The Official Gun Control Debate thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spook

interesting. that's pretty much the same idea cho had.

---

Not really. I pretty much don't have an aggressive bone in my body, but I grew up with firearms, I own a lot, I carry them and I understand them. While I never have, and seriously hope I never have the need, I would not hesitate to use a firearm to defend myself or my family. I have weapons for different uses. I have a number of different styles of rifles for different types of hunting, I have some handguns for hunting and bear defense (Only one, really for bear defense - the S&W .500), and I have handguns for personal and home protection. Of the protective weapons, I would be happy to never fire them other than to keep in practice and assure proper functionality.

My statement really just points out that if someone wants to mess with my person, my home or my family, there would definitely be better choices...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

The only data I have to support the fact that the DGU data is erroneous is that I don't personally know of anyone who has used a gun in self defense.

---

That may be a big factor for which side of the ideological fence many people find themselves on. When I was 7 I saw my dad defend our family with a handgun. There was me(7yo) my sister (4yo) my mom and my dad. We had a flat tire in a bad part of town, late at night. I won't go into details, but there was four of them and they had clubs. My dad had his Colt .45 which he always kept with him.

It's impossible to rewind history and say how things would have played out differently if my dad hadn't had gun with him, but it is likely I would be a very different person today. If I were here at all. So while people sit around and try to sound enlightened by saying that violence isn't the answer, and guns make us less safe. My experience strongly suggests that they are saying what they want to be true. Not what they know to be true.

This isn't really directed at you AD, your post just reminded me of one of the reasons I am so firmly a supporter of the 2nd amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

My experience strongly suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about(not directed at you AD, just the anti-gun crowd in general).

---

i suspect there are plenty of people who have been in hostile situations who have concluded that they are grateful there were no guns involved. i also suspect there are plenty of people who have been in hostile situations in which guns were used in "defense" that resulted in an unnecessary bloodbath on all sides.

you shouldn't assume because your personal experience in a particular situation leads to one conclusion that people who have been in similar situations all arrive at similar conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

So while people sit around and try to sound enlightened by saying that violence isn't the answer, and guns make us less safe. My experience strongly suggests that they are saying what they want to be true. Not what they know to be true.

---

Doesn't that go for both sides of the debate, or at least for those elements in society that are prepared to debate.

Incidentally the DGU statistics presented here are incorrect. The study estimated that based on their survey there would be 4.7 million DGUs by 1.5 million different individuals based on 19 positive responses. However in their findings they say Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack. Well I, for one, certainly hope so. Remember the underlying problem for requiring self defense using a gun is (presumed) violent crime. More guns doesn't solve the underlying problem and may even escalate it. Go figure.

Hey Spook, since you have an interesting take on everything, I was hoping you could give me some info on the origin of nations in general. You frequently make note of the violent origins of the united states. I haven't done any research on this yet but it seems to me the very act of drawing national boundaries has most frequently been conducted not though peaceful negotioation but, thought some form of strugle or violence. This does not justify violence or the destructions of the previous inhabitants of this land mass but I get the sense you have a different standard you are comparing the creation of a nation to......

Even before the nation state, territory has been claimed though violent struggle. Yes, there are exceptions I am sure and, yes those who wrote history may have been the victors of those battles and skewed in their "record" of history.

In short, what standard are you using to judge the violent nature of the formation of the U.S. vs. the rest of the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by telepariah

Because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
Because this nation was built by people who had to be armed to protect themselves from the others who were armed. We saw it in the movies.
Because if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns.
Because we need guns to protect ourselves from our government.
Because there are so many guns out there already it is impossible to control them.
Because the guns themselves are not evil. People kill people.

and most of all...

Because we want our freedom unfettered by responsibility or obligation. If my gun is bigger than your gun, I am a bigger man and that is what counts.

---

very impressive, what more can be said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

That may be a big factor for which side of the ideological fence many people find themselves on. When I was 7 I saw my dad defend our family with a handgun. There was me(7yo) my sister (4yo) my mom and my dad. We had a flat tire in a bad part of town, late at night. I won't go into details, but there was four of them and they had clubs. My dad had his Colt .45 which he always kept with him.

It's impossible to rewind history and say how things would have played out differently if my dad hadn't had gun with him, but it is likely I would be a very different person today. If I were here at all. So while people sit around and try to sound enlightened by saying that violence isn't the answer, and guns make us less safe. My experience strongly suggests that they are saying what they want to be true. Not what they know to be true.

This isn't really directed at you AD, your post just reminded me of one of the reasons I am so firmly a supporter of the 2nd amendment.

---

How do you feel about countries like Sweden, Canada, France, England, Japan, etc, etc, etc, where almost no one carries guns?

Just out of interest, and I understand if you don't want to talk about it, but did your dad fire the gun? Sounds like a nightmare situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spook

interesting. that's pretty much the same idea cho had.

---

Oh ya. Did you get a good chance to meet with Cho and understand him and his actions. I thought not. But I'm sure you're willing to bring to our attention some sort of media hearsay to let us know who Cho really was. Please keep it to yourself. If you didn't meet him and know him well then you don't know what you're talking about.


