Gun Control Debate

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:19 pm

Gilliatt wrote:Has it occured to you that he could just have been trying to explain to the guy that it was a misunderstanding, that he could have been moving forward in a non-threatening manner, just like you move closer to someone when you feel the conversation is serious?

Or are you trying to say that when someone points a gun at another person, only the person on the wrong end of the gun has the duty to remain calm and think wisely?

I am talking about killing people and you answer that. Should I find this extremely disturbing, or did I just misunderstood?

If someone thatyou believe has just broken into your house begins waking towards you it could cause you to panic and accidentally shoot them. and on that last part i thought you meant one gun is enough

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:38 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:If someone thatyou believe has just broken into your house begins waking towards you it could cause you to panic and accidentally shoot them.

If you believe the Japanese student is more to blame in that case than the guy who shot him (which would mean that entering in a wrong house is a more serious error than killing someone who gives you the illusion he his dangerous when he is not), then I also rest my case and don't see any point in continuing our discussion. I am not saying that this man actually enjoyed killing the student and that he was a psycho, I am just trying to say that his mistake was much more serious than the one made by the student and that consequently he is more to blame.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:51 pm

If you believe the Japanese student is more to blame in that case than the guy who shot him (which would mean that entering in a wrong house is a more serious error than killing someone who gives you the illusion he his dangerous when he is not

i think the blame goes equally, the student should have used his common sense and not walked toward someone who was probably yelling at him and pointing a gun and the home owner should have used some self control and when the student advanced he should have moved back and tried to signal him to get on the ground. At least thats what i would have done.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:05 pm

mr_sir wrote:You need to factor in the fact the Northern Ireland has had a lot of terrorist activity for decades, and this is only just dying down in recent years. There have always been several active terrorist groups and vigilante groups there and there is also a lot of hatred between catholic and protestants. All of this would not only make illegal guns very easy to obtain but also gives a strong motive for their use. This is why Northern Ireland has such high figures dispite a low number of firearms per household.

What you're saying is true, and that thought definitely crossed my mind when I made the post, though I claim that the tensions in the region don't undermine my point, which is that eliminating firearms isn't necessarily an effective way of eliminating gun violence, and furthermore restricting civilians' ownership of guns isn't effective in preventing criminal (or in this case para-military) elements from obtaining guns. All of this aside, though, Ireland is a single country, and even if I conceded that it is hard to determine anything from from that particular set of numbers, I still can't see a correlation between gun ownership and casualties in any of the data DW provided. If such a correlation is shown to me, I will quickly change my tune and even admit to a casual relationship between the two.

I maintain that violence related to firearms is a cultural phenomenon, and eliminating firearms will have a much lesser effect than simply controlling them. That said, I can't really come up with a reasonable argument as to why they should be legal either, as I can't figure out what benefits they would bring to society. As a matter of fact, I find that the most convincing argument for a ban on weapons so far has been presented by TEMPLAR, in telling remarks like For someone like me, one is never enough. and [the police] may not be around when somebody needs killin. That's just me though.

What I am going to say will not make me win the "most intelligent thing said on SYM" award but I'm gonna write it anyway: one conclusion we can draw from these stats is that you don't need many firearms to kill someone... one is enough.

That logically implies that having a few guns is just as bad as having many, which in turn implies there's no point in restricting ownership, which is what I'm saying

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:13 pm

I find that the most convincing argument for a ban on weapons so far has been presented by TEMPLAR, in telling remarks like For someone like me, one is never enough. and [the police] may not be around when somebody needs killin. That's just me though.

one gun gets boring when when you go to the range every weekend, a good gun is just like good wine, eventhough it is good it can get boring if you have it all of the time. you have to learn to be more diverse buddy

there were no cops around when that guy at VT needed to be killed, maby if another student had a weapon he wouldnt have been able to kill as many people.

That logically implies that having a few guns is just as bad as having many, which in turn implies there's no point in restricting ownership, which is what I'm saying

and i agree with you on that

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:22 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:one gun gets boring when when you go to the range every weekend, a good gun is just like good wine, eventhough it is good it can get boring if you have it all of the time. you have to learn to be more diverse buddy

You sound like you're talking about toys, not weapons. If you own guns because you consider them to be fun, you don't deserve them.

there were no cops around when that guy at VT needed to be killed, maby if another student had a weapon he wouldnt have been able to kill as many people.

