way (at least for me): controlling my body sufficiently to be able to put holes in the target where I want, and that's not a trivial thing.

Suggesting that guns should be banned because some people do bad things with them is exactly the same logical argument as "alcohol should be banned because some people do bad things with alcohol." We tried a ban like that in the US, and it certainly didn't do what it was expected to by its advocates, and that is precisely because the logical basis of that argument was flawed. It was not about alcohol, it was about people.

I do NOT think everyone should have access to firearms. I don't think Waragainstsleep should be forced to own, handle or otherwise deal with firearms because he's not interested in them. I don't think a lot of people who are legally allowed to have guns should have them...but I also don't think that most people who are legally allowed to vote should have as much say in our government as I do (and there's a whole lot of stuff to talk about in that issue), but in both cases, it is NOT my decision to make.

The Constitution gives anyone over 18 years of age the right to vote, and it gives any adult (with some limits) the right to "keep and bear arms". I spent a quarter century serving this country, putting myself in harms way, to support and defend the Constitution, and I continue to hold the Constitution in higher regard than other people's opinions of social and political issues. I have been in the position to "defend to the death your right to say" what you believe. Waragainstsleep, we shall simply have to agree to disagree on this.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Key word there was 'else'. Those are all in the US and the regulations are ineffective because all you have to do to circumvent them is drive down the road. Thought the crime rate in NY has done pretty well since they cracked down hasn't it?

Did they tighten regulations in Atlanta? Wouldn't have imagined that would ever get through.

You're only looking at one side of that issue. Disarming law abiding citizens made it EASIER for criminals in DC, Detroit, Chicago, etc. to victimize them. It was never about keeping guns out of Detroit, for example, it was the city suggesting that "making it illegal for people in the city to have guns will stop gun-related violence." No matter what else you might think about how the NRA argues this point, they are correct in one major point: laws only work on law-abiding citizens, NOT criminals.

"EVERYWHERE else" involves other countries that could ban firearms everywhere, AND which also had to enforce that ban while defending the population against those who violate the law. No other country's citizens have a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." And if we look at places like Great Britain, where banning firearms has forced criminals into using sword and kitchen knives, we see that a disarmed populace remains at the mercy of criminals, no matter whether they are using guns or clubs. GB has laws that seriously restrict kitchen knives, and crime still a major problem there. It just isn't reported as "gun crime," making it more convenient for anti-gun people here to falsely point to Britain's statistics and say that "gun crime is almost zero", when "crime overall" is not substantially decreased.