Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!

not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Kobuk on June 13, 2016, 12:13:23 pm

Title: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 13, 2016, 12:13:23 pm
Another mass shooting in America has occured as described in this thread:
http://forums.furtopia.org/news-forum/40-50-killed-in-nightclub-terror-attack/

*sigh*   When will it end? Seems like hardly a day doesn't go by when somebody someplace in America is killing people for various reasons.  :P  IMO, America is the most violent country when it comes to gun crime/violence. Burglaries, Robberies, Bank holdups, Hostage situations, Carjackings, and so much more. But when we use them, whether for good or bad intentions, we often don't think of the consequences and ramifications of our actions that come afterwards. Seems to me the only thing most people care about is that a gun gives them protection. A gun gives them power. A gun can instill fear in your adversary. While that may be true for some things and/or some people or instances, there's another thing that a gun makes a person: When not used properly or in the wrong way, a gun makes you a killer.

It's true about that old phrase: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people.".  But apparently, our government and various authoritative agencies (Police, FBI, ATF, etc.) don't seem to understand this. For they keep establishing law after law after law, etc. to enforce more "gun control" on the American populace. While some laws, background checks, waiting lists, etc. may be necessary to keep certain individuals or groups from having firearms, too many laws and restrictions can have a detrimental effect and make the populace think the government is curtailing their Constitutional rights and freedoms, and that the government is "out to get them" so to speak. There needs to be a "balance" between owning and using a gun, and preventing guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people and having more gun violence. But where is this balance? How do we create it?

Where exactly does "gun control" lie? With the public or the government? How do we control the gun violence that is ravaging America?

IMO, gun control starts with the public. Once you have a gun in your hand, YOU control how that gun is used, where it is used, and whom or what it is used against. Control starts with learning about the gun. What it does, How it operates, What it should and should not be used for, etc.  When people buy, own, and use a gun, they need to learn about safety, take gun shooting classes, and above all, learn responsibility for owning and using a gun.

To give you an analogy, it's kinda like when you were a little kid playing with your toys. If you were playing with your toys badly or abusing them, your parents may have had to take them away from you until you learned how to play responsibly with them. The same could almost be said with guns. The United States Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms. That is our constitutional right. We might have played with our "toys" (guns) responsibly during the early periods of America growing up. But as the years and decades wore on, we seemed to have lost responsibility for how we owned and used guns. And now we face the time where our parent (Federal Government) is shaking their finger at the public (Kids) and telling us that if we can't play with our toys responsibly, then they are going to take them away from us.........or at least make it harder for us to play with them.

As I said before, maybe "some" laws are necessary for gun control. But if we really want to have less gun control laws in this country and look better in the eyes of our parents (Federal Government), then we need to take it upon ourselves to act responsibly in how we own and use guns. By learning ourselves, and teaching and showing others how to safely handle guns, maybe we can get the Government to get off our backs and cut us a bit of slack, know what I mean? ;)

So in short, when it comes to gun control, I would be in favor of the following:
Mandatory gun safety/shooting classes regardless of what type of guns you have or how many. No exceptions to this rule.
Mandatory background checks.
Refusing gun sales to persons with histories/conditions of mental problems depending on the severeity of the condition.
Mandatory 6 month waiting period for immigrants to buy a gun. Especially a waiting period for those who come from the Middle East.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Foxpup on June 13, 2016, 10:29:23 pm
Mandatory 3 month waiting period for purchasing of assault style weapons.
Assault "style" weapons? Tell me again how the visual appearance of a weapon makes a difference. For reference, actual assault rifles are already illegal without a federal permit.

Mandatory 6 month waiting period for immigrants to buy a gun. Especially a waiting period for those who come from the Middle East.
Kobuk, I'm ashamed of you. You forgot to say "I'm not racist, but..." >:(
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Amducious on June 13, 2016, 11:29:36 pm
^^^^

Exactly and the fact that just because something looks "scary" doesn't make it more powerful. It's like giving a knife a tactical look, and saying it's more sharp when a knife that's the same is no different.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 14, 2016, 04:04:48 am
Another mass shooting in America has occured as described in this thread:
http://forums.furtopia.org/news-forum/40-50-killed-in-nightclub-terror-attack/

*sigh*   When will it end? Seems like hardly a day doesn't go by when somebody someplace in America is killing people for various reasons.  :P  IMO, America is the most violent country when it comes to gun crime/violence. Burglaries, Robberies, Bank holdups, Hostage situations, Carjackings, and so much more.

Apologise Kobuk, when it comes to USA I know yourself as a citizen has more knowledge and experience on the matter.  But most other countries have a lower terrorism rate due to mass gun control, or rather not having a gun at all.

I know the whole expression of 'Guns don't kill people, people do' but no matter how many times that is said, and how true it is, it is equally true that 'the gun helps'.

I was watching a few of the news reports and it is quoted that 'The owner of the shooting range where Orlando shooter Omar Mateen bought the handgun and semi-automatic used in the deadly rampage over the weekend says he bought both weapons legally and passed a thorough background check.'
http://time.com/4367592/orlando-shooting-gun-store-owner/

Guns are never about protection, that is a delusional expression to cover the simple fact that it is about power. 

I mean 15 times apparently something like this has happened in America in recent times, I know this again is from the media and there is always suspicion there, but at the same time i'm sorry to say most gun shooting incidents are either expected in/near a war zone or in America.   Yet your defending guns like you'd defend a puppy.

In honesty however I don't know what America is going to do because you already have so many weapons and guns and no one is going to drop them because the law says so.  The right to bear arms is apparently an amendment right?  First two syllables spell amend meaning 'make minor changes to (a text, piece of legislation, etc.) in order to make it fairer or more accurate, or to reflect changing circumstances.'

I'm with Obama, how many people need to die while you defend saying the guns were innocent and it's the people, when both are guilty parties, one for the use and the other for the design.

The course of action comes from both the cooperation of the government and the citizens, especially since guns are everywhere in America legally so it's not like any change is going to be easy.  But simple fact is guns are designed to kill, and as far as people are concerned, it only takes something to tick them off, drugs, high levels of stress, discrimination, bullying/being bullied, financial bankruptcy, mental destabilisation, probably more.  But one garentee is no one anywhere can garentee that they would always and forever use their gun safety, responsibly and legally
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Amducious on June 14, 2016, 09:39:35 am

If America could develop a gun culture like Switzerland it would work. The crime rate is low there and guess what? They all own guns and are required to train with them.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm Also here's some good facts about why gun control doesn't work
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 14, 2016, 10:06:36 am
Yeah I had a skim through.
Hunting is the same as killing, only difference is what you are targeting, and protection is the threat to wound or kill.  that leaves target practice.

Also ONE guy disclaims UK and Japan but only explains Japan not both, and some of the issues of Japan I daresay exist in USA.

Do you need to get shot before you see guns as a threat, cause other peoples deaths don't seem to work.  Guns don't just kill, they can kill multiply with great speed.  ratio of 1 guy to 50 deaths.

All your link specifies that America couldn't change to Switzerland or other foreign gun policies
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Amducious on June 14, 2016, 10:19:25 am
Just the fact that gun control doesn't fix anything maybe some things. But the person who suffers the most from gun control is a law abiding citizen. The criminal can still get guns and the citizens have nothing to defend themselves with.

Also you can still buy supplies to make a bomb. A criminal is going to find any way to kill someone even if guns are completely banned. Chemical or biowarfare would kill more than guns.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 14, 2016, 10:48:02 am
Just the fact that gun control doesn't fix anything maybe some things. But the person who suffers the most from gun control is a law abiding citizen. The criminal can still get guns and the citizens have nothing to defend themselves with.

On behalf of the law abiding citizens of the UK I say no.  They hasn't been any gun crime to this extreme in UK for some time, EVEN THE LONDON RIOT didn't have that much gun use in it, with guns it would of been a blood shed.
Austerity, yes, gun crimes, no.

But if your argument that because your neighbour has one or someone else has one you should have on well then I would like a nuclear bomb, because others have one, it'll protect my family when i set it off and hide in my shelter far away form the explosion.

Also you can still buy supplies to make a bomb. A criminal is going to find any way to kill someone even if guns are completely banned. Chemical or biowarfare would kill more than guns.

You have to make it, it's presupplied nor legal.

To be honest if there is a rise in gun crimes in gun controlled areas its because other areas allow it.  How was it now when America sneezes the world feels the cold?  If you allow guns to go around willy nilly then anyone can get one, like drugs, like anything it only has to be legal somewhere for it to be spreadable, and with America having families with private arsenals well yeah it can impact the world.

But your argument, or at least one of them is you wanna hold a gun so you can look dangerous if you need to, shoot animals and maybe do some target practice as sports.  Whenever a shooting like this happens it's not just the people are forever dead, which they are btw, completely gone.  But it's then the family and friends who find out, it's then further people terrified that they have lost family and friends, then its the section of the region that suddenly doesn't feel safe, and then arguments only due to fears and anger of what has just happened.  All of this, REPEATEDLY, from mass murders caused by guns that were either legally or easily gained, because lets be honest here, when a gun is in every household, a gun is suddenly accessible, not just to anyone living there, but the theieves and muggers you preached you needed the gun for.  All of this from mass murders of gun crime.

And instead of having some decency or decorum for the people who have suffered throughout this world you just want to protect the guns because they are the ones will will suffer, some dead metallic object. 
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Foxpup on June 14, 2016, 10:51:06 am
But gun crime, specifically, isn't the threat. The threat is criminals, who aren't actually helped by guns as much as you seem to think. Knives of all varieties are readily available (and how are you going to make dinner in a society where they aren't?), and a typical hardware store can supply all the parts and chemicals needed to build effective pipebombs. I'd advise against sourcing poisons from a hardware store, though; they only stock the less potent ones (though they're still useful for terrorists - noxious fumes are great for forcing the evacuation of entire buildings). But in case buying toxic chemicals will arouse suspicion, I know a great recipe for Molotov cocktails. These drinks have always been popular among the more rebellious crowd. Or if you want to keep things simple, try a good old baseball bat - it's America's national bludgeon! Really, who need guns to kill people when you've got all these options?

I'll tell you who: law-abiding citizens, who need to defend themselves with something a little less indiscriminate than bombs, and may be lacking the physical strength needed to effectively employ knives and clubs. Of all the weapons used by criminals, only guns can also be used to effectively defend against them. "God made men, Colt made them equal."
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 14, 2016, 10:56:56 am
If thats the case then by God, when Donald Trump is elected, i'm sure you'll have all the guns you want, and be happy for it
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Old Rabbit on June 14, 2016, 01:09:06 pm
Many people want a gun for protection, and it does provide a degree of
protection if you know how to use a gun, and protect your family with it.

Many people feel all they need to do is point and pull the trigger. People
need training and education to properly own and use a firearm. Otherwise
they are more likely to get in trouble, hurt them selves or those they love
than anything else.

People with murder in their heart will find a way to get a gun, and if not will find
another weapon to use.

The biggest problem I have with firearms owned by the average person is emotional
control. If one can't control their anger, should they really carry a firearem? It;s
impossible to sort all the problem people out. But screening people for mental disorders
and criminal activity should help a little. There is a way to make a trigger that only
works for the owner. But for some reason the governemtn doesn't approve their sale.
Those would make guns safer for home use. Or even the lives of police when the bad
guy grabs their gun.

There isn't any perfect solution, but we should try to make life safer where we can.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Amducious on June 14, 2016, 01:12:53 pm
Many people want a gun for protection, and it does provide a degree of
protection if you know how to use a gun, and protect your family with it.

Many people feel all they need to do is point and pull the trigger. People
need training and education to properly own and use a firearm. Otherwise
they are more likely to get in trouble, hurt them selves or those they love
than anything else.

People with murder in their heart will find a way to get a gun, and if not will find
another weapon to use.

The biggest problem I have with firearms owned by the average person is emotional
control. If one can't control their anger, should they really carry a firearem? It;s
impossible to sort all the problem people out. But screening people for mental disorders
and criminal activity should help a little. There is a way to make a trigger that only
works for the owner. But for some reason the governemtn doesn't approve their sale.
Those would make guns safer for home use. Or even the lives of police when the bad
guy grabs their gun.

There isn't any perfect solution, but we should try to make life safer where we can.

^i agree
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: T-Yoshi45 on June 14, 2016, 02:10:43 pm
Frankly today i already find gun control to be far too restrictive (Least in my state) But overall, I feel like like the recent shooting will become yet another anti-gun cattle call. These people blame an inanimate object and want to ban them because the people behind them thus punishing all for the actions of a few. The right to self-defense in undebatable in my opinion, the right to own a gun is imperative to that right. They should be putting more an emphasis on gun education and gun safety rather than trying to further choke the rights of the law-abiding citizen cause of a handful of crazies. Proper training, armed guards for these places, mental health evaluations and checks. Those things might actually do some good. Not placing another 'assault' weapons ban or more registration of ammo. I don't condone gun control but i do support Gun Safety.

Plus one odd trend i've noticed...notice where these shootings are taking place? Churches, nightclubs, movie theaters...usually places with no gun policies in place.

And Kobuk i could hardly agree more 'Guns don't kill people, people do.' cause i've seen that when you take one weapon away from a person they find another, New York City pretty much banned gun ownership and then there was a spike in the use of machetes and Sen. Tony Avella of Queens wanted to place a ban on machetes. Luckily it did fail but still...I could see that sort of thing turning into a ridiculous cycle to where in ten years time you'd need a licence to own a kitchen knife.

Take away one weapon, the criminal finds another. While gun control may sound good to some, all i've seen it do is make a criminal of the common don.

http://www.nysapls.org/news/217762/Proposed-legislation-to-ban-machetes-in-NYS.htm (In case anyone wanted to view this...thing)


Plus Natura, as good of a person i think you are...
On behalf of the law abiding citizens of the UK I say no.  They hasn't been any gun crime to this extreme in UK for some time, EVEN THE LONDON RIOT didn't have that much gun use in it, with guns it would of been a blood shed.
Austerity, yes, gun crimes, no.

Sure you can say there was no to little gun crime but it's coming off a bit 'holier than thou' especially accounting for the climbs in other crimes like sexual offenses by 37% in 2015 or the increase in knife violence by 13% or the increase of sexual assault with knives by 28% in that same year.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33547806 (hopefully this link works)
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 14, 2016, 02:12:20 pm
Here's a nice link with statistics on gun violence.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/index.html
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 14, 2016, 06:29:31 pm
Frankly today i already find gun control to be far too restrictive (Least in my state) But overall, I feel like like the recent shooting will become yet another anti-gun cattle call. These people blame an inanimate object and want to ban them because the people behind them thus punishing all for the actions of a few. The right to self-defense in undebatable in my opinion, the right to own a gun is imperative to that right. They should be putting more an emphasis on gun education and gun safety rather than trying to further choke the rights of the law-abiding citizen cause of a handful of crazies. Proper training, armed guards for these places, mental health evaluations and checks. Those things might actually do some good. Not placing another 'assault' weapons ban or more registration of ammo. I don't condone gun control but i do support Gun Safety.

Plus one odd trend i've noticed...notice where these shootings are taking place? Churches, nightclubs, movie theaters...usually places with no gun policies in place.

And Kobuk i could hardly agree more 'Guns don't kill people, people do.' cause i've seen that when you take one weapon away from a person they find another, New York City pretty much banned gun ownership and then there was a spike in the use of machetes and Sen. Tony Avella of Queens wanted to place a ban on machetes. Luckily it did fail but still...I could see that sort of thing turning into a ridiculous cycle to where in ten years time you'd need a licence to own a kitchen knife.

Take away one weapon, the criminal finds another. While gun control may sound good to some, all i've seen it do is make a criminal of the common don.

http://www.nysapls.org/news/217762/Proposed-legislation-to-ban-machetes-in-NYS.htm (In case anyone wanted to view this...thing)


Plus Natura, as good of a person i think you are...
On behalf of the law abiding citizens of the UK I say no.  They hasn't been any gun crime to this extreme in UK for some time, EVEN THE LONDON RIOT didn't have that much gun use in it, with guns it would of been a blood shed.
Austerity, yes, gun crimes, no.