I know what you meant, it was your particular choice of words that I have an issue with. There's nobody that needs killin, and if there is, you don't have the authority to act as a judge, jury and executioner.

edit: in case there's any confusion, I want to clear matters up: I don't own a gun and I don't feel I need a one.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:30 pm

Templar,
I have to repeat what has already been asked of you in both this thread and the "Virginia Massacre" thread. Do you actually have any substantive evidence to state your case, other than personal anecdotes and opinions that have no basis in fact?

This is not a personal attack, I'm just saying that in SYM people do expect you to back up your arguments and statements with real evidence. So far you have not done this, and to be frank, you simply appear as a troll.

@Vicsun,
indeed. Those numbers, I readily admit, are somewhat inconclusive, and they probably engender more questions than they answer. I do think that many factors contribute to those statistics, culture is significant. As a tangentially related aside, Japan, like the US, also has the death penalty. In the US the death penalty does not seem to act as a deterrent, yet in Japan it apparently has a bearing. I suspect, again, that culture plays a large role.

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:32 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:i think the blame goes equally, the student should have used his common sense and not walked toward someone who was probably yelling at him and pointing a gun and the home owner should have used some self control and when the student advanced he should have moved back and tried to signal him to get on the ground. At least thats what i would have done.

"Better be safe than sorry" like they say. In fact it is so simple and crystal clear that I wonder why justice does not act this way. Let's put all suspects in the electric chair without any form of investigation or trial, after all, it is their fault if they are suspects even if they are not guilty.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:36 pm

You sound like you're talking about toys, not weapons. If you own guns because you consider them to be fun, you don't deserve them.

i guess the reason i speak about them like that is because i have always been around them, i do consider them fun, but i also treat them with a great deal of respect. And you think that since i believe that guns are fun i shouldnt have them? would you rather i did not enjoy them at all?

Let's put all suspects in the electric chair without any form of investigation or trial, after all, it is their fault if they are suspects even if they are not guilty.

???im not sure what your getting at, i said that i would not have shot him, i would have moved back when he advanced, ordered him down, and called the police.

@Dragon wench, heres my proof NRA-ILA :: Armed Citizen

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:46 pm

Vicsun wrote:That logically implies that having a few guns is just as bad as having many, which in turn implies there's no point in restricting ownership, which is what I'm saying

The reason why some countries, like Canada, restrict firearms to certain categories is because it is much more easy to hide a handgun in your jakcet's pocket then to hide a hunting rifle. Both are deadly, but one gets noticed much more easier.

To give you an exemple, my father had to give back his police handgun when he retired even if he owns about ten hunting rifles. He did not care at all, he does not need it.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:53 pm

The reason why some countries, like Canada, restrict firearms to certain categories is because it is much more easy to hide a handgun in your jakcet's pocket then to hide a hunting rifle. Both are deadly, but one gets noticed much more easier.

If the govt ever decided to make handguns illegal, yeah i would be quite pissed, but it wouldnt bother me so much since i only own 4 "pistol class" weapons. (me not getting angry is under the condition that i am fully rembursed for them and they are not stolen by the govt. or i would just lie and tell them that i sold them for cash and dont know the persons name that bought them )

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:00 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:???im not sure what your getting at, i said that i would not have shot him, i would have moved back when he advanced, ordered him down, and called the police.

I am trying to say that people who kill an innocent because they feel threaten when they are not should not have the right to own any firearms and that is why I am in favor of gun control. If that man who killed the Japanese student did not have a weapon, that student would still be alive. I am also trying to say that nobody deserves to die, because someone wrongly feels he is suspect. I don't care if the student moved towards the gunman, although I was not there to check, I am pretty sure he was not stupid enough to jump on the man's throat. That is why I feel the gunman was to blame and not the student.

My major point is not in trying to judge that fellow who killed the student, but to say that this accident should not have happened and also that it is definitely worth it to check how many lives are saved by weapons each year compared to how many lives would be saved by preventing some people to have weapons.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:03 pm

also that it is definitely worth it to check how many lives are saved by weapons each year

You can probably find that at my link on the last page

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:16 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:i guess the reason i speak about them like that is because i have always been around them, i do consider them fun, but i also treat them with a great deal of respect. And you think that since i believe that guns are fun i shouldnt have them? would you rather i did not enjoy them at all?

If the main reason you want to have them is entertainment, no, you shouldn't have them. If you genuinely feel you need them for self-defense, I have to ask: why so many?

Gilliatt]The reason why some countries wrote: When I said there'd be no point in restricting gun ownership, I meant that there's no point in restricting it to policemen and servicemen only. The sort of regulation you describe is very reasonable though, and I think it's something the US could benefit from.

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:37 pm

Vicsun wrote:If the main reason you want to have them is entertainment, no, you shouldn't have them. If you genuinely feel you need them for self-defense, I have to ask: why so many? And why brag about them incessantly on an internet forum?

I don't necessarily agree with you on that point Vicsun. I have a cousin who collects firearms (he has some rifles form the 19th century) and who is a shooting club member. He respects every law we have about gun control, his weapons are locked and unloaded and he does not carry them in public. But when he talks about guns, he talks of them very seriously and without any bad jokes. But I understand that people who say "guns are cool" like they would say "RPGs are cool" can be frightening.

When I said there'd be no point in restricting gun ownership, I meant that there's no point in restricting it to policemen and servicemen only. The sort of regulation you describe is very reasonable though, and I think it's something the US could benefit from.

Ok, I see what you mean.

@Templar, I looked at your Internet site. Of course I did not red it all, but what troubles me is that in the articles I red, I did not see even once a comment against firearms. This makes me wonder about their objectivity, since we all know that firearms do not only have qualities. Another point I can mention is that when someone points a gun and makes someone flee, it does not necessarily means that person just saved his/her life. Nobody can tell how it would have ended. Of course, I know this is not the kind of statistic we can enumerate, but the articles I red never mentioned this, which is another reason why I wonder about their objectivity.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:42 pm

I have to ask: why so many? And why brag about them incessantly on an internet forum?

Is there something wrong with having a lot of guns? And im not braging about them, ive just had to use myself as an example several times, i can brag about my friends guns if youd like

.Also i know this is an internet forum and i really dont care if people know that i have guns at my house.

If the main reason you want to have them is entertainment, no, you shouldn't have them.

If you could explain what is so wrong with owning guns for entertainment i would be much obliged.

If you genuinely feel you need them for self-defense

Id rather have them and not need them then need them and not have them

@Templar, I looked at your Internet site. Of course I did not red it all, but what troubles me is that in the articles I red, I did not see even once a comment against firearms. This makes me wonder about their objectivity, since we all know that firearms do not only have qualities. Another point I can mention is that when someone points a gun and makes someone flee, it does not necessarily means that person just saved his/her life. Nobody can tell how it would have ended. Of course, I know this is not the kind of statistic we can enumerate, but the articles I red never mentioned this, which is another reason why I wonder about their objectivity.

well of course you would not see one against firearms, it is an NRA-ILA web page. Dragon wench wanted to see proof that guns can prevent crime(2.5 million crimes annualy

), so thats why i posted it.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:43 pm

Gilliatt wrote: @Templar, I looked at your Internet site. Of course I did not red it all, but what troubles me is that in the articles I red, I did not see even once a comment against firearms. This makes me wonder about their objectivity

It's the official National Rifle Association (NRA) site which is the major lobby force in the US against gun control... so no.. definitely no objectivity to be found. The thing is, the site I linked to isn't exactly unbiased either, this is one of those issues which is very polarized so balanced information is not easy to come by.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:52 pm

It's the official National Rifle Association (NRA) site which is the major lobby force in the US against gun control... so no.. definitely no objectivity to be found. The thing is, the site I linked to isn't exactly unbiased either, this is one of those issues which is very polarized so balanced information is not easy to come by.

I have never found an unbias site on the issue of gun control, people are either far to the right or far to the left

well of course you would not see one against firearms, it is an NRA-ILA web page. Dragon wench wanted to see proof that guns can prevent crime(2.5 million crimes annualy ), so thats why i posted it.

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:56 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:And im not braging about them, ive just had to use myself as an example several times, i can brag about my friends guns if youd like .Also i know this is an internet forum and i really dont care if people know that i have guns at my house.

Don't be offended Templar67, maybe it just because you are not familiar with forums, but with the number of smilies you used when you talked about them, you often sounded like a child talking about his favorite toy. At least that is the impression it gave me and I believe Vicsun also had the same impression.

Nobody is judging you because you have firearms at home, I said repeatedly that I also have some and nobody ever bugged me about it. We cannot judge you since we don't know you. We only judge the comments you make and do not judge them on whether you agree with us or not, but on how they are formulated and how objective they are.

@ DW, of course I had noticed that it was the NRA's site. My goal was to comment on the site from its content and not from who actually wrote or endorsed it.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:56 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:I have never found an unbias site on the issue of gun control, people are either far to the right or far to the left

Woah...woah... let's not stereotype here.
While it is often true that people on the left are in favour of gun control and people on the right are opposed to it, that is not always the case.
From my own vantage point, I know people who are all over the political spectrum, and their views are very diverse and sometimes surprising.

@Gilliat,
lol! ok