westvirginia Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Gun Control-gun con·trol n. definition 1. The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman defending herself from that attacker. 2. The ability to hit what you are aiming at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I would disagree with the concept that a gun was more likely to prevent that crime than to have committed it. There are lots of arguments for gun control, but I'm not sure that the concept that more guns=less shooting is true. Feel free to convince me otherwise though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 H8 already drew you a picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Feel free to convince me otherwise though. Bull, meet red rag. Red rag, meet bull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckB Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I would disagree with the concept that a gun was more likely to prevent that crime than to have committed it. There are lots of arguments for gun control, but I'm not sure that the concept that more guns=less shooting is true. Feel free to convince me otherwise though. A legally armed citizen would be highly unlikely to commit that crime.............gun control only keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding people, not criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 H8 already drew you a picture. I would need to see that gun control is a cause of crime, not a result of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 A legally armed citizen would be highly unlikely to commit that crime.............gun control only keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding people, not criminals. I would need to see that crime was not committed by guns that were not originally legally purchased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I would need to see that gun control is a cause of crime, not a result of it. Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckB Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I would need to see that crime was not committed by guns that were not originally legally purchased. I have wiggled off the hook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I would need to have a whole lot more patience than I do to willingly engage in this BS argument again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Does moneymakers know that H8 has a new Mini-Me? I smell a catfight comin' on. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 (edited) I would need to have a whole lot more patience than I do to willingly engage in this BS argument again. Well, I'm not firmly entrenched in any opinion on gun control at this point in my life. I don't really see the logic of the constitutional argument at all, but that's different from actually wanting legal guns banned. I'll listen to statistics and reason. I know that there are countries that embrace guns, and their citizens are largely more responsible gun owners... but that doesn't mean that just making guns easy to get will have that same result. How can we be a more responsible country towards guns? Edited April 9, 2008 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Personally I think our society has a vastly larger role in creating crime than the availability of guns. If guns were "controlled" I am not under the impression it would reduce crime in the least. I think that you would have to be either ridiculously naive or so blinded by our own bias not to see that. That being said, if I were told I could not have a gun by the government it would not make me fear having a gun crime...or any crime for that matter being committed against me any less. In fact I would fear it even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I can tell you this, I make it a point to walk around in my yard with my ak-47 several times a year so the neighbors can see it. Now I doubt any of my neighbors would ever rob me but I am sure they talk about the guy with the ak in his yard. Word of this is bound to get out and anyone who might consider robbing a house in my subdivision would likely hit mine last. Therefore, a 30 round banana clip = less shooting. If everyone had an ak there would be far fewer burglaries I imagine. Would you want to go against one in a dark house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Well, I'm not firmly entrenched in any opinion on gun control at this point in my life. I don't really see the logic of the constitutional argument at all, but that's different from actually wanting legal guns banned. I'll listen to statistics and reason. I know that there are countries that embrace guns, and their citizens are largely more responsible gun owners... but that doesn't mean that just making guns easy to get will have that same result. How can we be a more responsible country towards guns? Prosecuting criminals that break existing gun laws to the full extent of the law would be a great start. Understanding that gangs are a hugh part of the gun crime problem and creating an open season on those bastages would be better. While it's difficult to prove that gun control laws cause crime, there is plenty of evidence that they do not deter crime. NY, Chicago and DC have some of the toughest laws on the books and have had the highest murder rates for decades. See said gang problem above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 (edited) In fact, evidence suggests that guns are an effective crime deterrent in the hands of legal owners. * A study published by the University of Chicago found that crime rates are lower when civilians are allowed to carry concealed weapons. * Murder rates in the District of Columbia and Chicago actually went up after each jurisdiction passed restrictive gun control laws. Edited April 9, 2008 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Well, I'm not firmly entrenched in any opinion on gun control at this point in my life. I don't really see the logic of the constitutional argument at all, but that's different from actually wanting legal guns banned. I'll listen to statistics and reason. I know that there are countries that embrace guns, and their citizens are largely more responsible gun owners... but that doesn't mean that just making guns easy to get will have that same result. How can we be a more responsible country towards guns? My post had more to do with the rather a-holish manner that WV stirred the pot rather than wanting to avoid any discussion on guns. I don't support gun control to the extent that nobody should be allowed to have them. I support gun control as in, control it. I personally do not choose to own one and, quite frankly, that choice is more often attacked by Huddle gun advocates than I ever attack their choice to own them. In fact, I have never attacked anyone's choice to own guns provided they're sane and responsible. None the less, it appears that