posted
What an incredibly oversimplistic statement of the situation.
I don't think you'll find any pro-gunners saying that the solution is more guns.
Generally, pro-gunners say that the solution is harsher sentences for those who DO yous guns unlawfully, plus education, plus attacking the root problems that actually CAUSE people to commit (well, there's only ONE real 'cause,' and that's personal choice, but beyond that we have factors like unemployment, lack of parental care and supervision, drug abuse, and other things that can't be solved by simply enacting legislation) crimes.
Generally, anti-gunners believe that laws can make their problems go away, so that the solution is more laws (never mind the trouble they have enforcing the existing ones.) That banning things is a solution in and of itself has been disproven convincingly (to anybody with a functional cerebral cortex) by failed alcohol prohibition, the 'drug war' and the fact that ALL the people who've used guns in these news stories were ALREADY breaking dozens of laws. Historically, attempts at banning things tend to backfire.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
How would there be no guns in circulation? At the very least, police/military/etc. would have guns, and those can be stolen somewhere along the line.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
posted
I wouldn't agree with that. The root causes as listed by First would still be there. Murders would just be commited with different weapons. Knives, bats, well-placed kicks. Do you know how much damage a slingshot to the head or a board with a nail in it could do?
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
Sure, illegal guns is still going to be around even if prohibitation is in place, but for the "small time crooks", or "street gangs", guns certainly are going to be harder to come by. I'm sure the big crime organizations are not going to be affected that much, but just how many murder cases are done professionally by these people?
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Frank, you said: "Actually, maybe the problem we should be addressing is why a 6-year-old felt the need to kill someone..."
That is one of the first things that I agree with you on ... and I think you're right! Maybe the issue isn't so much the guns... maybe the world should start looking at why people feel the need to kill one another.
First: MY BOLD LETTERS CAUGHT YOUR ATTENTION !! That was the intent.
Simon: without guns, people would find different way to kill someone else.
First: you said: Generally, anti-gunners believe that laws can make their problems go away, so that the solution is more laws
I'm an anti-gunner ... don't see a need for a joe-blow to own one ... The laws aren't really the problem .... It peoples attitudes that are!!! That's been my arguement since the beginning of this thread!
First also asked: THAT brings me to another question. You anti-gunners, you 'we should all just be nice and peaceful' folks. Tell me, what would YOU do if you were suddenly confronted by a shiv-weilding crackhead who'd decided to divest you of your wallet, and perhaps a couple pints of vital bodily fluid, just to make sure you don't report him?
He'd have to catch me to get it... Being a crack-head, I doubt he'd keep up ... and if he did, I'd give him what he wants ... Never been put in that position .. I've had a guy try to take my cell phone from my hip-belt ... big-ass guy too ... kick him sqare in the nuts and ran like hell !!! Noone got killed, I have my cell phone ... what's left to say .. maybe if this bastard had a gun, he woulda shot me ... then I'd be a statistic just like that little girl and maybe you'd be talking about me in here ...
Let me reverse the question .. What would you do if some asshole points a gun at you a threatens to blow your brains out??? Would you still think ... "Hey..it's this guy's right to own this gun ... " As you piss yourself.
I don't know what else to say .. I'm not trying to be a prick here .. Please understand that!
------------------ -There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!
posted
"Would you still think ... 'Hey..it's this guy's right to own this gun ... '"
Well, it's not his right to threaten you.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
posted
Frank: Your analogies are flawed because you've given no reason they should apply, aside from "oh, I think they should". Clearly, a gun and a car are entirely different creatures. A gun and a knife are entirely different creatures, for that matter.
Omega: "Theft, for example, by definition harms someone. Yes, only criminals will now commit theft, but it serves no conceivable useful purpose for a law abiding citizin should do so, and thus should be outlawed."
Wha-huh? Let me see if I can trace your argument here.
Only criminals commit theft. Law abiding citizens do not commit theft. Therefore theft should be outlawed.
The first and the second are true by defintion. But your conclusion doesn't seem to have anything to do with those statements. If theft is not outlawed, criminals will still commit theft, but citizens who we would call "law abiding" will not, yes? If so, you seem to be saying that behavior is not affected by law. However, if this is true, then law is an unnecessary concept. If I will still obey the principle without the law, and if criminals will still break the principle with the law, then the law has no meaning. (Actually, while thinking about this, I wonder if you wouldn't have to make a few distinctions between laws. For instance, personally, I find murder to be an abhorrant concept, law or no law. However, if there were no speed limits, I can't honestly say that I'd keep my speed below, say, 70 mph, even though I know that slower speeds are safer. One could, then, argue that the use of guns is more like murder than it is speeding. In other words, that people who would not break a law against guns still would not if there was no law, even if they would violate other principles. But that's another debate, I think. What do you think?)
------------------ "You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil." -- Gene Ray, Cubic
posted
I had this discussion a while back with someone who pointed out that even if you were built like a pro wrestler, some schmuck with a gun could take you on. I pointed out that if some schmuck built like a pro wrestler tried to break into grandma's house, she could back him down if she was armed.
A gun is a deadly tool. Just as they help the good guys stop the bad guys (often without anyone being killed), they also help the bad guys take someone's wallet or shoot up a rival gang-member's house. The credible threat of deadly force tends to get people's attention. No doubt about that. Like every instrument of power, a firearm can be used for good or ill. The issue is not whether guns are good or evil, or even whether they should be banned or not. The issue is this: what do you think people are like? What do you think I am like?
If you think everyone's a predator, you want to see them disarmed. If you think most people are not predators, you must realize that disarming the prey is not a good strategy to discourage predators. As I've heard anti-hunters proclaim "If the deer carried rifles, hunting would be a lot less popular." (Yeah, but I'll bet it'd be a lot more challenging! )
It's a matter of respect. If you believe everyone else is a closet homicidal maniac, of course you want to ban guns! If you believe that the majority of people are responsible for their actions, and that the responsible use and display of firearms under the right circumstances prevents crime and saves lives, then it makes no sense to ban them. You'd just be ensuring that predators who want to do you harm will know you have no defense against them. Of course, you don't want to say that, after all, if you do, it makes you sound like one of those potentially murderous misanthropes you're afraid of.
------------------ "Helping Tomorrow Feel Superior by Scoffing at Yesterday." --James Lileks [Motto of The Institute of Official Cheer.] http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited March 09, 2000).]
posted
My response to the original post (having reread it again and deciding the above dissertation did not address the question asked) is as follows:
The fact that a child died is what it always is -- a tragedy. The question asked, however, was whether people in favor of gun ownership felt that this kind of tragedy justifies banning guns.
In fact, I don't. The nominal gun owner (read: "thief") in this case was breaking the law by possessing a stolen firearm. He violated safe gun practices by keeping this weapon where a six year old child could get it. Even if this child was not a little homicidal maniac, he could have accidentally killed himself by improperly handling the gun.
If guns were not legal, the police would still not have known the gun was in that man's possession until it was too late. The anti-gunner might protest "But he would not have been able to get a gun in the first place!" I respond that if he wanted a gun so bad he had to steal one, I'm sure he would have obtained one illegally anyhow.
Heroin is illegal but there are those who manufacture it anyway because others will buy it (also illegally). Manufacturing firearms is no more complicated than manufacturing illegal drugs. The basic materials required to make them are quite easily obtained. While you're at it (banning guns, that is), you'd better put iron, steel, bronze, brass, sulpher, saltpeter, and charcoal on your list of "controlled substances".
A child is dead. The anti-gun crowd seems not to care that a child has killed another child just for spite. They do not care that the gun he used was left where he could easily get it. They don't care that the murder weapon should never have been in that home in the first place, since it was stolen. They seem almost happy that someone who ought to be alive today is dead. If that child were alive today, they could not crow "How many must die?" They use it as an opportunity to advance an agenda that has as its most fundamental element the idea that no-one can or should be trusted.
Whether guns ought to be banned is still not the issue.
--Baloo
------------------ "Helping Tomorrow Feel Superior by Scoffing at Yesterday." --James Lileks [Motto of The Institute of Official Cheer.] http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited March 09, 2000).]
posted
Baloo .. I haven't lost site of the fact that even if guns were illegal, someone would get their hands on them... Heck... drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drug-OD everyday?
My point was simply a question: How do we keep guns out of reach of children, and potential nutcases? I don't have the answer, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone does ... : Check this story out ...:
4 dead in fire ambush Firefighters in shock after one of their own guns down comrades at blaze
By AP MEMPHIS, TENN. -- Firefighters responding to a house fire yesterday were ambushed by an off-duty Memphis firefighter who stepped out of the garage and began shooting, authorities said.
Two firefighters and a sheriff's deputy were killed and a woman was found dead in the garage.
The suspected gunman, Fred Williams, was wounded and was undergoing surgery, Police Director Walter Crews said. A bystander also was wounded, but not seriously.
If you can't trust the local firefighter .. who can you trust??
------------------ -There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!
- Alshrim Dax The Other Dax:
[This message has been edited by Alshrim Dax (edited March 09, 2000).]
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
