USA Guns, gun control, and rights.

Josiah said:

18% of crimes committed with a gun are guns actually owned by the criminal. 79% of the guns used in crimes don't belong to the one using them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.9759e2c93bd2


Far fewer than 1% of guns (legal or otherwise) are used in crimes in the USA. (Source: FBI)


90% of violent crimes in the USA don't involve guns at all, fired or not. (Source: FBI)


THAT said, I see no reason for citizens to have automatic/machine guns (like the type used in Las Vegas) and I'm all in favor of licensing (yearly) and severe fines for those who do not keep their guns secure. Owning such suggests great responsibility.

.

Click to expand...

This comes down to a question of just what the Second Amendment is intended to achieve. If the purpose is to maintain a militia then the people logically must have the same weapons as the government they may be called upon to overthrow. Although it seems absurd, technically that means the private citizen should be allowed not only fully automatic weapons but also fighter jets, bombers, attack helicopters, warships, missiles etc.

The problem with the idea of regular licensing is that it merely provides an easy route for governments to force something out of existence by steadily increasing the costs associated with such licensing. If you can't get rid of guns by doing away with the Second Amendment, get rid of them by imposing a $100/year charge per gun, then $500, then $1000, and so on. Sooner or later all but the richest die-hard gun owners will have just turned them in. There's also the question of just what "secure" means. If you've got your gun in a secure box mounted to the wall you can't get at it in a hurry if you are home one night and someone breaks in. If you live alone is there a reason why your gun shouldn't be simply resting on a dresser? Even if you were to lock it up an enterprising burglar will simply force the box off the wall so they can take it away and open it at their leisure. There's also the question of what the security is intended to prevent - if you have a gun kept in a secure vault at home but carry it on your person, the gun thief merely has to thump you with something heavy and take your gun when you're out in town, so the security is bypassed in a single move.

united prayer meetings.
Worked in Cali. After one united prayer meeting in a soccer stadium the headlines were: no homicides.

MoreCoffee said:

If you try real hard you can make this about anything you like except the topic of the thread. People manage misdirection really well when they have a vested interest (monitory, political, philosophical, or whatever else) to twist and turn the matter away from the issue on the table.

Click to expand...

One could argue that the premise(s) on which the very thread is based need to be addressed for various reasons.

It's like the space movies you enjoy. In order for you to enjoy them, one must already accept the premise of outer space, other planets etc - else they are ridiculous.

For this thread, we must accept your premise which presents itself in the form of "begging the question". So far it's manifested itself in various forms.

MoreCoffee said:

If you try real hard you can make this about anything you like except the topic of the thread. People manage misdirection really well when they have a vested interest (monitory, political, philosophical, or whatever else) to twist and turn the matter away from the issue on the table.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you want to push a line of gun control and whether or not people should be allowed to have guns, perhaps the Second Amendment is somewhat inconvenient.

One question that has to be asked is whether even an outright gun ban would prevent things like this. I think we can safely say the answer is a resounding no. If someone is determined enough to get themselves to a vantage point with multiple rifles and a substantial amount of ammunition, chances are they are determined enough to find another way if guns are banned (and that other way may be merely to acquire guns illegally). In a situation like this the notion that the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun starts to falter simply because however many good guys there were with guns in the bad guys sights, chances are they didn't know where the gunfire was coming from and therefore couldn't do a whole lot (and, even if they could identify the source, the chances of taking an accurate shot over an extended range with a handgun are slim enough I suspect few would even try).

A related question is whether a gun ban is even possible in the light of the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Another question is whether the overall social price of a gun ban is worthwhile. Of course events like this are tragic and it's easy to fall back on tired old rhetoric ("if it saves just one life it's worth it" or similar) but if we really want to push that kind of line we would also need to ban just about everything, most notably motor vehicles. A lot of people fall back on similarly tired rhetoric about guns being only intended for killing. Even that isn't necessarily a bad thing, since hunters help maintain populations of everything form deer to bear to rabbits by killing controlled numbers of them. If that is stopped then the numbers would need to be controlled by some other means.

Even in the UK with weapon control laws so strict people speculate of a future James Bond movie titled "007: Licensed to Fish", in places like Richmond Park (a closed space that has deer in it) every year they close the park completely at night for the annual deer cull, in which people with rifles take out a number of deer. From many accounts of people who live near the park they aren't particularly good at it, and the morning after a cull night you can hear the deer that weren't granted a clean kill crying out in pain as they die slowly. At least a hunter who takes one deer for food is going to want a clean kill, so they can easily locate and remove the deer to their vehicle.

MoreCoffee said:

Do you think that laws against drugs ought to be removed because some people still manage to get drugs?

Click to expand...

I honestly believe that they already have for the most part.
Street drugs are banned for a good reason, there is no telling whats in them, people are eating other peoples flesh. "crocodil" is a cheaper form of heroin that contains gasoline and people believe its pure heroin, it gets them just as high but their skin literally falls off its scary and they dont care . They want you to legally buy drugs from pharmacist so people can be monitored and instructed.
Pain Killers and suboxen is legal Heroin
Adderall and Vyvanse is legal Meth, speed
Ritalin = Cocaine etc.
Sadly street drugs exist due to secret deals in the border patrol and elsewhere, meth can be produced after a trip to walmart.
I am against crooked doctors that get paid by companies for every script they write out.
When I was an addict I could just tell my doctor what I wanted and without hesitation he would write me the script, the visit would only take a few minutes.
So banned or not it makes no difference because of crooks and the weak flesh and spirit of the victims. As for marijuana, I think its held for a time until they need tax to help "lift" the economy, as a resort.
But street drugs are of bad form, pot heads promote peace without knowing that people get their heads cut off for it.


Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk