Similarly, the percentage of nuclear weapons which have been used to kill people stands at less than 0.0001% of the total number produced. I’m still not a fan of letting just anyone get one.
3 Likes
I won’t pretend to know why “most” people do anything. Certainly some people buy guns primarily for defensive purposes, but most guns that are sold are not sold primarily for that reason. I can tell you that the reason I bought this over/under shotgun has nothing at all to do with shooting people. In the state where I live (California) starting in 2014, you will need to pass a written test to be able to buy a gun like this (or any long gun, a similar test is required for handguns already) and they will be registered when sold.
How is it not disingenuous to compare just about anything to nuclear weapons?
A more appropriate comparison is the recent article on the guy who made improvised weapons from things found post-security at airports. Potentially a magazine and dental floss could be used as part of a weapon. But no one is doing that at all, never mind on a large scale. Would banning them be warranted? Is removing our shoes and forcing us to take tiny bottles of soap warranted? Do these thing actually DO anything, or make some of us feel safer?
2 Likes
The Second Amendment says “arms,” not “guns.” It’s up to each generation to decide which arms are reasonable to let private citizens own under which circumstances.
Good questions. I encourage having an honest debate about it.
Personally, I think there’s ample evidence that some forms of airport security have improved our safety. We sometimes forget that airplane hijackings were much more common before metal detectors and luggage x-ray machines. But some security measures, like the shoe thing or the 3-ounces-of-liquid rule, are pure theater. That’s why we need to debate each regulation and each security measure on its own merits rather than throwing out babies with bathwater.
2 Likes
[quote=“Mister44, post:61, topic:16366, full:true”]
I find the argument of using an object’s “purpose” against it to be disingenuous. There are many things we use that had their beginnings as weapons, or developed for military applications, that have gone on to be used in non-destructive ways. Let’s look at how an object is ACTUALLY being used and go from there. [/quote]
“Disingenuous,” seriously?
Now who is being disingenuous?
If people really only buy guns to shoot at pop cans,
- Why am I reading, in these threads, so much whining about self-defense, personal protection, etc?
- What is the big deal about passing a test, having a revokable license, and being a registered owner?
- What is the need for carrying guns in public?
2 Likes
Your use of qualifiers like “most” and “only” seems to vary arbitrarily to suit your own argument.
SOME guns are bought for defense.
SOME guns are bought for other reasons.
It is possible to have guns either for self defense or for other reasons or for both. People can be concerned about that issue specifically, or other gun related issues, or both.
And, as an aside, the main argument that people seem to have against gun licensing and registration is essentially the same argument people have against the NSA collecting your phone calls: because they want to keep a government they don’t entirely trust out of their business.
2 Likes
The long term solution to discourage these massacres is to stop reporting them so vividly and widely. State it happened, state the hard facts, move on. The crazies that go and shoot up schools are doing it for attention and they know they’ll get it. Want a long term solution for less gang violence? Have better schools and have more opportunities for our most at-risk youth so kids don’t feel like they need to join gangs.
Short term solution? Probably a gun, if you’re not stupid enough to leave it loaded. Gun accidents should be a flat zero, because if you start treating a killing weapon as anything less than incredibly dangerous then you need to hand it in. Do guns bring peace of mind? Depends on where you are and the supposed or real state of possible threats. None of these weapons will really help stop the next massacre, what if it’s an armed teacher that goes nuts? To fix these national problems you need national acts, and that means addressing our culture of fear head on. Bravery is not a function of firepower.
4 Likes
Can you provide any examples of a society which successfully reduced its rate of gun violence via increased gun ownership? The only precedents I’m aware of suggest the opposite.
3 Likes
So the best way to prevent “relaxed” gun laws is to prevent mass shootings?
- Three reasons: 1) It’s a valid concern and one some choose to prepare for, just in case. 2) It makes a good argument point that is hard to refute. Self defense is a primal instinct. 3) The scary guns people want to ban are usually most apt for defense.
That said, most guns aren’t made for home defense, nor would be particularly good at it. If one were to step into a gun store you would see a rack of double barreled shotguns, great for trap, skeet, and hunting - not great for defense. There will be a rack of .22 and other rim fire rifles, great for plinking and pests. A rack of older, historic guns like Mosins, Springfield 1903s, Mausers, and Garands, neat collectibles and fun to shoot. Then you will find a rack of pump and auto shot guns. Some are more styled for hunting and shooting sports, some for defense. Next are your bolt action scoped rifles, good for hunting and benchrest shooting. Finally you have the scary wall with AR15s and the like. Some of them, like a 16" carbine with a red dot sight, would make a good defense weapon. A 20" varminter with a bull barrel and scope would not. Then of course you have all the handguns. Some of them are clearly set up for target shooting, some are more general purpose, good for targets, games, or defense, and some are geared for concealed carry.
