Interesting Gun Control For vs Against

[DMD]

The For Argument

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html

 

Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms

 

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.

 

The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America.

 

"High Noon" is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.

 

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

 

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

 

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor.

 

So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.

 

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor.

 

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.

 

"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens.

 

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities.

 

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.

 

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

 

Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

 

This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings.

 

Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.

 

A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.

 

And the Against Arguement

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentar...gent/index.html

 

Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

 

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

 

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.

 

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

 

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

 

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

 

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

 

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

 

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

 

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

 

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

 

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

 

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.

 

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

 

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

 

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

 

[H8tank]

Non citizens should not be allowed to buy firearms. PERIOD.

 

Any deemed by the court to be a danger to himself or others should be on the Feds 'DO NOT SELL' list.

 

Either one of those would have made it harder for that fok to do what he did at VT.

 

Otherwise, arm up.

[Savage Beatings]

Bottomline... bad guys don't care if they are breaking gun control laws... good guys do. No need to handcuff the good guys.

[WaterMan]

I've got God on my side. I don't need man made weapons.

[Chargerz]

If this poll is anything like other polls I've seen on this issue, the results will be about 50/50 (unless, of course, there is a large write-in vote for Puddy ).

[bushwacked]

Bottomline... bad guys don't care if they are breaking gun control laws... good guys do. No need to handcuff the good guys.

 

I'm slipping down that slippery slope.

[Furd]

I answered yes, with respect to handguns.

 

I think that background checks should be pretty thorough, akin to what is typically done for persons who apply for concealed carry licenses.

 

A citizen should be able to carry a pistol legally, providing that the citizen's background contains no significant contraindications.

 

Penalties for possessing a firearm illegally should be more severe, as should all crimes in which a handgun is used.

 

I don't know if that really constitutes "gun control."

[AtomicCEO]

I looked these up:

 

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

 

So... he didn't need a gun. He just tackled a guy.

 

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

 

He caught the shooter as he was fleeing the school in his car. The killing was over.

 

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

 

Again this guy was caught as he was fleeing the scene. The killing was over.

 

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

 

One of these law school students was a cop.

 

Guns are great to have in trained hands. I don't think that means that every asstard in the country should get a trunkfull of guns.

[godtomsatan]

It's too broad a question as it is.

 

Don't we have gun control laws? Perhaps we need more stringent enforcement?

[detlef]

All those playing the "if guns were outlawed..." card. Please re-read the poll. Kindly point out were it says that guns would be 100% outlawed.

 

How's this for "stricter gun control". If you are diagnosed by a licensed shrink to be "a danger to himself and others" you get put on a list and can't ever buy a gun.

 

So, all you who voted no. Do you advocate certified nutjobs carrying guns?

[jjpro11]

a 23 year old kid was able to shoot over 200 rounds, using 17 magazine clips, 2 handguns, during a 15 minute time frame. all because everyone else in side were defenseless at a gun being aimed from a safe point for the shooter. nugent probably isnt the most respectable person to lobby what many already believe, but his points are pretty much dead on.

 

imo the first article is pathetic. first of all he brings race into this, i havent seen anyone on tv or anywhere put the blame on him being korean. second, it is the same "peace this peace that" argument those people belch out over and over again as events like this continue, because people were helpless. they all come out of the blue when a shooting goes bad, but are nowhere to be found when a gunman meets his match when a law-abiding citizen, licensed to carry a firearm, takes the shooter out before he can continue his rampage. and every single time a shooting goes bad, they ignore the fact that the poor victims were completely helpless against the raging attacker. if one person on that floor or even building had a gun on them, there is no way that guy kills 30 people in 15 minutes. people that are licensed to carry firearms carry them with the sole intent to use them if there is a threat like this in process.. so dont argue the person with the gun would have still shyed away unless he was in immediate danger. if he wasnt the one trying to take out the shooter, then someone else would have taken the gun and done it himself. but this is irrelevant because there were no guns within the building.

[jjpro11]

I answered yes, with respect to handguns.

 

I think that background checks should be pretty thorough, akin to what is typically done for persons who apply for concealed carry licenses.

 

A citizen should be able to carry a pistol legally, providing that the citizen's background contains no significant contraindications.

 

Penalties for possessing a firearm illegally should be more severe, as should all crimes in which a handgun is used.

 

I don't know if that really constitutes "gun control."

 

the question is too broad... but you should have to go through rigorous testing and classes if you want to legally carry a handgun. but the first article is making it out to be if you ban guns everywhere, everything will be all nice and dandy.. which is a load of bullsh*t

[detlef]

a 23 year old kid was able to shoot over 200 rounds, using 17 magazine clips, 2 handguns, during a 15 minute time frame. all because everyone else in side were defenseless at a gun being aimed from a safe point for the shooter. nugent probably isnt the most respectable person to lobby what many already believe, but his points are pretty much dead on.

 

imo the first article is pathetic. first of all he brings race into this, i havent seen anyone on tv or anywhere put the blame on him being korean. second, it is the same "peace this peace that" argument those people belch out over and over again as events like this continue, because people were helpless. they all come out of the blue when a shooting goes bad, but are nowhere to be found when a gunman meets his match when a law-abiding citizen, licensed to carry a firearm, takes the shooter out before he can continue his rampage. and every single time a shooting goes bad, they ignore the fact that the poor victims were completely helpless against the raging attacker. if one person on that floor or even building had a gun on them, there is no way that guy kills 30 people in 15 minutes. people that are licensed to carry firearms carry them with the sole intent to use them if there is a threat like this in process.. so dont argue the person with the gun would have still shyed away unless he was in immediate danger. if he wasnt the one trying to take out the shooter, then someone else would have taken the gun and done it himself. but this is irrelevant because there were no guns within the building.

 

About as big a leap as one has to make to think that if we had 100% gun control all would be swell is the leap that there would just happen to be a trained and licensed person carrying a firearm at the right time.

 

Those who don't want stricter laws on carrying a gun love to point out the trained and law abiding people among us. However, right here in the huddle there have been two stories about people obtaining firearms legally and still causing trouble.

 

The other day it was the story about the guy in Air Force showing his buddies how a guy he knew blew his head off and... well, he blew his head off. As I'm assuming the Air Force still has some rather thorough gun training, forgive me if this doesn't make me feel all good inside about the notion of not making it pretty damned hard to legally get a gun. Like, for instance, you can't be a complete moron.

 

Now this kid, he didn't buy these weapons from some drug dealer, he bought them from a store. A person who'd been diagnosed as "a threat to himself and others". Seems like a pretty nice place to start when it comes to limiting fire arms, don't sell them to crazy people.

 

I know of very few people who advocate abolishing the right to carry firearms but that's not what is on the table. The current administration is under extreme pressure from arms manufacturers to not slow the sales of firearms and try to remind us how many lives would be saved if we could all play cop. I've got to think that if they really wanted to save lives, as they say, they'd keep guns out of the hands of a number of people who are currently able to get them.

[broncosn05]

No.

[Caveman_Nick]

I voted "Not Sure", 100% because I am not an expert on Gun Control laws

 

I'm pretty happy with this:

 

Non citizens should not be allowed to buy firearms. PERIOD.

 

Any deemed by the court to be a danger to himself or others should be on the Feds 'DO NOT SELL' list.

 

being part of any laws we have. I also firmly believe:

Bottomline... bad guys don't care if they are breaking gun control laws... good guys do. No need to handcuff the good guys.

 

I have no problem with people needing background checks, 2 week waiting periods, even standardized written psych eval that may lead to further questions by appropriate agencies, etc., so long as the rights of free Americans to protect their lives, familes and property are not infringed.

[Ursa Majoris]

Surely the fatal weakness in Nugent's argument is that in every case, he's saying that an armed person was able to stop a shooting (notwithstanding Atomic's finding out these were embellished or incomplete stories anyway). The point, Ted, is that with more rigorous gun control the shootings may not have happened in the first place.

 

Ted N is hardly the person I'd trundle out to try and bolster an argument - the dude's a f'n nut himself.

[Ursa Majoris]

Non citizens should not be allowed to buy firearms. PERIOD.

 

Can you point to another similar incident perpetrated by a non-citizen?

[skins]

This vile political thread makes me irate because it adds to the negativity or our precious magical place.

 

I demand that it be locked.

 

Oh, and I am a gun owner who is fine with more gun regulation.

[Furd]

The other day it was the story about the guy in Air Force showing his buddies how a guy he knew blew his head off and... well, he blew his head off. As I'm assuming the Air Force still has some rather thorough gun training, forgive me if this doesn't make me feel all good inside about the notion of not making it pretty damned hard to legally get a gun. Like, for instance, you can't be a complete moron.

 

 

I'm not aware of the incident, but that guy sounds like a total retard. Its a basic gun safety issue. A 12 year-old with any common sense knows that you don't point a gun (even an unloaded one) at something you don't want to destroy.

 

And I'm not sure what you mean by "gun training," but I'd be pretty surprised if most Air Force personnel get anything more than rudimentary pistol instruction. I'm interested to know how much pistol instruction and range time your average Army infantryman gets

[polksalet]

All those playing the "if guns were outlawed..." card. Please re-read the poll. Kindly point out were it says that guns would be 100% outlawed.

 

How's this for "stricter gun control". If you are diagnosed by a licensed shrink to be "a danger to himself and others" you get put on a list and can't ever buy a gun.

 

So, all you who voted no. Do you advocate certified nutjobs carrying guns?

 

 

In my experience most licensed shrinks are whack jobs themselves. I can say this as I have about 100 hours of psych classes and know many.

[bushwacked]

Surely the fatal weakness in Nugent's argument is that in every case, he's saying that an armed person was able to stop a shooting (notwithstanding Atomic's finding out these were embellished or incomplete stories anyway). The point, Ted, is that with more rigorous gun control the shootings may not have happened in the first place.

 

 

 

Not to mention the disingenuous way he fails to acknowledge that gun violence actually occurs in non-gun-free zones too. I would assume that the average deaths per year attributed to guns in non-gun-free vs. gun-free zones wouldn't exactly bolster his argument.

 

Ted N is hardly the person I'd trundle out to try and bolster an argument - the dude's a f'n nut himself.

 

You got that right.

[Chavez]

 

Guns are great to have in trained hands.

 

Based on efficacy, I think it's safe to say the asstard at Va Tech knew how to use his gun.

[Chavez]

Anyway, my cynical view on things is that the US being a free society and guns being readily available due to the Bill of Rights results in a situation akin to fatal car wrecks - yes, lots of people are gonna get shot because of it, but it's broken eggs in an omelet, sh*t happens.

[BeeR]

Nothing personal at all DMD, but IMO the poll question is far too oversimplified and it's too friggin soon get into some in-depth debate about this anyway (and I'm frankly hardly surprised this thread is already digressing into a political pile of BS).

 

I'll only say this for now:

 

- both arguments quoted were weak (the "for" was esp pathetic)

 

- this is all a question of degree; to want no restrictions or total absolute restrictions are IMO equally stupid.

 

- hindsight and what-if's regarding Va Tech are both easy and pointless to do and I'm sick as f-ing hell of them (thanks mostly to the badgering media who are like sharks to blood on this story).

Edited April 21, 2007 by BeeR

[Chavez]

Nothing personal at all DMD, but IMO the poll question is far too oversimplified and it's too friggin soon get into some in-depth debate about this anyway (and I'm frankly hardly surprised this thread is already digressing into a political pile of BS).

 

I'll only say this for now:

 

- both arguments quoted were weak (the "for" was esp pathetic)

 

- this is all a question of degree; to want no restrictions or total absolute restrictions are IMO equally stupid.

 

- hindsight and what-if's regarding Va Tech are both easy and pointless to do and I'm sick as f-ing hell of them (thanks mostly to the badgering media who are like sharks to blood on this story).

 

Wow, BeeR said something worthwhile. Now I can die happy.