flippant wrote:When I paid dues to the NRA(National Rifle Association) they used to send me this magazine(mostly propaganda) every month that had 15 or 20 really brief stories about gun owners who stopped a crime, caught a criminal, or protected themselves with either their concealed carry or home protection weapon.
The problem with those stories is that absent any sort of witness, statistics or confirmation, they're equally as likely to be complete fabrications as the letters in Penthouse.
Maybe this is new, but all of the stories published have specific witnesses, and are often taken from police reports and newspapers.
Izawwlgood wrote:I'm not sure it necessarily makes it more difficult, but it certainly means more money ends up in the wrong hands. If procuring a gun was approximately as difficult as procuring drugs, all you've really done is shift non-government/law enforcement gun ownership solely into the hands of people who are engaged in black market activities.
Are you suggesting we should legalize drugs, traffiking protected animals and blood diamonds? Because we can't totally stop traffic, and some people make money out of it.
The existence of a gun does not hurt anyone. In fact a serial murderer possessing a gun doesn't hurt anyone. People hurt people. Guns are just an instrument. "A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.''-Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Well you need to make that point more clearly.
My point is not that guns should be banned, but that the moral implications should be taken into account when talking about regulations.
You mean such moral implications as stripping the only effective means of defense from those most likely to be victimized? Most crimes, especially violent crimes, are committed by young men (16-24 years old range, although you can adjust the ranges and get a similar result). In other words, the most physically fit demographic. If a senior citizen or most females tries to fend off your average criminal with a knife or bludgeoning instrument, it's not going to do anything.
Hemmers wrote:My point is that if you wish to acquire a firearm you can. This is irrespective of whether you are a gangster or anything else. Yes, many petty criminals will not go to the effort or risk, but they could if they wanted to. And there is literally nothing that can be done to stop them, because where there is demand there will be supply, even if that
means setting up a shed with hobby tools and manufacturing them yourself.
I don't agree with this. I could make my own explosives, should we deregulate them? I could make poison gas, should we deregulate them?
Making my own explosives, or buying them on the black market, will be more dangerous than buying them from my local drug store if that was local.
If I want to break a rock, I will use other means than explosives, because even though explosive are theoritically an easier way, it is much easier to find a jackhammer, or a pickaxe.
Simply forbidding something doesn't make that thing magically disappear. Yet, it is not a reason to allow it.
That's not quite the point. On the contrary, gun control laws are highly effective are keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who just want to use guns for hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. They are not effective at keeping guns out of the hands of drug dealers, murderers, thieves, muggers, or other criminals. Consider that pre-Heller, the penalty for carrying an illegal firearm in Washington D.C was 5 years in prison, probably the harshest such penalty in the country. But the penalty for murder is much higher than that--from 6-12 years to potentially life. Why should someone who is already risking large jail penalties be scared by another 5 years?
And it has nothing to do with what someone or another thinks about guns, or what we want or hope to work. Unless the penalty for carrying guns exceeds
the current penalty for murder, gun control laws cannot work
To make it simple, firearms for self defence are an evil. It can be a necessary evil, a useful evil, or a plain useless evil.
It is a question of utility vs cost.
To make it simple, no. Just, no. A firearm is simply a collection of metal, ceramic, wood, and/or plastic parts. It is inanimate and cannot be any more evil than any other collection of such pieces, such as a car or hammer. If you want to consider "self-defense" as "evil," that is your prerogative, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with guns.
omgryebread wrote:That being said, I don't think it's feasible to ban handgun ownership in the US.
Given the history and culture of USA, it is not something you can do overnight. But changing the regulations step by step over a few decades is very feasible.
Support for gun freedom is on the rise in the USA, and it has been for several decades.
omgryebread wrote: Shooting someone to stop, say, a rape or a violent assault is acceptable in my book
It is not for everyone. And it is not a question about the efficiency of shooting people to avoid rapes, but about the morality of doing so. By the way, rape is not punished by death in USA.
So you're implying citizens should be allowed to deliver a punishment a judge cannot. Of course punishing after the facts is nothing like acting to avoid it, but still it is an issue about the role of justice in society, and can't be easily discarded.
Rape can be one of the factors that makes a difference between death and some other sentence. And killing someone in such a case has nothing to do with punishment--it is prevention.
EdgarJPublius wrote:Do you really have your golf-clubs/baseball glove/frisbee at home? Would it be that difficult to let it/them at the club?
A shotgun is more dangerous than a golf club. I am allowed to have solar panels on my roof, but not a RTG nuclear battery in my backyard, because it is more dangerous.
It has a potential to be dangerous. How many people have died because of nuclear power in the United States? (I' pretty sure it's 0).
And anyway, now you're essentially saying the difference between guns and anything else that can be used to kill someone is killing power, and "guns" compared to something else is simply an arbitrary distinction.
Thesh wrote:I also keep a .357 magnum in my nightstand, fully loaded with two additional speed loaders just in case.
You have a very powerful handgun, with enough ammo to shoot 18 times, ready to shoot in a moment's notice?
I find that pretty frightening. A kid, or a robber, could find the gun and use it.
You illustrate perfectly why I'm worried with people having guns for self-defence. You consider firing 18 rounds of a very powerful and very lethal weapon as your main defence system. You didn't choose salt cartridges in a shotgun, or a small caliber, and you are more likely to kill someone in your life than I am.
There are plenty of safety mechanisms to stop unauthorized persons from accessing a gun. Do you lock your kitchen knives up between every use?
If someone tried to kill each of you, most likely you would be dead and he would be alive.
And I don't even understand your last line. Do you mean that the very presence of a specific collection of parts makes him more likely to then go out and hurt someone (an absurd proposition)? Do you mean that, statistically, people tend to own guns in places with higher murder rates (a correlation that, without further data, could just as easily indicate that after crime goes up, guns become more prevalent)?
Edit--forgot this bit
There is a whole spectrum of things you can do.
As a said, hunters in France are allowed to own rifles with up to three ammunitions, and the ones I knw don't complain about it.
On the other hand, banning semi automatic handguns, or assault rifles, is a totally different subject.
Can you define a rigorous definition of an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" as well as reasons for your criteria?