-
What are you trying to accomplish with a license/registration? Criminals generally do not go through legit channels, so your license means nothing to them. Operating a fire arm is much simpler than a car. If you follow 3 basic rules you will never hurt anyone. In a sense your “license” can already be revoked, as felons can’t own guns, and other things like domestic abuse can get you denied on the background check. As for registration, the fact that it has repeatedly been used for confiscation later down the road is the reason it won’t fly here.
-
Some people feel the need to. We don’t all live in nice areas. Off duty cops usually carry, they know what is out there. You don’t need to worry about the licensed conceal carry holder - he isn’t the problem. The problem is the 19 year old with a gun in his waist band.
Yawn. Here it goes:
“If most people really only buy guns to only ever shoot at pop cans, […]”
See the difference in the argument now? Me neither.
Fine. But then follow through:
Either most guns are bought for a set reasons that does include “defense” or not.
-
If yes => Most guns are bought with an intended activity that implies harming or killing or threatening with harm or death, without requiring a very close distance from the target. This is bad enough that some serious level of control seems to be required.
-
If not => (Seriously? Honestly? Anyway…) In this case why all the fuss about restricting their use, given what those things can do?
No matter how one pulls it, this is all going in the same direction.
Again, this lacks follow-through in the reasoning:
Is there a similar argument commonly made about motorcycles or cars?
Why not?
Because owners of motorcycles and cars don’t worry about confiscation, like a lot of (paranoid?) gun owners do.
Your question would seem to presuppose that such a tactic has been tried. I can’t think of an example in which a society with a high gun violence rate has tried that approach. It could be worth exploring. Guns good / guns bad - both sides of that argument should put their focus and energy into lowering the violent crime rate, by any means that actually work.
1 Like
Can the anti-gun crowd answer this: Why are gun crimes and gun homicides declining (down 49% since 1993) while gun laws are getting more relaxed and more guns than ever are owned by Americans?
2 Likes
When you survived, were you carrying a gun? Do you think that an assailant threatening you with a firearm is less likely or more likely to use it, when faced with an armed victim?
More paranoia – asking for tighter controls on certain kinds of guns is not “anti-gun.”
Don’t worry! Very few of the people who are asking that mass murder become less likely to happen are asking that guns be confiscated.
Climb down off that slippery slope before you hurt yourself.
2 Likes
-
Then you agree that this is not about “shooting at pop cans”.
-
This reduces to: why have a law if the criminals ignore it?
Why have any law then? -
It’s the kid with the gun. And the careless instructor who forgot to put the safety on. And the crazy mass-shooter in the movie theater or the school. And the vigilante shooting an unarmed dude. And the property owner shooting the girl that rings for help. And the mom and pop who sell their gun to a nice looking gang member. And the guy who has his rifle stolen. And…
1 Like
In regards to “(Seriously? Honestly? Anyway…)” you seem to have either missed or skipped over the post above where I mentioned my very self-defense impractical shotgun that I do not ever intend to try to shoot anyone with. I mentioned it because there are entire classes of guns like this that millions pot people own, that would be pretty horrible choices for self defense, but people own anyway, for other reasons.
So yes, “Seriously”, “honestly” lots of guns are purchased for reasons other than defense.
And to the second part of that, “why all the fuss about restricting their use”, because all these guns that were purchased for things other than defense were still purchased for something. It doesn’t really matter which use you bought a gun for, you probably don’t want that use to become restricted, right?
Besides who said anything about restricting the “use” of guns? I don’t see anything anywhere in this thread complaining about any particular use of guns except crime. Nobody has even had a problem with using them for self-defense in legitimate situations.
There are a couple interesting properties of cars and motorcycles that make this not exactly the same.
-
You don’t have to register a motorcycle or car or have a license to operate it. You only have to do so to use it on public roads. You can keep a motorcycle in your garage unregistered for as long as you want. You can even ride it on private property or even some off-road public lands without a license. Go ask anybody who rides dirt bikes about this. Many of them own unregistered bikes that aren’t even legal to operate on-road. So, if you want to opt out of your car registration, you can do so without having your car confiscated or any such thing.
-
Cars and motorcycles that are operated on public roads, registered or not, are extremely obvious. While private guns are almost never seen at all outside of private homes and firing ranges, that is not the case for cars. If you are driving around and some government entity wanted to know about it, they could figure it out just by looking at the street. This is not the case for guns, or like the phone calls I mentioned earlier. Keeping a gun in your home is inherently more private, like a phone call is, than driving a car around in public places.
Yes, I hate that term. Nobody calls people who advocate regulating the production and operation of automobiles “anti-car.” I don’t think just anyone should be allowed to fly a jumbo jet, that doesn’t make me “anti-plane.”
3 Likes
Well, that was fast. It seems like in these threads, the “discussion” part always seems to give way to bickering, or needless back-and-forth. Then, I suppose it’s tough having a reasonable discussion about something that’s such a divisive issue, and one which has so many people on both sides so set in their ways.
No matter what the case, I think I’m going to take a break. Phew.
