Are you for or against Total Gun Abolition ?

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Non Lethal Weapons

You can see the weakness, and true intent of the "gun nuts" when you suggest the possibility of replacing guns with non lethal weapons.

They go nuts when you suggest this. Even though the outcome is the same, self defense, there is something about the ability to not only stop an attacker, but to be able to kill the attacker that is foremost in their minds.

http://www.usafa.af.mil/wing/34edg/airman/suhajd~1.htm

Just nonsense, and ignoring the facts.
More...

LOL!

Yes, I can see it now: A bunch of armed thugs attack Optional's house like that case with the 70-year-old woman in D.C. He runs in the back and has time to ponder which non-lethal weapon will work best in this particular situation. Making his decision, he confronts the home invaders with his awesome non-lethal sticky foam, bean bag blunderbuss, and bright xenon flashlight. The thugs flee in terror as the foam would have ruined their plans to hit the clubs immediately following the home invasion.

One assumes a good-for-all-situations lethal weapon will be developed around the same time as Optional's anti-recidivity pill to prevent released convicts from killing and raping again.

Just hilarious! :D
 
I surprised no one mentioned hunting with guns, it seems everyone (against guns) thinks guns have no legitimate uses.
Hunting and sport shooting fall into that category. How do you justify taking away guns from these people?

Also are there any studies that have been subject to stringent peer review that show one way or the other that guns cause or prevent incremental violence? For example, Switzerland and Israel supposedly have gun ownership rates on par with the USA but have very low rates of gun crime when compared with countries with gun controls.

The few studies I've seen have results that fit the political bias of the study's author.

Oh-what about Amendment #2?

Personally, I think simple gun control (by confiscation) is not an answer. Rather, I'd like to see more emphasis on gun safety. Before you buy a gun, you have to have passed a safety course and been subject to a background check. Also, there are electronic devices that allow only the person wearing the "key" to fire the weapon.



DS
 
Optional- I speak from personal experience over many years and incidents. I have also lived in countries with and without gun control. Your position is all theory and worthless in the real world. There are lots of places in the world where police or whatever are virtually unavailable and in those environments the attackers are not really impressed with your pacifist stance. You are fair game and will be exploited. I challenge you to get out of your protected and theory driven environment and tackle the real world. Try living 4 or 5 hours from law enforcement and in an area with the highest per capita murder and theft rate on the continent. Try living in a culture that is not your own and is very violent and see if your logic holds up. Good luck. I have lived in that situation long enough to know those people and how they view you as a joke and an easy mark.
 
Quote from dougcs:

I surprised no one mentioned hunting with guns, it seems everyone (against guns) thinks guns have no legitimate uses.
Hunting and sport shooting fall into that category. How do you justify taking away guns from these people?

Also are there any studies that have been subject to stringent peer review that show one way or the other that guns cause or prevent incremental violence? For example, Switzerland and Israel supposedly have gun ownership rates on par with the USA but have very low rates of gun crime when compared with countries with gun controls.

The few studies I've seen have results that fit the political bias of the study's author.

Oh-what about Amendment #2?

Personally, I think simple gun control (by confiscation) is not an answer. Rather, I'd like to see more emphasis on gun safety. Before you buy a gun, you have to have passed a safety course and been subject to a background check. Also, there are electronic devices that allow only the person wearing the "key" to fire the weapon.



DS
More...

Say, do they need automatic weapons these days to shoot ducks?

Right to bear arms? Sure, I think people have the right have a blunderbuss.

The lack of rationality when using the constitution as grounds for rationalization of automatic weapons is akin to people who use the Bible, writen a over a millenium or more ago to make arguments in modern times about technological issues.

Should we go back to the medical technology of the late 18th century?

Yet we should adhere to a document which had no concept of automatic weapons, nor the dangers they represent, to justify our killing instincts?

Man, sometimes I stop and look at this country, especially since 911, and I see such a high degree of hypocrisy.

We claim to be this Christian nation, having a firm belief in the Bible.....yet we as a society live in abject terror and fear of death, and we are filled with revenge instincts in our hearts.

I just don't have a picture of Jesus carrying an automatic weapon in my imagination.
 
Optional777 -

It's probably escaped you, but automatic weapons ARE already illegal.

Don't think anyone said that people should be allowed to carry submachine guns around under their coats.

Perhaps you're like so many people who don't understand the difference between an AUTOMATIC (which an Uzi, MP3, M-16, etc. are) and a semi-automatic (like a Beretta 9mm pistol).

Automatic weapons continue to fire as long as you hold the trigger and are illegal. Semi-automatics fire one round with each trigger pull - which is exactly what a revolver does.

As far as falling back to the medicine of the 18th century - you're the one saying that people should only be allowed to carry blunderbusts because that's the kind of gun that was around when the Constitution was written.

Presumably then the right against illegal search and seizure should only apply to your horse-drawn wagon and your log cabin??

Perhaps all Constitutional articles and laws should be based interpreted relative to the technology and social context of the time they were written?
 
To address 777's comments :

Regarding individual defense, there is nothing that can yet replace a gun in matter of effectivity... even with a handgun, you are nowhere near sure to get a one shot stop, so let's not even think about something so called 'non-lethal' for defense against lethal threats.

Regarding the comment about the users of guns despising non lethals because they want to be able to kill... this is quite biased since most ammunition for defense today is taylored to optimize stopping power, not killing power. (the two aspects are not so closely related).

Regarding the right to bear arms in the political sense, its purpose is to keep a check between gvt powers and citizen powers.
Hence, it appears logical that citizens allow themselves to own rifles, since armies nowadays no longer use musket.
This is the only way to keep things equal, and the sense of the rkba in its political meaning.

Guntrol leads to crime, checking the UK stats or any dictatorship which does not allow guns for statistics might help realizing this...

Guns are good, they protect individuals and freedom.



OHLC
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Say, do they need automatic weapons these days to shoot ducks?

Right to bear arms? Sure, I think people have the right have a blunderbuss.

The lack of rationality when using the constitution as grounds for rationalization of automatic weapons is akin to people who use the Bible, written a over a millennium or more ago to make arguments in modern times about technological issues.

Should we go back to the medical technology of the late 18th century?

Yet we should adhere to a document which had no concept of automatic weapons, nor the dangers they represent, to justify our killing instincts?

Man, sometimes I stop and look at this country, especially since 911, and I see such a high degree of hypocrisy.

We claim to be this Christian nation, having a firm belief in the Bible.....yet we as a society live in abject terror and fear of death, and we are filled with revenge instincts in our hearts.

I just don't have a picture of Jesus carrying an automatic weapon
n in my imagination.
More...

I'm not sure what you are saying. Automatic weapons are illegal (1994 assault Weapons Ban), and I agree that they should be.

I think you are implying we throw out old "stuff" in the Constitution. Are you also advocating we throw out the abolition of slavery, the women's right to vote, the right to due process of law before the government takes away either your life or property? Unreasonable search and seizure has got to go too. No more need for warrants. And those damned newspapers that print whatever they want; guess they get shut down if the political leaders don't like what they are printing. How do you chose what stays or what goes.

There is a lot of other things we take for granted that would also have to go since it was written down over 100 years ago. Should the states also get rid of the old stuff on their books too. What would be the cutoff date?

I disagree that there is a high degree of hypocrisy since 9/11 - there was a lot of it well before that date.

I don't believe we live in a Christian nation since we separate Church and State for very good reason. There are more Christians than the other religions but our clerics don't rule the country our laws do.

I disagree that society lives in "abject terror and fear of death". I think that when a well funded and well organized group such as al Queda kills over 3000 people and vows to kill even more that people have and should have concerns. Sitting back and thinking , well everything is OK is crazy. But, I don't see anyone I know who are in "abject terror and fear..." just justifiable concern.

I'm not sure what you are saying about "with revenge instincts in our hearts." Are you suggesting we forget about punishing those guilty of crimes?

DS
 
Quote from OHLC:

To address 777's comments :

Regarding individual defense, there is nothing that can yet replace a gun in matter of effectivity... even with a handgun, you are nowhere near sure to get a one shot stop, so let's not even think about something so called 'non-lethal' for defense against lethal threats.

Regarding the comment about the users of guns despising non lethals because they want to be able to kill... this is quite biased since most ammunition for defense today is taylored to optimize stopping power, not killing power. (the two aspects are not so closely related).

Regarding the right to bear arms in the political sense, its purpose is to keep a check between gvt powers and citizen powers.
Hence, it appears logical that citizens allow themselves to own rifles, since armies nowadays no longer use musket.
This is the only way to keep things equal, and the sense of the rkba in its political meaning.

Guntrol leads to crime, checking the UK stats or any dictatorship which does not allow guns for statistics might help realizing this...

Guns are good, they protect individuals and freedom.



OHLC
More...

Yes, yes of course. Fully armed citizens is what will preserve democracy.

And to prove the point, we are going to make sure every man, woman, and child in Iraq is fully loaded for bear......
 
But Optional will NEVER agree with you. He does not live in the real world. Theory, no matter how far removed from reality, is far more important to him than practicality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top