Meso 38
Recommended Posts
Meso 38
It's not the legal firearms held by moral citizens that's the problem.
It's the ones that exist among the criminals that's the problem. Unfortunately, as it so happens - most of those actually once belonged to those 'moral citizens'. It's a common practice for thieves, break into houses and steal the guns from safes/steal the safe itself.
Doesn't matter what the rules are on gun control in that state, when you've got so many travelling between criminals, it's removing them from those people that should become the focus.
It's the ones that exist among the criminals that's the problem. Unfortunately, as it so happens - most of those actually once belonged to those 'moral citizens'. It's a common practice for thieves, break into houses and steal the guns from safes/steal the safe itself.
Doesn't matter what the rules are on gun control in that state, when you've got so many travelling between criminals, it's removing them from those people that should become the focus.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteSure you can - I've never seen a gun jump off a table and start shooting the place up on it's own. The *USER* defines the use, for good or ill.
Still doesn't make sense. If I put a balloon on one table and a gun on the table next to it. I doubt any rational thinking person is going to say both tables hold the same risks, regardless of who is at the end of each object. Both can be used to murder a person, but one is far far more likely to.
Sure it does - it's the USER that creates the risk, not the inanimate object. Give a murderer the balloon and he'll try to strangle you with it. Give a law-abiding person the gun and you're perfectly safe.
QuoteQuoteThe gun equalizes the odds for the defender, just as it sometimes aids the attacker.
Not everyone owns a gun. Not everyone should have to feel as though they need to. Many people end up in marriages where the wife refuses to allow a gun in the household, or people can't afford it.
If people wish to deny that there is danger in the world, that's their business. I don't demand that they own a gun, and conversely they shouldn't demand that I disarm.
QuoteOn top of that there is the fact that during a hijacking it's hardly a situation that gives much time to reach over and get a gun.
If someone is taken by complete surprise, it's not going to matter if they're armed or not.
QuoteAs well as the fact that, not sure about how it is in the U.S, but from what I've gathered from reports here a criminal is far more likely to kill you if he sees you pull a gun.
If he's close enough to kill you for pulling a gun, you're close enough to kill him for pulling a gun.... or you can be disarmed and dependent on his good will to remain hale and whole.
QuoteI'd imagine that's a reaction that's fairly common among criminals when it's kill or be killed.
Fairly common among armed defenders, too.
QuoteYou're also looking at the problem backwards, instead of trying to work to remove the problem, you're aiming at ways to deal with it.
That's correct - I don't subscribe to the wishful thinking that criminals will turn in their guns.
QuoteQuoteNot so - it leaves the old and weak at the mercy of the young and strong.
Would make sense if the guy holding the gun in the first place wasn't in an advantage situation being able to shoot as soon as he sees a sign of a gun.
Makes sense when the defender can shoot as soon as he sees a sign of a gun, too.
QuoteQuoteDEFINITELY disagree - too much of a possibility of abuse.
Seems a good way to round up the guns of legal owners if gov't decides to do that, as well. Again, too easy to abuse the system IMO.
As I said, there would need to be very descriptive laws around privacy drawn up in such a situation.
But if the government wanted to round up all gun owners, you think they couldn't do that already? Finding your exact location or your home address which I'm assuming is on all registration forms is hardly any different in the amount of work involved.
The only 'registration' on my guns are the 4473s at the gun shop, and that's how I prefer it. Fed.gov has zero business knowing what private property I own.
QuoteIf you find yourself at some point staring down the barrel of a gun used by a criminal and you're out of reach of yours, the fact that he has one is going to be the problem, nothing else. And one has to be all kinds of psycho neurotic to never leave their gun.
Are you 'psycho neurotic' for having insurance on your home and car? Are you 'psycho neurotic' for having a fire extinguisher in your home and car?
Are you 'psycho neurotic' for wearing seat belts?
QuoteInstead of focusing on defence, logic would say it would make more sense to focus on removing to opposing offence.
Since we're discussing logic - let us know when the criminals start obeying laws.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 1,647
Quote
How many MORE do we need to have? There's already over 20 THOUSAND gun laws on the books.
NO MORE are needed. Fewer, better, less easily circumvented laws are needed.
