Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 194. (Read 450482 times)

Do you know if every job has the risks itself? So what do you think about the army in war conflict areas? They are working there while their family are living in home. Same with a chef. He cooks to you some delicious foods, but how about his family? Should he just call McD delivery to his family? No, because he can go home when he has finished the work. For the "protectors", we don't expect them to work 24 hours without rest. We can use a shift system, so each of them just work in 6-8 hours a day, and after work they can go home. And one more thing, they have a license to using a gun, I guess they hide a gun in their home, so if there is a something bad, then their family can use it. Don't worry about their family, they can take care of it.



I don't know what you have done to your neighborhood or your society, cause you need a gun to protect yours. Maybe you have some enemies when you was running your business or you like to walking in the place that is not safe. If you need a something to protect your house from robbery, you can use a baseball bat in case you know how using it. You can't? Okay just buy the gun then.

Awesome... A well thought out political discourse is very healthy, and I wish more people were open minded to listening to points they disagree with instead of shutting them down.

I don't know where your views are on the political spectrum, but I've always seen it go something like this


communist---socialist---US_"liberal"---moderate---US_"conservative"---libertarian---anarchist
<================= more Gov't =============================== less Gov't =================>


Labels are dangerous, and apologies for their use, but I would characterize your point as tending to the "more Gov't" / socialist POV, while I'm in the "less Gov't" / libertarian POV, again... apologies for labels... they come with baggage.  [Note: US_"Republican" and US_"Democrat" are not in the list since they fail to have a consistent political ideology]

Now that aside, most of the world is in the "more Gov't" camp.  Much of Europe is socialist-ish.  The libertarian POV hasn't held power in a major country for a very very long time (like 1780's), although there may be good argument for other world leaders in the last 200 years.

That being said... the socialist POV is by far the global majority.  Most people want (judging by elections) a strong Gov't, while a few groups want a small Gov't with limited power.  I am one of those few that want a Gov't that harkens back to the US 18h century ideals and that is often a point of ridicule from those in the majority.  

But... ridicule aside, cryptocurrency and the cypherpunk movement sprang from, of many things, a distrust and disdain of large authoritarian regimes.  So if someone is on the socialist side of the fence, then their interest in cryptocurrency would likely be attributed to, if one was consistent, some level of convenience it provides in its use at POS and international transfer capabilities.  While, on the other hand, someone more libertarian inclined, like I imagine the cypherpunks were, love cryptocurrency because of its incorruptible nature.  Fiat currency comes with all the baggage of a corrupt and draconian Gov't.

So I guess my argument is:

Love_Cryptocurrency == Distrust_Gov't == Love_Liberty == Accept_Right_to_Arms

I think no guns = no reason to have a gun to defend yourself from a gun...
If you feel you need one for home invansions think of something else to defend yourself and family, cops have stepped up and in most cases use "less lethal weapons" while sometimes death does still occur from these weapons the rate is much lower than a gun.
But to realisticaly think we could ever get rid of every gun and stop someone from just making their own is ridiculous.  This worlds self destruction is sure to happen.  Too much hate not enough love..

Although we may disagree on all the other points, I could not agree more with you about this. One of the changes Transportation Alternatives has pushed for is calling all vehicle crashes just that - crashes.

The truth is most death caused by car crashes are due to criminal negligence from at least one of the drivers involved, rather than "accidents". We remove rightful blame and make a mockery of justice by calling them all accidents.

You're right to say, "imagine the outrage if all gun deaths were called Gun Accidents"! The automobile, oil, and alcohol industries have this language-manipulation game down to a science, just like the cigarette companies did in the sixties.

You jest, but as a cyclist with permanent car crash related injuries in my wrist, left knee and left ankle, I would totally vote for you if you ran for NYC mayor on this platform.

The only vehicles on city streets should be buses, garbagetrucks, firetrucks, ambulances, UPS/USPS/Fedex trucks, and trucks bringing food to grocery stores. Everyone else can fuck off and take public transit.



People live here, our lives matter more than the convenience and conspicuous consumption of the petit-bourgeois and their giant metal boxes of death.

So you see, we may disagree, but at least I'm consistent in my total lack of tolerance for selfish consumerist bullshit that costs human lives and suffering.

Satire aside, your point is that Gov't regulation has successfully reduced vehicular death, and so perhaps Gov't regulation could reduce fire arm deaths.  The problem is that the statistics are all jacked.  Even the language is jacked.  Car "accidents" and gun "violence".  Vehicular death is much more violent than firearm death, so why is one an accident, and the other violence?  The deaths are also not broken down into criminal action and non-criminal action.

For example, Gov't regulation may reduce non-criminal vehicular death since more kids are in car seats (good).  But has Gov't regulation really reduced criminal vehicular death (ie drunk drivers and unlicenced truckers)?

Also, why isn't there a breakdown in firearm death.  Firearm deaths are all deaths with, by, near, or regarding a gun.  Rather nonsense if you ask me.  A guy robbing a convenience store and shooting the owner in cold blood... ok +1 on "gun violence".  BUT a homeowner shooting a guy who broke into his house... -1 on "gun violence" and +1 on good and positive use of firearms.  Now there is also the statistic of accidental shootings, but again, this are all lumped together in one mass number relating to all people killed by, with, near, or regarding a gun.  Honestly, its only a matter of time before they start grouping USMC casualties while in active engagements abroad as "gun violence".

When there are honest statistics (yes, that is an oxymoron) then we can have an honest comparison.

Alright, I'm convinced
1) Enact Car Control laws in all 50 states.
2) Only Law Enforcement and Gov't personnel really need cars.
3) Those in cities will use Gov't issued mass transit.
4) Those on farms will be relocated to cities.
5) Now all citizens claiming to own cars for "collector" reasons will have the death boxes confiscated and dismantled.
6) Having proven with 1-5 that a citizen's safety trumps their freedom move on to gun control.

At least that line of argument is intellectually consistent.

Premise: Freedom is dangerous
Premise: Gov't protects citizens
Conclusion: Gov't removes freedom to increase safety.

'Bout what you had in mind?

Guns set to surpass the car as america's top killing machine.





Guns kill a lot of young people in the United States. Not just in school shootings or horrific “accidents” between toddlers that tend to garner the most media attention, but in every day shootings in communities around the country that result in the deaths of thousands of children and teenagers.
In 2010, 6,201 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 died by gunfire. Guns were a close second to the leading cause of death among this age group, car accidents, which took the lives of 7,024 young people that year. But, while car accident deaths among young people have been steadily declining over the past decade, gun deaths have remained relatively unchanged. And, as described in a new Center for American Progress report released Friday, if current trends continue, gun deaths will surpass car accident deaths among young people sometime in 2015:[/img]

How can we explain these numbers? For car accident deaths, these numbers represent a significant victory. Deaths of young people as a result of car accidents have dropped dramatically in the last two decades, from a high of more than 12,000 deaths among this age group in 1990. This decline is not an accident: billions of dollars have been spent on public health and safety research to understand motor vehicle accidents and how to prevent them from becoming fatal. This research has resulted in design innovation, changes to cars and roadways, and new laws that have led to a significant and steady decline in such fatalities among all age groups, including young people. There was no silver bullet for reducing vehicular death: airbags, seatbelt laws, anti-lock brakes, better signage, and tough drunk driving laws all contributed to it. But, in combination these measures have saved tens of thousands of American lives.
For guns, these numbers represent an enormous failure. The United States has experienced a dramatic decline in violent crime over the last two decades, yet the rate of gun violence, particularly among young people, has barely moved. Why? We don’t know.

Unfortunately, since the early 1990s, very few public health researchers have been trying to find out. Restrictions on such research imposed by Congress have had a substantial chilling effect, which has resulted in the almost total abandonment of this issue by our nation’s public health research institutions. Without this research, policymakers, legislators, community leaders, and parents are left without much direction regarding how to best protect children and teenagers from gun violence.

As we approach that morbid milestone next year when gun violence kills more American children and teenagers than car accidents, it’s time to start approaching this problem in the same manner as we addressed car accident deaths. We know how to do this –-through a combination of public health research, technological innovation, legislative change, enhanced enforcement, and transforming cultural norms we were able to make motor vehicle transportation safer while at the same time preserving American’s unique car culture. We can do the same thing with gun violence by adopting laws and policies designed to prevent gun deaths while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/gun-deaths-versus-car-deaths/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/22/3320751/gun-deaths-surpass-car-accidents-leading-cause-young-people/

I do not own a gun or intend to ever buy one but I fully support everyone's right to have one. For me gun control has to do with our already disappearing rights and liberties.

Reality is: we've left heaven on earth a long time ago since the snake and apple incident...
Reality is: if you live in a high crime area it is not by choice but economical reasons.
Reality is: if you are a proud member of the NRA then you respect life much more than the thugs killing and rapping the people in your high crime area.

I wish the concept of self protection was a myth. I wish "I mind my own business and I am peaceful so no one will attack or rape me" was reality.
Maybe where you live it already is and there is no need for that tool, as you have a private army of poor people making sure you and your family are safe, using that tool. But what about their family? Should they just call 911 and wait for the best while YOU have private security?

How is that fair?"I will say it again, we don't need it if there is no threads to ours."

Tough luck for everyone else then...

Many people here do not feel comfortable with the government having a monopoly on force, so removing guns is a non-starter for them.

The only thing keeping the world free is American gun freedom. American gun freedom is the right of Americans to control their own guns in such a way that they can do anything with them as long as they don't harm anyone or damage his property. If Americans didn't have gun freedom, the world would have caved in to worldwide dictatorship long ago.

If you don't think that defending one's self constitutes a need, then by extension one shouldn't need police, armymen, or SWAT teams to defend one's self, either.  I doubt you would be in favor of that.

Training is a fair point (compared to areas where someone can lawfully obtain a gun without training) but can arguably be offset by the context in which they are trained.  The nature of the jobs of military and police is one where violence is anticipated.  This is why you see, for example, police officers approach a routine traffic stop with their hands on their holsters.  The psychological expectation of violence contributes to a greater likelihood that they will be more "trigger-happy" (didn't mean that euphemistically, but for lack of a better term) and make a careless mistake themselves.  

We both have surely heard of all the deaths of unarmed citizens by police and otherwise.  Highlighting this point, do you think that the recent incident where an unarmed man flagged down police was shot and killed would have ended the same way if the man had flagged down a civilian?  Nope.  Furthermore, society often approves the use of deadly force by police in situations where a criminal has a knife, bat, or other handheld weapon.  Why?  Because the police officer was defending himself.  By extension of that logic, it should be approved that any man can defend himself against similar threats with a gun.

Edit: On 2nd thought, even "training" isn't a very good reason at all.  The reason is that the only significantly important training is that which is relevant after a threat has been identified.  Mental illness not withstanding, basically any idiot will have a good idea when a significant threat exists such that the use of a gun becomes justifiable.  Unless you have some paranoia yourself, you shouldn't have much worry about your gun-toting neighbors just lighting up the neighborhood willy-nilly.  The question is instead whether you can trust them with a gun after they have identified a legitimate threat to the safety of their selves or someone else.  In a home invasion, this won't be much of any concern because the threat is isolated to that environment.  And if everyone of sane mind has a gun, the chances decreases that a legitimate threat will exist in a public space (because a criminal knows he has no chance unless he's already committed himself to going out with guns blazing).  People don't take guns and start shooting randomly while spinning in circles.

Bigger guns and better technology.  State paramilitaries won't engage unless they are highly confident that they can win.  When one's life and the lives of one's family is on the line the safest bet is to go with a winner.

You missed completely my point.
If only army and SWAT would have guns, it would be much less likely you'd end up in a gun fight.
If guns would be so much harder to be bought, the likelihood to see this often gun fights would be much much smaller.
And obviously it's the law enforcement who should take care of this, not you and your guns.

I live in a country where it's very hard to get a gun. And it's the very few things I actually like here. I've never seen a gun fight and the chance to see one in the next 5 years is almost 0, though I use to walk alone in the night on the streets.

Edit: missed a word, yeah, En is not my primary language

I agree if gun is legalized to society, but with the provision of we are living in crimes area which there are drug cartels, bad guys, or gangster around there. But, why do we need that tool if we can sleep and do activities peacefully there? There were many shooting accident in US, and I would to know what your reaction if someday you is gun pointed by a mad man or any one else. I will say it again, we don't need it if there is no threads to ours.

I am with you man.  That is the problem.  Honestly 90 some percent of the liberal I have met that I value their opinion at all feel the same way.  Liberals in the house and congress talk a big game when it comes to regulation but usually end up doing nothing.  It is commonly only used as a political stance to gain a population of their voter base.  I wish we all could just be some reasonable, fair gun control. 

I am also progressive/liberal. I totally agree with what your saying. I think people mean well, but gun control is to the left what abortion is to the right. It is a settled issue that some will not let go of. I also support background check, most gun owners I know do.