Sure you can say there was no to little gun crime but it's coming off a bit 'holier than thou' especially accounting for the climbs in other crimes like sexual offenses by 37% in 2015 or the increase in knife violence by 13% or the increase of sexual assault with knives by 28% in that same year.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33547806 (hopefully this link works)

So let me get this straight

"Plus one odd trend i've noticed...notice where these shootings are taking place? Churches, nightclubs, movie theaters...usually places with no gun policies in place."
You are suggesting guns should be everywhere because if there is ever a place where a gun may n ot be there then thats the problem because the gun isn't there.  Is thsi to include locker rooms, swimming pools, childrens conserts.  hell Why not allow guns in planes just incase.

Argue infinate times 'Guns don't kill people, people do' Gun will ALWAYS help every single flipping time.

"I could see that sort of thing turning into a ridiculous cycle to where in ten years time you'd need a licence to own a kitchen knife."  This is partially true in the UK, you cannot hold glass bottles or knives in open grounds, it's illegal.  But it doesn't impact peoples lives.

Yes, there is knife crime in the UK, there is crime everywhere, having a weapon does not justify self-defence, it's power greedy disghusting power that slimey scumming twitts cling to because they think guns are cool and deserving.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Foxpup on June 14, 2016, 10:53:08 pm
You are suggesting guns should be everywhere because if there is ever a place where a gun may n ot be there then thats the problem because the gun isn't there.
Correct. In case you didn't already know, criminals break laws. That includes bringing guns to "gun-free zones". By definition, "gun-free zones" only apply to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens not having guns when criminals do is in fact a problem.

Argue infinate times 'Guns don't kill people, people do' Gun will ALWAYS help every single flipping time.
I already refuted this. If you want to kill a lot of people, bombs and chemical weapons beat guns hands down. The people who guns help the most are the people who don't want to kill people.

Yes, there is knife crime in the UK, there is crime everywhere, having a weapon does not justify self-defence,
I don't even? Are you saying if someone attacks you with a knife, you are not justified in stopping that person from killing you? If you are, then how exactly are going to do that without a weapon of your own? And if you aren't, you're saying a murderer's life is worth more than your own, and I don't see any point arguing with that.

it's power greedy disghusting power that slimey scumming twitts cling to because they think guns are cool and deserving.
If you spend less time hurling insults and more time reading, you'll see nobody thinks anything like that.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 15, 2016, 03:49:24 am
Correct. In case you didn't already know, criminals break laws. That includes bringing guns to "gun-free zones". By definition, "gun-free zones" only apply to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens not having guns when criminals do is in fact a problem.

Yes indeed Criminals break laws.  Yes criminals having guns is a problem, criminals recieving guns legally is a bigger problem.  America arming their own terrorist.  Having guns in nightclubs does not resolve this problem.  Firstly it's a place where drinks (and drugs) happen to the point people are not of sound mind so why have weapons in the hands of people without sound minds?  I'm sorry the answer is not the populate the world with guns, espeically as according to Kobuk's website the ratio of gun per person is by the looks of it the highest in the world.

I already refuted this. If you want to kill a lot of people, bombs and chemical weapons beat guns hands down. The people who guns help the most are the people who don't want to kill people.
Look if you want someone dead there are many means of doing it, and yes bombs and chemicals included, but hell Chemicals don't kill people, people do, same for bombs, this saying can also be applied to knives, tanks, sniper rifles, cars.  So yeah explosives don't kill people, people do....But it still helps.

I don't even? Are you saying if someone attacks you with a knife, you are not justified in stopping that person from killing you? If you are, then how exactly are going to do that without a weapon of your own? And if you aren't, you're saying a murderer's life is worth more than your own, and I don't see any point arguing with that.

You don't even what?  Are you saying the only way I can defend myself is a gun, cause well that thinking is stupid on a few scales.  The first is if I am allowed to have a gun, then the guy who currently has a knife is would of had a gun instead of a knife aimed at me, and to be honest me having a gun is going to do nothing, because as the attack is going to be unprovoked his will be out and targetted on me already, and now I am stuck with my arms up crapping myself, and my gun has done jack.  With a knife, yeah its a knife, which is a close combat item, there are so many options that I can do.  Chances are I'll probably panic because most citizens are not used to being threatened with a knife, but point being the knife has limitations, and in that case I would promote self-defense classes because there are ways of disarming an opponent.  Not so much if he has a ranged item.  But by the sounds of your post you generally believe that only guns will save you so hears a UK story for you.

A few incidents like this has happened but on particular.  A farmer was burgled into his house by some thieves.  The farmer grabs his rifled and threatens them away, then stands outside while one runs and shoots him straight into the head, instant death.  This has been documented a few times including this article below
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11044022/Tony-Martin-15-years-on-I-dont-want-to-go-back-there-because-it-could-happen-again.html

Guns is about power, not defense, that is a choice.  Power is a garentee because you get a choice, or at least you feel you do.  The gentleman above believe he was entitled to kill that person because he didn't want to stand there and get hurt, as though those are the only options, but someone died, and arguable not for justice but revenge on breaking the mans house.

At anycase it does not work for the citizens of UK.

If you spend less time hurling insults and more time reading, you'll see nobody thinks anything like that.
I have tried being fair, I've looked at all the links including the most recent one Kobuk posted.  Point is no mind is being swayed, I am for gun control and you are not.

But I disagree, this is a mixture for some to believe that being a gun is being a real man, or patriotich, and for others to believe that they are the law and can apply it how they see fit.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 15, 2016, 04:07:46 am
Look we're not going to agree by the sounds of it.  But I'm sorry but any extremism is wrong including mass gun spread.

Its flippin' tiring to hear this crap about how guns could of saves then and guns should be everywhere because its people that's the problem.  that is true people are a problem so don't give them all weapons.  I don't think telling any victims. to this crime 'a gun would of saves them' would been seen as correct.

But when debated, and I have listened and read.  but this lofty argument of non gun places suffer most, UK and how it doesn't count for other nations with gun control because again lofty reasons scrambled from opinioned internet or that one time in band camp, and gun controlled areas are lies and that flippin' quote that is always defended because its catchy like wild fire.

Information here is simply about making guns look like the right answer not that they are the right answer.

With that I'm out. 
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 15, 2016, 11:55:43 am
I had to do some thinking lately. I think all assault style weapons such as M-16's, AK-47's, or any other similar assault type weapon should be 100% banned from public sale/use. Seriously, who the hell is going to need that much firepower? For what? There's no point or reason to it. The only people who should have that kind of firepower are the Police and the Military. Nobody else. What is it about assault type weapons that makes people want one? Is it the "Oh wow, look at that cool gun! That is so awesome. It's got a lot of firepower. If the police and military have them, then I want one too."    If the only reasons people want an assault type weapon are because it's "cool" and it shoots a lot of ammo, etc., then I feel your reasons are misplaced.  :P  Assault type weapons IMO do not belong in the house nor do they belong on the streets. Period.


As I've probably said a little bit in my opening post in this thread, the best "gun control" may not actually be creating more restrictive laws, but by "educating" ourselves and the rest of the public on how to properly handle and use guns. It's not the gun itself that is out of control. It's us, the "human animal" that is out of control because we are like kids who have been given this brand new toy to play with and instead of playing with it responsibly, we are instead abusing it. Therefore, part of the solution to gun control in America should be more tougher background checks, and mandatory gun safety/shooting classes.


We just can't seem to keep our emotions in check. Every time something bothers somebody, it's like we have to threaten them with a gun or something else. Boss at work getting you down? Get a gun. Neighbor steals your garden hose. Get a gun. Another person grabbed your parking space. Get a gun.
Get where I'm going with this? Hardly a day doesn't go by when I haven't read on the news where somebody uses a gun to get back at another person. And all for the stupidest of reasons.  :o It's like people think/feel that a gun will solve all their problems.......or at least some of them. Guns are not the solution to everything. They will not solve your problems. They will only make them worse.


In short, we don't need more gun control in America. We need more "people control".
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Old Rabbit on June 15, 2016, 12:38:53 pm
It seems the media, and those in politics only talk about gun violence. Those who
really wish to kill a lot of people use explosives, the guns are mostly for shooting into
crowds and targeted individuals. Of course to kill very many with a gun there must be
a crowd, because people will immedialy scatter and hide. That's why they attack crowds,
and to do so it must be planned, and with a plan they can gather most anything needed in
spite of laws. Fortunately most plans fail due to mistakes. Or mass killings would be
even more common.

Explosives or chemicals require much more knowledge to successfully use without killing
or injuring the person planning to use them.

When all those little school kids were shot, a man in China killed 30 with a knife. and
my gf in Brazil said a gunman killed several school kids with  a gun in her country. The
media ignored the mass killer with a knife. A high school kid attacked several classmates
with a knife. The media covered it, but made much less of it than they would have
if it had been with a gun.

Mass killings are not only a US problem, it's a human problem. Be it guns, knives, explosives,
chemicals, gas or fire. We need to deal with the reason it happens, becasue people do kill
people with anything they can get their dirty hands on. Guns only make it easier.


Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 15, 2016, 05:40:35 pm
I had to do some thinking lately. I think all assault style weapons such as M-16's, AK-47's, or any other similar assault type weapon should be 100% banned from public sale/use. Seriously, who the hell is going to need that much firepower? For what? There's no point or reason to it. The only people who should have that kind of firepower are the Police and the Military. Nobody else. What is it about assault type weapons that makes people want one? Is it the "Oh wow, look at that cool gun! That is so awesome. It's got a lot of firepower. If the police and military have them, then I want one too."    If the only reasons people want an assault type weapon are because it's "cool" and it shoots a lot of ammo, etc., then I feel your reasons are misplaced.  :P  Assault type weapons IMO do not belong in the house nor do they belong on the streets. Period.


As I've probably said a little bit in my opening post in this thread, the best "gun control" may not actually be creating more restrictive laws, but by "educating" ourselves and the rest of the public on how to properly handle and use guns. It's not the gun itself that is out of control. It's us, the "human animal" that is out of control because we are like kids who have been given this brand new toy to play with and instead of playing with it responsibly, we are instead abusing it. Therefore, part of the solution to gun control in America should be more tougher background checks, and mandatory gun safety/shooting classes.


We just can't seem to keep our emotions in check. Every time something bothers somebody, it's like we have to threaten them with a gun or something else. Boss at work getting you down? Get a gun. Neighbor steals your garden hose. Get a gun. Another person grabbed your parking space. Get a gun.
Get where I'm going with this? Hardly a day doesn't go by when I haven't read on the news where somebody uses a gun to get back at another person. And all for the stupidest of reasons.  :o It's like people think/feel that a gun will solve all their problems.......or at least some of them. Guns are not the solution to everything. They will not solve your problems. They will only make them worse.


In short, we don't need more gun control in America. We need more "people control".

Although I disagree with the outcome of your thought process, I do agree and respect the thought process and can understand where you are coming from, and to be honest I'm not a US citizen so I can ever really ascertain what the best course of action is for America other than as an outside opinion, so that said perhaps you are correct.

I would like to pass a quote that I find interesting about the relationship between citizens and the law, and for the most part I support this quote, it is from an anime, but I still think the statement is worth entertaining in thought.

'The law doesn't protect people. People protect the law. People have always detested evil and sought out a righteous way of living. Their feelings, the accumulation of those peoples feelings are the law. They're neither the provisions, nor the system. They're the fragile and irreplaceable feelings that everyone carries in their hearts.'
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 15, 2016, 07:02:14 pm
Know what the best deterrent is against gun violence? While some people may think it's having and using a gun, that is only part of the equation. While that may (or may not) work in some situations and instances, the best tools are the ones which we carry and use with us every day: Our eyesight and our hearing.

Hasn't it always been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance? While the government and local agencies can help to thwart various gun violence in America, it comes down to the American public to be vigilant about the people, places, and things around them. Your eyes and ears are the first line of defense. What you see and hear and report to the authorities can be just as much a deterrent to crime as using a gun. I'm not saying that we should be a bunch of tattle-talers and spy on everything and everyone around us and report that to the authorities. But I think we need to be more aware of our surroundings and the people around us. If something looks suspicious and out of place or if somebody is acting strangely to the point where a crime may be committed, then shouldn't we "step up to the plate" so to speak and do something about it? Waiting too long to report something and/or take action just gives the criminals more incentive to continue with whatever actions they are doing and/or to get away.

If I'm not too mistaken, didn't there used to be an acronym for the word "Cop"? Didn't it stand for:
CITIZENS
ON
PATROL
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Foxpup on June 15, 2016, 11:41:23 pm
Guns is about power, not defense, that is a choice.  Power is a garentee because you get a choice, or at least you feel you do.
Gun are indeed about power, the power to decide who lives and who dies, and certainly people who are too emotionally immature to handle such power shouldn't use them. If you really fear you will just stand there and crap yourself because you can't make that decision, fine, but don't dare presume to tell other people how they can handle a life or death situation.

Point is no mind is being swayed, I am for gun control and you are not.
At least I now know why you are anti-gun, though I already had my suspicions.



I think all assault style weapons such as M-16's, AK-47's, or any other similar assault type weapon should be 100% banned from public sale/use. Seriously, who the hell is going to need that much firepower?
Kobuk, did you just ignore the first two replies in this thread or do you really not know the difference between a style of weapon and a type of weapon? The M-16 and AK-47 are not assault "style" weapons; they are actual assault rifles. As I explained before in another thread, an assault rifle is one which is selectable between semi-automatic (fire one bullet at a time, same as any other repeating firearm) and fully automatic (hold down trigger to spray bullets constantly, like a machine gun) modes. As you say, not many people really need such firepower, which is why you need a federal permit to buy or sell one (same as machine guns and grenade launchers and the like).

Assault "style" weapons, as you call them, are just non-assault weapons painted black or otherwise made to look "scary". The classic example, the Colt AR-15, is really just a hunting rifle (comparable to the Ruger Mini-14) made to look like an M-16. It is not actually an M-16, and is not capable of fully-automatic firing. If you're still confused, we should talk about banning racing stripes because they make cars go faster.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 15, 2016, 11:59:02 pm
Quote
Kobuk, did you just ignore the first two replies in this thread or do you really not know the difference between a style of weapon and a type of weapon? The M-16 and AK-47 are not assault "style" weapons; they are actual assault rifles. As I explained before in another thread, an assault rifle is one which is selectable between semi-automatic (fire one bullet at a time, same as any other repeating firearm) and fully automatic (hold down trigger to spray bullets constantly, like a machine gun) modes. As you say, not many people really need such firepower, which is why you need a federal permit to buy or sell one (same as machine guns and grenade launchers and the like).

Regardless of what you or I call guns, the point and fact is this: assault weapons DO NOT need to be on the streets or in homes, etc.  They're too powerful and too dangerous. Period.



Quote
Guns is about power, not defense, that is a choice.  Power is a garentee because you get a choice, or at least you feel you do.

Quote
Gun are indeed about power, the power to decide who lives and who dies,

I'd love to reply to the above two quotes, but it's late and I'm heading off to bed. Maybe tomorrow I'll reply if I can.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Literate Lycan on June 16, 2016, 01:53:31 am
I have heretofore stayed out of the whole gun control debate simply because it's too volatile. I'm breaking my own rule by posting this, but in light of Orlando and other events I'm going to state my beliefs  on the subject. Then I will step back and let the rest of you debate what I set forth.

I agree with Kobuk in that gun control starts with gun owners. If "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true then it necessarily follows that certain people should never be allowed to touch a firearm.

1.  Mandatory FEDERAL background checks for all firearm purchases. No exceptions. If you have been convicted of a felony, violent crime, domestic abuse, and certain other classes of crimes, you are prohibited from buying a gun.
2.  Mandatory completion of gun safety classes before purchasing a gun. I dislike the NRA for many reasons but the NRA has a top-notch safety program. You must pass that program successfully before you can buy a gun. You must be recertified regularly, like a driver's license. Mandatory Federal registration of all certifications. Your certification is valid only for a certain class of firearm. Want to buy a different type of gun? Take the class.
3.  Firearm purchases require fingerprints and photographs to be immediately uploaded to a Federal database. All firearm serial numbers are recorded at the point of sale and transmitted online to the database.
4.  No gun-show loophole. Sales at gun shows must comply with the same rules as those at gun stores.
5.  Private sales must be reported within 5 business days. Fingerprints and serial numbers required.
6.  Ownership is serious responsibility. You must store your firearms and ammunition in a secure location. Failure to do so, if it results in an accidental shooting, is a Federal felony with mandatory prison time.
7.  Thefts are to be reported immediately.
8.  Possession of an unregistered firearm is a Federal felony. Use of an unregistered firearm in a crime is a mandatory 10-year sentence.
9.  Private ownership of assault-style weaponry is forbidden.
10. Gun store  owners have the right to refuse to sell to anyone they consider trouble. Range masters have the right to ban anyone whose behavior is suspect. Both have access to a 24/7/365 contact point with the ATF or other Federal law enforcement authority.


Will this stop all gun crime? No, but hopefully it will reduce it. Even a 5% reduction will save hundreds of lives. What rarely enters the discussion of gun control are the thousands who are injured or killed in this country due to accidental and largely preventable shootings. Most gun owners are responsible and conscientious. Some are very negligent. How often do we read about a death resulting from someone's careless handling of a gun? A few days before Orlando a toddler in the back seat of a car picked up a loaded gun which had slid out from underneath a car seat, pulled the trigger, and killed his mother sitting in the front seat. That mother would be alive if the gun--which belonged to the mother's boyfriend--had been secured in a locked case. A friend of mine, an NRA member and avid gun owner, refused to allow his kid to go to a neighbor's house because that neighbor did not properly secure his firearms.

A few days ago there was an  opinion piece in either Forbes or Fortune which took a more literal application of the "well-regulated" phrase in the Second Amendment. The writer proposed that firearm owners become a part of that well-regulated militia and be required to join the National Guard. In the NG one would be trained and licensed in the proper ownership of guns. Not a bad idea, I think.

I've said my piece. I'll let others take it from here.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 16, 2016, 03:56:22 am
If you really fear you will just stand there and crap yourself because you can't make that decision, fine, but don't dare presume to tell other people how they can handle a life or death situation.
At least I now know why you are anti-gun, though I already had my suspicions.

I will dare, the law exists as an agreed collection of rules by the citizens, I am one.  So thank you but I will dare, very much dare.

If you're still confused, we should talk about banning racing stripes because they make cars go faster.

Also, I can get you being a weiner towards me, but theres no reason to being a jerk towards Kobuk considering for the most part he is agreeing with you. 
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 16, 2016, 04:02:28 am
I have heretofore stayed out of the whole gun control debate simply because it's too volatile. I'm breaking my own rule by posting this, but in light of Orlando and other events I'm going to state my beliefs  on the subject. Then I will step back and let the rest of you debate what I set forth.

I agree with Kobuk in that gun control starts with gun owners. If "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true then it necessarily follows that certain people should never be allowed to touch a firearm.

1.  Mandatory FEDERAL background checks for all firearm purchases. No exceptions. If you have been convicted of a felony, violent crime, domestic abuse, and certain other classes of crimes, you are prohibited from buying a gun.
2.  Mandatory completion of gun safety classes before purchasing a gun. I dislike the NRA for many reasons but the NRA has a top-notch safety program. You must pass that program successfully before you can buy a gun. You must be recertified regularly, like a driver's license. Mandatory Federal registration of all certifications. Your certification is valid only for a certain class of firearm. Want to buy a different type of gun? Take the class.
3.  Firearm purchases require fingerprints and photographs to be immediately uploaded to a Federal database. All firearm serial numbers are recorded at the point of sale and transmitted online to the database.
4.  No gun-show loophole. Sales at gun shows must comply with the same rules as those at gun stores.
5.  Private sales must be reported within 5 business days. Fingerprints and serial numbers required.
6.  Ownership is serious responsibility. You must store your firearms and ammunition in a secure location. Failure to do so, if it results in an accidental shooting, is a Federal felony with mandatory prison time.
7.  Thefts are to be reported immediately.
8.  Possession of an unregistered firearm is a Federal felony. Use of an unregistered firearm in a crime is a mandatory 10-year sentence.
9.  Private ownership of assault-style weaponry is forbidden.
10. Gun store  owners have the right to refuse to sell to anyone they consider trouble. Range masters have the right to ban anyone whose behavior is suspect. Both have access to a 24/7/365 contact point with the ATF or other Federal law enforcement authority.


Will this stop all gun crime? No, but hopefully it will reduce it. Even a 5% reduction will save hundreds of lives. What rarely enters the discussion of gun control are the thousands who are injured or killed in this country due to accidental and largely preventable shootings. Most gun owners are responsible and conscientious. Some are very negligent. How often do we read about a death resulting from someone's careless handling of a gun? A few days before Orlando a toddler in the back seat of a car picked up a loaded gun which had slid out from underneath a car seat, pulled the trigger, and killed his mother sitting in the front seat. That mother would be alive if the gun--which belonged to the mother's boyfriend--had been secured in a locked case. A friend of mine, an NRA member and avid gun owner, refused to allow his kid to go to a neighbor's house because that neighbor did not properly secure his firearms.

A few days ago there was an  opinion piece in either Forbes or Fortune which took a more literal application of the "well-regulated" phrase in the Second Amendment. The writer proposed that firearm owners become a part of that well-regulated militia and be required to join the National Guard. In the NG one would be trained and licensed in the proper ownership of guns. Not a bad idea, I think.

I've said my piece. I'll let others take it from here.

I would argue also having a curb on the amount of guns you can have.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Loc on June 16, 2016, 05:11:08 am
Please keep it civil. Debate the ideas, don't attack the people behind the ideas.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 16, 2016, 10:18:50 am
Please keep it civil. Debate the ideas, don't attack the people behind the ideas.

Apologise, I know I went too far at least once
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 16, 2016, 10:43:15 am
Quote
considering for the most part he is agreeing with you. 

I am? On which parts/points am I agreeing with Foxpup?

Quote
I would argue also having a curb on the amount of guns you can have.

I would also tend to agree with this. How many guns does a person really need to have? I've heard stories of people having as much as 40-50+ guns in their homes plus hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammunition.  :o And these people weren't even part of a anti-gov't militant group. Seriously, how far is too far for home, family, and property protection? Complete overkill if you ask me.  :P


Now, getting back to that "guns = power" thing.........

I tend to have a problem with that. Guns don't equal power. They can't give you power. They are not animate live objects that can magically bestow upon you special abilities and powers. What is power? How does one get it? Power is something that all people have sought since the dawn of time. We like to think that power comes from instilling fear in others or power comes from hoarding gold and treasure or that vanquishing your enemies gives you power. People who think these things are deluded.

There seems to be a little known phrase throughout history that a lot of people tend to forget: "Knowledge = Power".  Simply having a gun and pointing it at somebody to threaten them may seem like power to some, but it's not. What does make you powerful is the knowledge you have in how you use that gun. ;)  How you safely and responsibly use the gun, the training you took, how you properly carry, store, and maintain the gun, and knowing when to take a life and when not to.........all the knowledge you gain from doing these things is the real power behind owning and using a firearm. Not the gun itself. Guns don't give you power. Knowledge does. Guns might help to achieve or give the impression of power. But they are not power itself. The power to effectively own and use a gun comes from yourself.

Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 16, 2016, 10:57:58 am
Quote
I would argue also having a curb on the amount of guns you can have.

I tend to have a problem with that. Guns don't equal power. They can't give you power. They are not animate live objects that can magically bestow upon you special abilities and powers. What is power? How does one get it? Power is something that all people have sought since the dawn of time. We like to think that power comes from instilling fear in others or power comes from hoarding gold and treasure or that vanquishing your enemies gives you power. People who think these things are deluded.
[/color]


Well you both agree with the fact that there should be guns, but to different levels, at the least anyway.

The idea of power, from research, I understand to originate from the promise of ascension into heaven.  You can see this format in landmark buildings, but it has a common feel of ascension but also futility; of wanting something that you know you cannot have.

Comédie Française - In particular the theatre, how the ranks are set by the nobles sitting closure to the angel sculptures above the stage, and the peasants standing before the actors, even the actors themselves.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Comédie_Française_colonnes.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Paris_Comedie-Francaise.jpg

Palace of Versailles - namely its grandeur
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Versailles_chateau.jpg

 Versailles Gardens - Particular notable one as you get the land slowly rising towards the palace upon the hill
http://i.stack.imgur.com/y0l67.jpg

Knowledge from power has become more common also, though I would say there is still a firm template on the power from the futile desire to ascend, whether it be heavens, financial security, etc.

Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 16, 2016, 11:47:12 am
Think about this scenario.........


45 year old guy walks down to the corner gas station late at night because he forgot to buy his weekly lottery tickets. Let's also say for example that he has a handgun and has a permit to "conceal carry" as it were. The guy is a law abiding citizen and has taken gun safety/shooting courses.
As the guy is paying for his tickets, another man in his early 20's comes in and starts scoping the place out. Moments later, he pulls out a handgun and aims it at the 45 year old guy as well as the store clerk. He tells both of them not to make a move or do anything stupid, etc., etc.
In short, the criminal is agitated. He wants this robbery to go smoothly. He's continuously looking around, waving his gun around, etc.

Who do you think will prevail?
Who do you think has more "power"?
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 16, 2016, 11:51:37 am
Think about this scenario.........


45 year old guy walks down to the corner gas station late at night because he forgot to buy his weekly lottery tickets. Let's also say for example that he has a handgun and has a permit to "conceal carry" as it were. The guy is a law abiding citizen and has taken gun safety/shooting courses.
As the guy is paying for his tickets, another man in his early 20's comes in and starts scoping the place out. Moments later, he pulls out a handgun and aims it at the 45 year old guy as well as the store clerk. He tells both of them not to make a move or do anything stupid, etc., etc.
In short, the criminal is agitated. He wants this robbery to go smoothly. He's continuously looking around, waving his gun around, etc.

Who do you think will prevail?
Who do you think has more "power"?


Ok, well my non serious answer is the lottery company.

In that predicament you can argue that the robber has the most control and therefore holds the power, though it can also be argued that it's not fixed upon the robber because he is a single person.  I think I get what your saying though, he's not really holding any power as regardless of the circumstance he's not really going to ascend anywhere, or rather he isn't really going to be better for this scenario.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 16, 2016, 12:41:30 pm
In the scenario I just mentioned, I would have to argue that the older man would prevail and/or has more power.

Most, but not all, criminals today don't "think". They still cling to the belief that once they have a gun, that gun gives them the power to do whatever they want. It gives them purpose. It gives them the ability to put fear into their adversary. That might be true for some things and situations and so forth, but not for everything. Half the time when I read and hear about criminals committing crimes, they're making mistakes.

If the 20 year old robber in the gas station is acting all fidgety, nervous, shouting, etc., it's because of various things like: He's scoping out the place to make sure nobody sneaks up on him, He's in a hurry to rob the place and get out, or better yet, he has "no control" and "no power".  For the robber, he's thinking that he does have control/power of everything and everyone around him because he has a gun and is using the threat of fear to get what he wants. To a certain degree, that may be true.

But the older guy who isn't acting afraid and is keeping his wits about him, and has the power (knowledge) to properly handle and use his concealed gun may possibly get the upper hand on the robber. An armed citizen who has the knowledge (power) to properly handle and use a firearm is more apt to be more dangerous than your average criminal who just waves a gun around and starts barking orders.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong in everything in this scenario and everything I've said. It's hard to say for sure who will prevail unless more information were available: Who are the people in the gas station, What types of weapons do they have and what are their specifications, etc., etc., etc.


@Foxpup:  If you have any comments about the new posts I made today, don't expect me to reply.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Foxpup on June 16, 2016, 10:59:30 pm
There seems to be a little known phrase throughout history that a lot of people tend to forget: "Knowledge = Power".  Simply having a gun and pointing it at somebody to threaten them may seem like power to some, but it's not. What does make you powerful is the knowledge you have in how you use that gun. ;)
True. I should have been more clear. What I mean is, knowledge (or anything else) can never bring power on its own. There's no such thing as power without the means to back it up. A gun gives you the power to fight back when you may not have had it before. If you don't have the means to defend yourself when the need arises, absolutely nothing else matters.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Acton on June 16, 2016, 11:10:09 pm
France has a very tough gun control laws but it could not stop Paris November 15 terrorist attack or Charlie Hebdo attack. Second if you take away all the assault weapons, you still leave areas that are vulnerable. It will not stop terrorist for obtain weapons and there not enough law officials who can respond before the attacker can cause grave damage. The was the case for Paris November 15 terrorist attack, Charlie Hebdo attack, 2015 San Bernardino attack, and Orlando massacre. Let us not forget the 2013 Clackamas Town Center shooting: was stopped before more were hurt or killed by an armed citizen who happened to be in the mall at the time. He did not have to shoot, but pulling the gun threw the shooter off his game.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 17, 2016, 07:41:03 am
I actually spoke to a customer yesterday who wanted to buy a camera to record drunks passing the street after her window got smashed, she was from Australia and advised that there gun control is based upon the judgement of character and that its seen that if you are seen as suspicious, unusual, etc then you would be banned permanently from having a Gun.  So she wanted a gun for protection

I asked her if she called the police in regards to the window and she said No because she didn't want to kick up a fuss.  That to me isn't just about protection, it's about wanting to put law into your own hands when you are not even using the legal protection and services given to you.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Old Rabbit on June 17, 2016, 01:12:16 pm
I actually spoke to a customer yesterday who wanted to buy a camera to record drunks passing the street after her window got smashed, she was from Australia and advised that there gun control is based upon the judgement of character and that its seen that if you are seen as suspicious, unusual, etc then you would be banned permanently from having a Gun.  So she wanted a gun for protection

I asked her if she called the police in regards to the window and she said No because she didn't want to kick up a fuss.  That to me isn't just about protection, it's about wanting to put law into your own hands when you are not even using the legal protection and services given to you.

I agree.  It's part of being a good citizen to report crimes. In fact if it's bad enough one could
be considered partly responsible. The police or authority can't do their job if the public doesn't
co-operate. We shouldn't try to stop a criminal unless we feel it's  to save a life. Even trying to
stop petty theft could get you hurt or in trouble. Try to get a good discription and report it.
Starting a crime watch group is good too.

Using a gun to confront a criminal can create many unknowns. What if he is mentally unbalanced.
He could try to grab the gun. If he managed to get it, you may end up a victim. Never point a gun
at someone in the first place unless your ready to pull the trigger.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 17, 2016, 02:34:06 pm
My fiancee linked me this Gun control discussion from Tumblr,

http://reginaeinferos.tumblr.com/post/145962622748/therevenantrising-reginaeinferos

Certainly a statement worth reading considering the person is going into depths of how Gun Control can be routined.  Please take a moment to see it

One more thing, with conversations referring to back to the weak who are unable to defend themselves, I have a list here which I would put to you, which of these types of conditions would you (or not) permit the person to have a gun.  I know it's a big list, but it's just going through areas where the rights of a gun could be brought into question.