they are offended enough by the fact that I choose not to own one that they're hell bent on proving why my choice is wrong. Maybe it threatens their beliefs? It's just that, at least with plenty, the mere notion of not letting every man, woman, and child tote a gun as they please without control is just the first step to abolishing them all together. I completely agree with Jimmy. There's really no sense in making new restrictions if the current ones are not being upheld. Maybe we don't need any more. Maybe there's laws in place that should have kept the confirmed crazy kid at V Tech from legally and easily getting assault weapons and they just needed to be enforced. Perhaps we can see how that pans out before we start tacking on more. People bring up the fact that cars are more lethal than guns. Well, guess what, the use of cars is controlled and regulated. You need to get behind the wheel and prove that you can use one to do so legally. Like guns, I think that they should probably be a bit more picky as to who gets to do so because there's a lot of people out there who have no freaking idea what they're doing behind the wheel. Of course, also like guns, there's nothing ultimately stopping you from just driving without a license. Should we just open the flood gates and let everyone drive regardless of their record? I don't know. I keep going back to the amount of people here who did not feel that the old guy who shot and killed two robbers who were running away was guilty of murder. Despite the fact that he was specifically told by 911 not to. If you guys want to be allowed to own guns, then you need to sacrifice dudes like that to the cause and not subject the rest of us to the notion that any random person is allowed to decide to play cop, judge, jury, and executioner for a day without punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 < sigh > The law books are already bogged down with gun control laws that are either not enforced or are ineffective. You can enact as many more gun control laws as you like with the same result. In the end only law abiding citizens obey gun control laws. The criminals that are using guns to commit crimes will STILL have guns and will STILL use them to commit crimes ... for some odd reason they choose NOT to use legal channels to obtain their guns and they choose to IGNORE gun control loses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 < sigh > The law books are already bogged down with gun control laws that are either not enforced or are ineffective. You can enact as many more gun control laws as you like with the same result. In the end only law abiding citizens obey gun control laws. The criminals that are using guns to commit crimes will STILL have guns and will STILL use them to commit crimes ... for some odd reason they choose NOT to use legal channels to obtain their guns and they choose to IGNORE gun control loses. Tell me you actually read my post before you said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Tell me you actually read my post before you said that. Grits doesn't read other people's posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Grits doesn't read other people's posts. It was sort of a rhetorical question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 While it's difficult to prove that gun control laws cause crime, there is plenty of evidence that they do not deter crime. NY, Chicago and DC have some of the toughest laws on the books and have had the highest murder rates for decades. See said gang problem above. * Murder rates in the District of Columbia and Chicago actually went up after each jurisdiction passed restrictive gun control laws. I would need to see that gun control is a cause of crime, not a result of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Tell me you actually read my post before you said that. No I didn't read your reply before my response. A couple of notes: No I didn't read your reply before my response. You compare the control and regulation of driving to the control and regulation of guns. My question for you is ... where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to own and drive a car? Furthermore, once a driver’s license has been obtained it is ridiculously easy to maintain. Are you really holding up the DMV as a shining example of how a potentially dangerous object should be controlled? The DMV is more about fee collection than it is about regulating driving. If you allow the government to put stipulations on an American's right to own firearms do you also support allowing the government to add stipulations to other rights guaranteed by the constitution? Would it be acceptable for the government to regulate/control specified religious sects because of the propensity of some sects to violence? How about the regulation and control of published material in an effort to control inflammatory, slanderous and false information from being disseminated. Now this is where you will claim it is okay to regulate our constitutional right to own fire arms because they are dangerous but it is not okay to regulate our other constitutional rights because they are not dangerous. And I'm sure you'll have plenty of arguments you believe justify your position. But the bottom line is you believe in granting the federal government the right to curtail a right/freedom guaranteed by the constitution without a constitutional amendment. Having said all that ... obviously it does seem to make sense that some basic level of control/regulation is required. Surely convicted felons should not be allowed to own guns and it doesn’t make sense to sell guns to minors. I think it might even make sense to require that citizens pass a gun safety/training course before they are allowed to purchase a fire arm (the main problem here is the increase in the cost). The problem is that people mistakenly believe that if we actually implement gun control effectively that it would solve our crime problem. Unfortunately solving this country’s crime problem can not be solved by gun control because guns are not the underlying problem. You can’t cure a cold by treating the various symptoms (runny nose, cough, etc). Until this country identifies and addresses the underlying issues that are causing the rampant rise in the crime rate no amount of legislation (gun control and others) is going to have a meaningful impact on crime. If it was as simple has passing legislation then all of America’s problems as they relate to illegal drugs, guns and crime would already be solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 (edited) I don't own any guns, nor do I have any plans to own any guns, but I like knowing that if I wanted to, I could go buy a gun and then use it to try to overthrow the government. Edited April 9, 2008 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 havent you seen red dawn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.