Are there any pot smokers here? I'm just wondering because marijuana is illegal and considered a Class I Narcotic by our federal government. Yet its everywhere. I have no problem finding pot. ever. I think my point here is obvious....you can't stop people from doing what they want. Ever! If they want guns they will get them. If certain people want to kill a bunch of other people they will. You might say that guns make it easier to kill. Tell that to Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 plane hijackers. Up here in Montana we had the unabomber. I understand the push for peace and visualizing a world with no weapons and nobody killing anybody. But come on...... do you honestly think that legislation is the way to such a Utopia?!?

Q. What is the number one cause of crime?








































A. Laws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

How do you feel about countries like Sweden, Canada, France, England, Japan, etc, etc, etc, where almost no one carries guns?

Just out of interest, and I understand if you don't want to talk about it, but did your dad fire the gun? Sounds like a nightmare situation.

---

Dood. Canada has plenty o guns!! Handguns, rifles, and shotguns. They do TONS of hunting in Canada. They do have a much lower population density but , more importantly, they tend to be a lot nicer to each other. They even gave each other free healthcare!! Fact: Nice people tend not to be violent towards one another.

Statistically speaking... I don't care. This one is not going to change. Too many ignorant people that want unregulated gun ownership.

I'm going to find a ski related thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kya

Social Revolution is the only way to address these problems. America is addicted to violence, plain and simple. I call for an all out boycott of tv, movie, music, and video game violence.

---

That WOULD probably have more of an effect than gun control. IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maskinut

Hey Spook, since you have an interesting take on everything, I was hoping you could give me some info on the origin of nations in general. You frequently make note of the violent origins of the united states. I haven't done any research on this yet but it seems to me the very act of drawing national boundaries has most frequently been conducted not though peaceful negotioation but, thought some form of strugle or violence. This does not justify violence or the destructions of the previous inhabitants of this land mass but I get the sense you have a different standard you are comparing the creation of a nation to......

Even before the nation state, territory has been claimed though violent struggle. Yes, there are exceptions I am sure and, yes those who wrote history may have been the victors of those battles and skewed in their "record" of history.

In short, what standard are you using to judge the violent nature of the formation of the U.S. vs. the rest of the world?

---

i'm sorry to disappoint you. i'm not suggesting there is anything different about the formation of the u.s. compared to the rest of the world, or the violent drawing of boundaries in general. but i do happen to be a u.s. citizen, so my primary responsibility is the nature and behavior of the u.s. beyond that, not every nation constitutes an effective, if crumbling, empire and not every nation's citizens believe it to be the best thing on the planet since sliced bread.

in fact, if anything, i am reiterating exactly what you are suggesting, that we (the u.s.) are more alike (if not more capable of greater destruction) than different, contrary to popular mythology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AsheanMT

Oh ya. Did you get a good chance to meet with Cho and understand him and his actions. I thought not. But I'm sure you're willing to bring to our attention some sort of media hearsay to let us know who Cho really was. Please keep it to yourself. If you didn't meet him and know him well then you don't know what you're talking about.

---

dear ashean, here i thought i was on ignore. i knew you'd come back. we have a special bond.

i appreciate your sensitivity toward cho, but he is an aberration only as a matter of degree and his personal writings are not "media hearsay" as you call it. his emotions and thoughts are not qualitatively bizarre.

please don't deny me the opportunity you so frequently enjoy.

Most Americans have the right to bear arms, and I don't have a problem with that and I've owned guns for hunting in the past, but it sucks when our President and the majority Republican leadership choose to ignore laws that are already on the books and then shit like this happens....

Did He Buy the Guns Legally?
A federal background check cleared Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui to buy weapons. It should have stopped him cold.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 6:07 p.m. MT April 19, 2007
April 19, 2007 - The disclosure that Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui was once involuntary detained for mental illness may change the typical debate over gun control that inevitably follows gun-related tragedies.
At the time Cho legally purchased the weapons used in the shootings, he had no criminal history and was a permanent legal resident with a green card. He followed the law and underwent the required background checks. Thus, in the immediate aftermath of the shootings, law-enforcement officials said there was nothing that would have prevented him from buying the guns—short of major changes to the gun laws that most members of Congress were clearly not ready to support.
Were they wrong? Contrary to initial reports, Cho may not have been legally eligible to acquire the two semi-automatic weapons that he used to murder more than 30 students at the school on Monday. Critics say Cho was able to collect his firearms without a hitch because of a gaping hole in the enforcement of existing federal gun laws that routinely allows mentally unstable people to buy deadly firearms......

The rest of the story is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/

It's a shame our Attorney Generals under George W. have been busy listening to Rove, firing federal prosecutors and justifying illegal wire taps rather then working on ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sftc

Most Americans have the right to bear arms, and I don't have a problem with that and I've owned guns for hunting in the past, but it sucks when our President and the majority Republican leadership choose to ignore laws that are already on the books and then shit like this happens....

Did He Buy the Guns Legally?
A federal background check cleared Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui to buy weapons. It should have stopped him cold.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 6:07 p.m. MT April 19, 2007
April 19, 2007 - The disclosure that Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui was once involuntary detained for mental illness may change the typical debate over gun control that inevitably follows gun-related tragedies.
At the time Cho legally purchased the weapons used in the shootings, he had no criminal history and was a permanent legal resident with a green card. He followed the law and underwent the required background checks. Thus, in the immediate aftermath of the shootings, law-enforcement officials said there was nothing that would have prevented him from buying the guns—short of major changes to the gun laws that most members of Congress were clearly not ready to support.
Were they wrong? Contrary to initial reports, Cho may not have been legally eligible to acquire the two semi-automatic weapons that he used to murder more than 30 students at the school on Monday. Critics say Cho was able to collect his firearms without a hitch because of a gaping hole in the enforcement of existing federal gun laws that routinely allows mentally unstable people to buy deadly firearms......

The rest of the story is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/

It's a shame our Attorney Generals under George W. have been busy listening to Rove, firing federal prosecutors and justifying illegal wire taps rather then working on ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

---

That is all well and good and I certainly agree states should be compelled to report these types mental health reports to the federal database. But your post is sadly typical of the kind of politicizing people often complain about after this type of incident. The fact that these things aren't reported had nothing to do with Bush(at least one of the incidents listed in the article happened while Clinton was in office), but has more to do with peoples fears about their medical records being made public and the discretion given to states in this matter. Read the article more closely next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

That is all well and good and I certainly agree states should be compelled to report these types mental health reports to the federal database. But your post is sadly typical of the kind of politicizing people often complain about after this type of incident.

---

Furthermore I suggest it demonstrates a scoping in of the discussion to one individual acquiring guns. The issue is far more widespread. On an average day in US there are, coincidentally, 32 firearm homicides (based on 2004 CDC data). How to prevent guns getting into the hands of the other 32 shooters on an average day is too big a question for us to handle ?

Roughly 118 highway deaths a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodaottis

Roughly 118 highway deaths a day.

---

BAN CARS!!!1!!11!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodaottis

Roughly 118 highway deaths a day.

---

So we should work on highway deaths to the exclusion of firearm deaths ?
Oh, wait. Seat belts, check. Helmets, check. Air bags, check. Traction control, check. Drunk driving laws, check. Teenage driving restrictions, check.

Brady bill, lapsed.

Brady bill sure would have prevented the hell out of Monday's events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

That is all well and good and I certainly agree states should be compelled to report these types mental health reports to the federal database. But your post is sadly typical of the kind of politicizing people often complain about after this type of incident. The fact that these things aren't reported had nothing to do with Bush(at least one of the incidents listed in the article happened while Clinton was in office), but has more to do with peoples fears about their medical records being made public and the discretion given to states in this matter. Read the article more closely next time.

---

Oh so this is all about protecting our medical records? That's kind of like the pro-gun argument that AK-47's and semi-auto 9mm's can be used to hunt rabbits, it's just an excuse to fend off ANY type of gun control.
The fact is if a person is bonkers nuts they shouldn't be able to legally buy a gun, screw the protection of their medical records. As Chris Rock said "whatever happened to crazy?"
If a person is judged by society to be mentally disturbed I think they should be required to give up some rights for the protection of the general public.
Yeah, it's fairly easy to get a hold of a gun, legally or illegally, but why are some people so fixed on the idea that everyone has the God given right to own a gun, regardless of their mental condition?

good points re: US/ROW Keep it coming Spook. I find myself frequently in diagreement with you but your viewpoint is always interesting. I also thank those who prod you on this forum because it really gets some good conversation going.

If only I could stop hating that damn avatar of yours I could focus on what you are saying. (don't change it since I am afraid of what would replace it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maskinut

If only I could stop hating that damn avatar of yours I could focus on what you are saying. (don't change it since I am afraid of what would replace it.)

---

You DO know that you can turn avatars off, from User CP, roight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sftc

Oh so this is all about protecting our medical records? That's kind of like the pro-gun argument that AK-47's and semi-auto 9mm's can be used to hunt rabbits, it's just an excuse to fend off ANY type of gun control.
The fact is if a person is bonkers nuts they shouldn't be able to legally buy a gun, screw the protection of their medical records. As Chris Rock said "whatever happened to crazy?"
If a person is judged by society to be mentally disturbed I think they should be required to give up some rights for the protection of the general public.
Yeah, it's fairly easy to get a hold of a gun, legally or illegally, but why are some people so fixed on the idea that everyone has the God given right to own a gun, regardless of their mental condition?

---

Dude, did you even read my post, or the article? Your reading comprehension is that of a 3 year old. I support having these records sent to the federal database and the article mentions that the NRA supports it as well. My point was that trying to blame the fact that STATES are not compelled to send these records to the federal database and that some people don't want their medical records given over to the government has little if anything to do with who is president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

How do you feel about countries like Sweden, Canada, France, England, Japan, etc, etc, etc, where almost no one carries guns?

---

It is an apples to oranges argument. All of those countries have a much smaller, more largely homogeneous population. Factor in number of people, larger diversity, economics, poverty, etc., and the "gun" argument gets very hard to figure out.

We can't look at European countries as a model, because those countries aren't mirrors of the U.S.. They are quite different.