 - Person is under the age of 16
 - Person is under the age of 18
 - Person is under the age of 21
 - Person is partially sighted
 - Person is near blind
 - Person is blind
 - Person is deaf
 - Person is a wheel chair user
 - Person is missing arm limbs
 - Person is partially or majorly paralysed
 - Person is registered as depressed
 - Person is registered under mild autism (or low level autistic scale)
 - Person is registered under medium autism
 - Person is registered as severe autism
 - Person is registered as having poor mobility skills (having issues with grasping, bending limbs etc)
 - Person is registered with condition which results in spasm attacks
 - Person is registered with condition which results in panic attacks
 - Person is registered with a bipolar disorder
 - Person is registered of having a condition that can result in mood swings or aggressiveness
 - Person is registered as undergoing a stage of Dementia
 - Person is registered as undergoing a stage of a Alzheimer's disease
 - Person has been documented as someone who has attempted suicide
 - An ex-criminal due to mild offence
 - An ex-criminal due to medium offence (violent acts)
 - An ex-criminal due to murder of any degree
 - An ex-militant discharged dishonourably
 - Person is an alcoholic
 - Person is known for being under the influence of drugs (any or all levels)
 - Person is suspect of being connected to terrorism or a terrorist group
 - Person has made murderous threats
 - Person has been arrested for minor offences such as aggressive behaviour etc
 - Person does not speak countries language, requires translator or does not appear to understand or communicate well

Again this is just a random list, but perhaps is worth thinking about.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 17, 2016, 02:46:56 pm
Quote
That to me isn't just about protection, it's about wanting to put law into your own hands when you are not even using the legal protection and services given to you.

Yep. That's one reason why so many people want guns. Some people have given up on law enforcement to "do the right thing" so to speak, so they take it upon themselves to be vigilantes. Not necessarily a good thing, IMO.  :P
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 17, 2016, 03:05:16 pm
Quote
One more thing, with conversations referring to back to the weak who are unable to defend themselves, I have a list here which I would put to you, which of these types of conditions would you (or not) permit the person to have a gun.  I know it's a big list, but it's just going through areas where the rights of a gun could be brought into question.

 - Person is under the age of 16 Maybe. Only with adult permission and supervision.
 - Person is under the age of 18 Same as above.
 - Person is under the age of 21 Yes
 - Person is partially sighted Depends on condition of the eyesight. Handguns only. Nothing larger.
 - Person is near blind No
 - Person is blind No
 - Person is deaf Not sure on this one.
 - Person is a wheel chair user Not sure.
 - Person is missing arm limbs No
 - Person is partially or majorly paralysed No
 - Person is registered as depressed No
 - Person is registered under mild autism (or low level autistic scale) Not sure on this.
 - Person is registered under medium autism No
 - Person is registered as severe autism No
 - Person is registered as having poor mobility skills (having issues with grasping, bending limbs etc) No
 - Person is registered with condition which results in spasm attacks Not sure. Depends on how often the spasm attacks are.
 - Person is registered with condition which results in panic attacks No
 - Person is registered with a bipolar disorder No
 - Person is registered of having a condition that can result in mood swings or aggressiveness No
 - Person is registered as undergoing a stage of Dementia No
 - Person is registered as undergoing a stage of a Alzheimer's disease No
 - Person has been documented as someone who has attempted suicide Not sure, but leaning toward No. How often has the person attempted suicide?
 - An ex-criminal due to mild offence Not sure. Maybe handguns only. Nothing larger.
 - An ex-criminal due to medium offence (violent acts) No
 - An ex-criminal due to murder of any degree No
 - An ex-militant discharged dishonourably Not sure. Depends on circumstances of discharge.
 - Person is an alcoholic Not sure. Depends on servereity of alcoholism.
 - Person is known for being under the influence of drugs (any or all levels) No
 - Person is suspect of being connected to terrorism or a terrorist group No
 - Person has made murderous threats Not sure, but leaning toward No. Depends on seriousness of threat.
 - Person has been arrested for minor offences such as aggressive behaviour etc Not sure. How minor were the offenses?
 - Person does not speak countries language, requires translator or does not appear to understand or communicate well No

Here's one that should be added to the list:

Person is an illegal immagrant and is not a registered U.S. citizen yet.   Answer: No guns allowed.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 17, 2016, 03:16:46 pm
My point with this sheet is that there are people out there that either shouldn't or can't be held responsible with a weapon, I would argue this is another part in why COPs exist, primary reason is that they SHOULD (and I say this because not all countries think or act this way) hold the law created by the people.  I am agreeing more and more that the law doesn't protect the people, people protect the law, and when you put the law in your own hands then i would argue that is a stage of chaos that can emerge.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: T-Yoshi45 on June 18, 2016, 12:23:59 am
Oh. My. God. this thread blew up! Sorry was away preparing for a show and consoling a friend on her grandmother's death...

Anyways...

Natura, i do feel you belittled me a little bit but i'm not gonna take that tac...But i don't wanna own guns cause i think i'm 'cool and deserving' i wanna own them so i can protect myself and those around me thank you very much...
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 18, 2016, 02:07:14 am
Oh. My. God. this thread blew up! Sorry was away preparing for a show and consoling a friend on her grandmother's death...

Anyways...

Natura, i do feel you belittled me a little bit but i'm not gonna take that tac...But i don't wanna own guns cause i think i'm 'cool and deserving' i wanna own them so i can protect myself and those around me thank you very much...

Hello,
I do apologise for the reply to you.  I wasn't meaning to be belittling but was getting far to passionately involved into the debate that I was becoming irrational, I am sorry.  I have since controlled myself and moved on with the topic including around the idea of protection
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Old Rabbit on June 18, 2016, 01:21:41 pm
I personally think the disabled or handicapped if you rather. Should have the option to show
they can handle a firearm safely. Not just say no because they are different.

The disabled can do many things reasonably well.

Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 18, 2016, 01:41:48 pm
I personally think the disabled or handicapped if you rather. Should have the option to show
they can handle a firearm safely. Not just say no because they are different.

The disabled can do many things reasonably well.

But that depends on the severeity of the condition/handicap.



Another thing.........

Governments (Particuarly the American gov't) as well as various anti-gun groups spend more time, money, and effort "shooting their mouths off" about gun control and gun laws than the actual citizens and criminals who do the shooting. There seems to be more anti-gun rhetoric, charts, graphs, etc., etc. than there is about promoting gun safety, responsibility, gun classes, etc.
If the gov't spent half as much (or more) time, money, and effort promoting gun safety, training, responsibility, and other "helpful" things about guns instead of all the negative stuff, the people of this country might end up a bit wiser and responsible about how they handle and use guns. As I said before: KNOWLEDGE = POWER. The gov't, media, etc. could do to promote more "positive" knowledge about guns instead of focusing on all the negative stuff.

The government spends so much time preventing you from owning a gun. But does nothing to help educate you and help you own/use a gun.  :P



Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 18, 2016, 06:25:58 pm
P.S. - Regarding my post above, who should be responsible for providing and teaching more about gun safety, responsibility, and just plain more positive "education" about guns? For those who think or say that it should be ALL on the gun owners or ALL on the gov't, then you are wrong.
Educating people about gun safety, usage, responsibility, etc. is a 50/50 thing. Both parties are equally responsible. Or better yet.........EVERYBODY is responsible.

But some people may think or say "Why the gov't?".  Good question. Let me give you another analogy:

When some of you were young, there was probably a time when your father, uncle, or somebody else gave you a BB pellet gun or taught you how to hunt with a gun, etc.  Hopefully, that parent or guardian didn't just give you the gun and say "Here ya go. Have fun with this.".  Hopefully, they instead sat down with you and gave you a talk about properly handling the gun, how to aim, help you with target practice, and so much more.
When our Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Constitution over 200 years ago, they gave us the "Right to bear arms". In short, they were like a parent giving their kids (populace) a gun to use. Therefore, if our gov't is the "parent" who gave the kids (populace) the right to bear and use a gun, then shouldn't they (The gov't) share in the responsibility of helping to educate the population about gun safety and responsibility? Yes, yes they should.

But as for how the gov't should help in promoting/educating gun safety and responsibility, I don't know. Charts, graphs, reports, and 60 sec. tv commercials aren't and won't be enough.  :P

So..........I'm looking at you Mr. Federal Government and/or Mr. President (or Mrs. President). You spend so much time, effort, and money trying to control gun usage and take people's right to bear arms away from them. But what have you done to promote and educate the population about gun safety, handling, storage, responsibility, etc. of guns?