Quote
QuoteNo firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others.
That's already law, and part of the NICS check at the federal level.
.
A check that is easily circumvented and therefore ineffective.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
GeorgiaDon 340
All true. So, how do we go about changing a culture that celebrates having money/stuff more than how you got it? Where going to prison is so commonplace it's virtually seen as a rite of passage to adulthood, a badge of honor not shame? Where the great majority of kids grow up with neighborhood gangsters as their only male role model? When Mike Tyson can go to jail for rape, come out a hero to the community, and find himself more marketable than ever due to his "enhanced" notoriety and bad boy image, we are well and truly fucked.QuoteIn Switzerland, keeping a fully automatic firearm and ammunition operational and close at hand is legally mandated, and the rate of crimes involving firearms is vanishingly small.
In Chicago, it is a felony to even think hard about a firearm, and the rate of crimes involving firearms is high enough to be considered a commonplace occurrence.
Take a close look at the elements of the population involved and get back to me.
I've read that in Japan (with a very low crime rate) going to prison automatically results in social ostracism. Not uncommonly, even immediate family including your children will refuse to acknowledge your existence. Think about it, after you've served your time and are released, you find yourself unemployable and totally alone, none of your former friends coming around, your kids won't return your calls. All alone until you eventually die. Here in the states we celebrate outlaws as folk heroes: Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid, Al Capone, all ruthless Killers who made lots of widows/widowers/orphans, but all admired in a way.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
How many MORE do we need to have? There's already over 20 THOUSAND gun laws on the books.
NO MORE are needed. Fewer, better, less easily circumvented laws are needed.
Fewer/better, I agree with - you've still not provided any proof of the circumvention you keep claiming.
Quote
QuoteNo firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others.
That's already law, and part of the NICS check at the federal level.
.
A check that is easily circumvented and therefore ineffective.
And I'll believe that as soon as you FINALLY provide some proof of it.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteI'm not anti-guns and I think they do have a place in the world. If I had the money and ambition to register I'd own one myself.
With that said, one definitely can't deny that availability of guns are likely to cause an increase in certain crimes.
Sure I can. Confrontational crimes against people (robbery, rape) go down when restrictions on concealed carry are lessened.
Burglaries go up.
rushmc 18
QuoteIt's not the legal firearms held by moral citizens that's the problem.
It's the ones that exist among the criminals that's the problem. Unfortunately, as it so happens - most of those actually once belonged to those 'moral citizens'. It's a common practice for thieves, break into houses and steal the guns from safes/steal the safe itself.
Doesn't matter what the rules are on gun control in that state, when you've got so many travelling between criminals, it's removing them from those people that should become the focus.
and here is where the problem is
Laws only affect those who follow the law
Do criminals follow the law?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Still doesn't make sense. If I put a balloon on one table and a gun on the table next to it. I doubt any rational thinking person is going to say both tables hold the same risks, regardless of who is at the end of each object. Both can be used to murder a person, but one is far far more likely to.
Not everyone owns a gun. Not everyone should have to feel as though they need to. Many people end up in marriages where the wife refuses to allow a gun in the household, or people can't afford it.
On top of that there is the fact that during a hijacking it's hardly a situation that gives much time to reach over and get a gun. As well as the fact that, not sure about how it is in the U.S, but from what I've gathered from reports here a criminal is far more likely to kill you if he sees you pull a gun. I'd imagine that's a reaction that's fairly common among criminals when it's kill or be killed.
You're also looking at the problem backwards, instead of trying to work to remove the problem, you're aiming at ways to deal with it.
Would make sense if the guy holding the gun in the first place wasn't in an advantage situation being able to shoot as soon as he sees a sign of a gun.
As I said, there would need to be very descriptive laws around privacy drawn up in such a situation.
But if the government wanted to round up all gun owners, you think they couldn't do that already? Finding your exact location or your home address which I'm assuming is on all registration forms is hardly any different in the amount of work involved.
If you find yourself at some point staring down the barrel of a gun used by a criminal and you're out of reach of yours, the fact that he has one is going to be the problem, nothing else. And one has to be all kinds of psycho neurotic to never leave their gun.
Instead of focusing on defence, logic would say it would make more sense to focus on removing to opposing offence.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites