The Official Gun Control Debate thread

[Cliff Huckable]

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.

Canada doesn't have a more homogeneous population. And I doubt England and France do.

And why would the size of the population matter?
Poverty maybe - but shouldn't the richest "free" country in the world have less poverty rather than more...and is poverty really a factor? Kliebold & Harris, Cho, Charles Whitman, most (or all) of the others weren't poor.

I agree Euro countries are quite different than the US but maybe those differences are the key to figuring out why things seem to have gone so wrong here with regards to gun deaths.

And Canada, superficially, IS a mirror of the US and its gun deaths per capita are nothingn close to those here.

[Cliff Huckable]

Roughly 118 highway deaths a day.

And roughly 80 people dead per day in the US due to guns...at least highway traffic is vital to the economy and everything else.

What good were those guns doing?

[truckeelocal]

What good were those guns doing?

They're protecting us from crime. And a great job they're doing to don't you think

And only 30-32 of those average daily deaths are homicides. Not a problem seems to be the consensus of this board.

[bean]

What is emotional about thinking that it should be harder to buy a firearm?

Are you kidding? Have you already forgotten the drivel you posted?

Maybe if her son and husband were shot with such a weapon she might have a better idea.

In what world is that not emotional bullshit? The bitch pushes for bans on things she doesn't have the slightest understanding of, and you're exactly the same.

[smalls]

i haven't read anything in this thread.
but this picture would suck without guns.

[MeatPuppet]

And only 30-32 of those average daily deaths are homicides. Not a problem seems to be the consensus of this board.

Typical shmarmy behavior from the gun haters.

Way to reframe the situation to rhetorically bitch slap those who disagree with you by making them seem as though they have no problem with 30-32 deaths a day. If your arguments can't stand up to rational examination, then turn to emotional arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can always demonize your opponents and make them seem heartless if they don't agree with you.

Oh, by the way, there are only a small number of pro gun posters in these threads, yet you would make it seem as though the whole board is pro gun and has no problem with 30-32 deaths a day. Rational inference doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

[flowtron]

Are you kidding? Have you already forgotten the drivel you posted?
In what world is that not emotional bullshit? The bitch pushes for bans on things she doesn't have the slightest understanding of, and you're exactly the same.

Just to be clear....you guys know her husband was shot and killed and her son critically wounded in a shooting on a commuter train, right? Generally, that sort of situation would provide at least "the slightest understanding" of gun violence.

Why don't you answer some of the questions I've asked? I'm just trying to understand where some of you guys are coming from.

[Kya]

Since this thread is still going..........muzzle-loading-musket.

[gramps]

For those of you that want to see more restrictions on guns, what specifically are you looking for, and how is it going to make a real impact on gun violence? Most of the restrictions I've heard about hinder a responsible person's right to protect themselves, but seem like they would have little real impact on the criminals. Mandatory education would be the only good restriction I can think of...

The guns are out there, that's just the way it is. People should have the ability to defend themselves, if they choose to take on that responsibility. Concealed carry and an armed populace makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure I want the hassle and responsibility of carrying a gun everywhere, but I think it's good that there are some sane people out there that have guns on them.

[leroy jenkins]

i haven't read anything in this thread.
but this picture would suck without guns.

I hope she'd suck.

[Toby]

dear ashean, here i thought i was on ignore. i knew you'd come back.

AsheanMT is two people, a husband and wife (boyfriend and girlfriend?) sharing one account. Maybe one of them ignores you and the other doesn't? On a related note, I wish you'd create two accounts. I hate not knowing which one is writing, although you do have two individual styles.

Ugh... Seriously? You're admonishing an old woman for protecting her things? This is ridiculous! Wow... I don't really know how you can say its wrong for her to do what she did. ITS HER STUFF! That gun is the only thing she has to defend/ protect herself and her property. She probably doesn't have sweet ninja skillz and obviously she's been taken advantage of before. Without that gun do you think those guys are going to stop? Whats keeping them from harming her??? YOU are whats wrong with this country!

Edit:

The moment those guys decide her stuff is free for the taking her .38 becomes their problem.

So you're saying her stuff is more valuable than the thieves' lives? I would tend to agree they deserve what they get, but it's not that way in my country. People will be and have been convicted of manslaughter under similar circumstances. Stuff << human life (despite their actions). Probably the right thing IMHO.

[Snow Dog]

So you're saying her stuff is more valuable than the thieves' lives?

If there's some strangers rumaging around in my barn I have no idea what their intentions are. Is the house next? Are they violent? Are they high/drunk/stoned? Do they have knives/guns? I'm trusting but not that trusting.

[philippeR]

i haven't read anything in this thread.
but this picture would suck without guns.

This picture sucks with guns too. Hard.

[Jer]

Just to be clear....you guys know her husband was shot and killed and her son critically wounded in a shooting on a commuter train, right?

Well, why didn't you say so? Once you become a victim you have every right to pass legislation on things you know very little about. Another great emotion-driven arguement - she lost her husband and is therefor infallible. If you argue against her you are some sort of heartless monster.

i haven't read anything in this thread.
but this picture would suck without guns.

Instead of a bazillion page shitshow of sane people trying to reason with ignorant, emotionally charged gun ban nuts maybe this should be turned into an NSFW thread. I know there's gotta be thousands of pix of nekkid chicks with guns on the intraweb. Post 'em up, bitchez!

[brice618]

Is that someones sister?

[brice618]

So you're saying her stuff is more valuable than the thieves' lives? I would tend to agree they deserve what they get, but it's not that way in my country. People will be and have been convicted of manslaughter under similar circumstances. Stuff << human life (despite their actions). Probably the right thing IMHO.

I'm not saying her stuff is more valuable, but her safety and her well being sure are. As soon as those goons decide they can take advantage of the lady because she is old and can't do anything to stop them her well being is compromised and her safety. She is entitled to protect herself and her stuff and they are entitled to get shot if they try to steal it.


I find it odd that you all operate so well in a largely self governing/ unrestricted board but when it comes to government you want the choke hold.

[Toby]

Well in that case the perps said they would leave and it says she "confronted" them and said no you won't and shot out the tyres. If she'd shot the perps in that exact situation would that have been OK? Is it legal in the US to do that?

I can think of two relatively recent examples of similar situations resulting in manslaughter charges (and convictions?). One, a man hears someone messing around with his car in his large yard, goes out and confronts the guy with a knife, kills him and is charged. Two, a bar owner hears guys in the cellar breaking in, goes down with a shotgun and kills one guy and is charged. Public sentiment sympathised with the defendants, but it's still against the law.

My opinions on this matter are clouded by my (restrictive gun law) environment but your opinions still flabbergast me. Did America learn nothing from the Cold War? Raising the stakes doesn't work, it just escalates tension.

[Snow Dog]

If she'd shot the perps in that exact situation would that have been OK? Is it legal in the US to do that?

Did you know that killing is a state's jurisdiction and there are 50 states? Every state has it's own laws. In the case of Florida a recent self-defense law says yes, you can use as much deadly force as you like if you feel threatened on your property.

[MeatPuppet]

Did America learn nothing from the Cold War? Raising the stakes doesn't work, it just escalates tension.

Raising the stakes doesn't work?!?

Look at a current map of the world. You will see America on that map. You will not see the Soviet Union.

Tell me again what doesn't work?

[truckeelocal]

Raising the stakes doesn't work?!?

Look at a current map of the world. You will see America on that map. You will not see the Soviet Union.

Tell me again what doesn't work?

The way we won that particular scurmish was economically. It didn't really matter if it was arms or condoms or technology. We got USSR to buy into the escalation against a more powerfull economic engine. Let's see if China can get us to play that game.

[brice618]

I was about to point that out meatpuppet, it obviously worked out. No one nuked anyone and like MP said no more soviet union...


Truckeelocal not only a more powerful but a good economic engine based on freedom and little interference by the government. Thats the way we want to keep it. That applies to every part of government. We want to remain free.

[bean]

Just to be clear....you guys know her husband was shot and killed and her son critically wounded in a shooting on a commuter train, right? Generally, that sort of situation would provide at least "the slightest understanding" of gun violence.

Why don't you answer some of the questions I've asked? I'm just trying to understand where some of you guys are coming from.

There is a difference between "gun violence" and GUNS. She hasn't the slightest fucking clue about guns other than if something is "scary looking," she wants it banned.

Fuck her.

[Jer]

Embassador DeSadsky said they could no longer keep up in the Space Race, The Arms Race and the Peace Race. That's why they developed the Doomsday Machine.

[Jer]

There is a difference between "gun violence" and GUNS. She hasn't the slightest fucking clue about guns other than if something is "scary looking," she wants it banned.

Fuck her.

Yeah - I still can't figure out why a barrel shroud makes a gun more deadly or more concealable. Of course, nobody in my family has been murdered with a gun, so I'm probably missing something....

[Jim S]

my thoughts on gun control are simple, I personally do not want guns in my house, but I will defend the right of others to have guns. As long as you keep a trigger lock and/or gun safe and are educated upon its use, saftey and upkeep, I have no problem with it. I think we should keep guns out of the hands of psychos, but I am comfortable admitting that I have no idea how to obtain this goal.

+ 1

well said