Answer:   ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Remember, you gave us the constitutional right to bear arms. Shouldn't you "own up" and help support the citizens in learning how to responsibly use guns? You're just as much to blame, if not more, as the regular citizens in teaching and learning gun ownership and responsibility.
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Kobuk on June 20, 2016, 07:22:27 pm
More gun control measures shot down.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/index.html

Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Rocket T. Coyote on June 21, 2016, 02:49:04 pm
There was no National Guard at the time the Bill of Rights was written. "Militia" has been defined as all able-bodied citizens able to take up arms. "Well-regulated" means to be trained and skilled in the use of such.

As for confiscation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94)
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Natura Wolf on June 22, 2016, 05:39:30 am
There was no National Guard at the time the Bill of Rights was written. "Militia" has been defined as all able-bodied citizens able to take up arms. "Well-regulated" means to be trained and skilled in the use of such.

As for confiscation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94)

I watched the video, and I know some people feel it's makes them feel defenceless and vulnerable.  But I'm sorry, this tone of argument feels like a fear-mongering tactic of pushing extremes.  Particularly this video as it just constantly addresses the feeling of vulnerability as though a gun is the only means of protection, nothing about the police services, rise in crime, etc.

The last message this youtube says is 'gun owners in australia told me back in 1998 when I was there that the unforgettable images of their guns confiscated by the government should be a wake-up call to all of us to never to never surrender our rights, because once their gone you'll never get them back.'

A Final image of that video is a slide link of NRA asking people to join them.

This link is dated, that quote in particular is referencing a personal experience dated nearly two decades ago.  The link is biased because it's the NRA and the first thing this link says is that Clinton is making them the enemy so of course its going to manipulate its words to scare people.

Also the choice of quote Clinton says 'The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds and thousands of guns...<Scene Change>...They believed and I think the evidence supports them that by offering to buy back those guns they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future...<Scene Change>...So I think that's worth considering.'  I'm not entirely sure what the buy back system is but I would agree that availability of automatic weapons is and issue.

David Leyonhjelm The strongest voice for gun owners in Australia's parlament and a target shooter himself uses phrases like Phrases like 'were a nation of victims' and argues nothing has changed.

According to the Senate there has been no change only that it has gotten worse.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

I have found a gun control website that has done research based on the University of Sydney and funded by UNODA(united nations office for disarmament affairs (https://www.un.org/disarmament/UNSCAR/)).  In 1996 total number of gun deaths were 536, in 1998 total number of gun death were 312.  The information is two years out of date but according to 2014 gun deaths are 230.

Here is also a chart on the UK http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom:
This one starts at 247 in 1996 to 146 in 2011 (which was the same year as the London Riot)

Here is another chart for mass shootings http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359
Although the highest fatality rate is in Norway by a single mass shooting killing 63, aside form the fact that this incident tallied from explosive considering he blew up Oslo’s government building, so that was a mass kill but not primarily from guns.  Also if you look at the per 100,000 citizens
There are:
Denmark - 5.084 million (2013)
Finland - 5.439 million (2013)
Switzerland - 8.081 million (2013)
United States - 318.9 million (2014)

In this context although the first countries have a higher fatality rate in the ratio, it's a single country compared to a union of 50 states so in that aspect it's not quite right.

I would consider 'Trolley problem' in these situations.  I don't believe there is a system or law at the moment, in the past or the future that has guaranteed complete and total safety, security and peace of their entire citizens, that includes gun control and freedom to bare arms.  I do believe however we are getting better and closer into forming a safer, more secure and a more diverse society, more so in some places than others.  I use the term 'Trolley problem' because crime will never go away.  One could argue having a gun at a near site location would lower your chances of getting kill, another would argue the restraint of accessibility would lower the chances of death, either side will still have death tolls.

I am starting to see a pattern arise though from people, that there is a distrust of their government, and the protection services whether it be experience, fear or like the customer pride.  What I am seeing though through my eyes that that people are wanting guns to be able to put the law in their hands and have their morals become their compass, for that reason I am against gun controls, because I do not believe at all that the majority of any citizen has the tranquillity of thought to not shoot to kill either deliberately or by accident.  The same argument can be said to some criminals to who are again acting out in distrust to the law and government to the point of being outside it, and yet again do not have a clear mind.

To people who support guns excluding people who have done this already, what in your eyes needs to change? Because the answer is not freedom of guns, so what form of control do you want and how? is it intellectual in a form of extensive training that must be attended fully and passed with unbiased judgement and agreement? is it medical in the form of character screening for behaviour that may result in violence, unstable moods or suspiciousness that may result in aggression and into violence? for myself I choose accessibility by removing the supplier, and for the argument of wanting to protect your family and friends, I say join the watchdog and connect with your community, that is a much wider net than a weapon can do, and if that is not enough for you, then join the police or armed forced.  If protection means allot to you then train for it, just own a gun does not mean you are protecting anyone.

Finally because I think I keep sucking myself into this debate.  This debate can go on forever with lobbing the endless digital supply of data and charts and trying to turn arguments back on each other.  So simply what do you want in regards to Gun violence, what is your ideal way of prevent gun violence and why, and finally how would you implement it so it would be effective in your view and would minimally (or preferably not) have holes that are exercised by the public.

@Kobuk - also I think COP means Constable On Patrol, least that is what I am getting on google, i think you said earlier that it meant citizen on patrol
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Storm Fox on June 22, 2016, 07:11:08 pm
I find it funny how people get so caught up in these discussions.
How (most) people from countries that allow guns say we must have them, while (most) people from countries where guns/hand guns are outlawed insist that those other countries that allow them are wrong and must change...
And how all of the charts and data showing lower crime with guns and higher crime without seems to come from pro gun sources, and how the high crime with and low crime without guns seems to come from the anti gun sources. ...Such biased arguments don't help anyone.

The truth is that no one is right or wrong in having or not having a gun because there is no right or wrong in that argument.
The only real right or wrong exists in trying to make the argument itself.

For example, the idea that someone (anyone) can come along and tell others what they can and cannot do, and what they can and cannot own, or even that they must give up what they already own because of "reasons" is arrogant and wrong.
And not because of the contents of their argument but simply because they're implying they know what's better for you than you do. That is what's wrong.

Now consider this for a moment...
What if it was argued that everyone was required to own and carry a gun (you go outside and could literally be arrested for not having your firearm with you.)
That would be a ridiculous thing to argue, right? But it's just as ridiculous as hearing or reading someone say that you can't, or you shouldn't, or what you have should be taken away because other people think they know better.
People who don't like guns would despise the idea of being required to have one or carry one just as people who like/own/use guns despise the idea of being required to give up their property, abilities, and rites.

So do you all see that the only real right or wrong is in assuming that there is a right or wrong to be argued?
The best thing that anyone can do is to accept and respect the ideals, culture, rites, and opinions of others.
If you dislike guns, that's fine because you don't have to own one, that's your choice. But if you own one or want to own one, that's also fine because that is your choice. (Assuming you live in a country that lets you make such choices.)

All I can really say beyond that is to be responsible...
If you own a gun or plan to own one, be responsible and smart about that choice and the possibility of the damage that could be caused to others. (Damage to lives, property, rites, etc.)
And if you want to argue against owning a gun, be just as responsible and smart about that choice and the possibility of the damage such arguments could cause to others. (Damage to lives, property, rights, etc.)
Title: Re: Gun control.
Post by: Old Rabbit on June 25, 2016, 11:54:01 am
Seems the anti gun people point to the assult style rifle as something that should be
banned. Well unless it can be easily made to be an automatic. I don't see it as much different
than any other simi aautomatic rifle that uses a magazine. It's the magazine that gives it the
massive killing power.

If one had to manuely fill the thing with bullets one at a  time instead of shoving a new magazine
into it. The person trying to use it would be standing there shoving bullets into it. You suppose everone would
stand around waiting for him to load it? Of course not. So it's the ability to fire large numbers of bullets
that makes a gun danerous to crowds.

In a way I am surprised the anti gun crowd hasn't said "Guns were only single shot 200 yers ago. Not
multi shot like today. Perhaps the second amendment doesn't give protection to  them. Only single shot
ones. "

Gun fancyers needent worry something like that would die quickly, the amendment doesn't say what  kind
of gun, or it's ability to fire bullets. While we know they aren't going to give up, a comprimises is
looming in the future someday. Hopefully not a bad one.