regular folk owning guns

CRAP
Total votes: 13 (30%)
NOT CRAP
Total votes: 31 (70%)
Total votes: 44

law thingy: the right to bear arms

31
I didn't want to have to resort to this.. but I think it's of relative importance to this discussion, considering it's already been broken down into the habitual, fragmentary arguments of which gun supporters like myself are typically confronted with, and accustomed to...

Waiting periods: A waiting period means that a woman being stalked will have to remain defenseless for a few extra days. Will her stalker refrain from assaulting her until the waiting period is over?

Safety locks: Although safety locks might prevent a child from accidentally firing a gun, they also can slow you down when you need a gun in a hurry to defend yourself. Imagine a woman attacked by a rapist in a parking lot. Will she be grateful for the time it takes to unlock her gun? And, of course, if her adversary is carrying a gun, it won't have a safety lock.

Registration of handguns: What would this achieve? Nothing positive. Evildoers won't register their guns; only law-abiding citizens will. And once your gun is registered, you'll have to be afraid that some future president whose heart isn't pure will use that registration to confiscate your only means of defense against armed criminals.

Licensing of guns or gun-owners: Since criminals won't acquire them, gun licenses won't help find the perpetrator of a violent crime. They are simply a gratuitous invasion of your privacy and that of other innocent citizens.

Background checks for purchasers: No one wanted by law enforcement agencies is going to buy a gun in a way that requires a background check. He'll get his gun from another criminal or steal it. So the only achievement of a background check is your inconvenience.

But don't background checks catch people with criminal records?

If they're wanted by the police, they're certainly not going to undergo background checks. If they are ex-convicts who have paid their debt to society, they have the right to defend themselves from predators -- just as you or I do. Or should their criminal records also prohibit them from buying food or clothing?

Require guns to be locked up: If the law requires guns to be kept out of reach of children, how will the law be enforced? Will the police invade your house periodically to verify that your guns are in safe places? If not, what's the point of the law? If yes, this is another gratuitous invasion of your privacy.

Now i'm starting to get repetitive, i'll stave away from this topic now...

law thingy: the right to bear arms

32
There's a sort of huge flaw in your argument there dude.

Maybe waiting periods, background checks, registrations and licences dont mean much because criminals wont go through that method to get their guns but if you take those things away then any (would be?) criminal would be able to go out and get a gun as easy as buying eggs.

I dont know how easy it is to get an illegal gun in America but I'd like to think that not everyone knows someone who sells them. At least make it a challenge for them. Jebus.
simmo wrote:Someone make my carrot and grapefruits smoke. Please.

law thingy: the right to bear arms

33
This is paranoid rambling and it creeps me out. I don't think shooting someone when you feel threatened is either a good idea or sound general reasoning for national policy.

Buy your guns to scare a stalker, did you? Get raped a lot, do you? Your home invaded every couple of weeks? No? Then get off your fucking I-need-to-defend-myself kick. It's reactionary and based in a generalized fear of people, which is the root of most oppression and revenge-think, which have never elevated our society.

Most guns aren't used for defense against armed attackers, even if that is the stated reason for owning them. They provide the illusion or suggestion of defense, at the potential cost of killing someone -- a price I would refuse to pay.

The reason a law might require you to secure your guns is so that you can be held accountable if your negligence in not doing so leads to someone, say a curious child, shooting himself. The purpose of such a law is not to conduct inspections on your gun collection, but to place the burden on you to make sure they are safely stored, and provide a punishment incentive for you to do it -- which will only kick-in if it proves to have been dangerous not to.

I don't think armed self-defense is a convincing argument. It doesn't even convince me, and I generally think gun controls are ineffective and a bad idea. It doesn't convince me because I don't think shooting people is a good idea under almost any circumstances. The exceptions are so rare that we can (for practical purposes) disregard them.
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.

law thingy: the right to bear arms

34
Jordan--

The thread that runs through a lot of your arguments boils down to:

There are people out there (criminals) who will break a given law. Therefore this law discriminates against people who choose to obey it, so it is of course an unjust law and therefore fatally (in this case, actually fatally, since the law-abiders could be killed for their law-abidingness) flawed.

More specifically: Criminals won't bother to register their guns, they'll hack the safety locks, they'll find a way around background checks, etc. So forget about enacting any of this. This logic really only makes sense if you, the "good guy," see yourself in constant battle with the "bad guys," where any imbalance of power will be ruthlessly exploited by a criminal who takes advantage of the waiting period to attack a "helpless" victim, who would've been able to defend him/herself if only there weren't that two-day period, etc. I have trouble seeing this as anything but an exceedingly paranoid worldview. But without that worldview, the logic really collapses: Why enact *any* laws, since somebody is just going to break them?

The "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" proponents never acknowledge that maybe these sorts of laws would be one more weapon that society can use against "outlaws." But I don't know enough about gun control to be able to say what works and what doesn't. The bottom line for me is that I cannot fathom why anyone would think that people who drive cars (which can kill people if used improperly) should be subject to more regulation than people who own guns (which are specifically designed to kill other people). Maybe you don't think that, but again, that seems to be a natural conclusion to reach by your logic.

As for this...

Jordan wrote:
If the law requires guns to be kept out of reach of children, how will the law be enforced? Will the police invade your house periodically to verify that your guns are in safe places? If not, what's the point of the law? If yes, this is another gratuitous invasion of your privacy.


A few years ago, I would've just asked what paranoid future you envision where laws are passed that pretend as though the Fourth Amendment didn't exist (never mind the Second). With the Patriot Act and whatever similar law is surely coming next, I don't feel justified in being quite so cavalier. But still--is this really a fear of yours? That someday soon the stormtroopers will burst through the door to make sure your guns are locked up?

law thingy: the right to bear arms

35
In my Home that I own which belongs to me and no one else.....Its nobodys business who I fuck, in what hole i fuck them, what drugs i do or don't do, what porn or literature I have, what films i've been watching, what clothes I'm wearing or not wearing, or what weapons I have whether I'm a drooling madman with fantasies of killing the commander in chief (I said fantasies not detailed plans with a means to execute them) or a hobbyist with an elephant gun hanging on my wall behind glass. The government needs to stay the hell out of peoples homes unless it is KNOWN and CONFIRMED that activities taking place within said household are intent on or currently causing others tangible harm.
Its nobodys fuckin business if I'm a gay nudist nazi transexual heroin junkie NRA abortionist atheist with ten years worth of canned goods in my basement. Stay out of our homes stay out of our Homes stay out of our homes stay out of our homes.
.......of the BLUE HUMOURS

law thingy: the right to bear arms

37
i see a lot of issues here, since i`m not from states i`m having difficulties to see it from your perspective... but what i can tell you as a citizen of country that had just got out of the war, i`m all against it... after the war more people ended up having guns and also ptsp... so more guns means that a lot more people are going to end up being killed... and it`s my vote that regular people shouldn`t own weapons... i would leave this matter in the hands of law... and i`m seeing you got all this militias` or to say kkk in differnt clothes i think that a government should act up on it and bring some kinds of laws regulating these matters... if you could only see the suffering my country vent through just for sake of war industry to
make money out of it...

law thingy: the right to bear arms

40
BenjieLoveless wrote:
Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:
pelin wrote:more guns means that a lot more people are going to end up being killed

This is a simple and beautiful argument against guns.

.....yeah but a lot of them got it comin


how old are you?
LVP wrote:If, say, 10% of lions tried to kill gazelles, compared with 10% of savannah animals in general, I think that gazelle would be a lousy racist jerk.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest