Gun Control

[Gamer4Fire]

What if after purchasing a gun you were only allowed to use that gun at specific places and from there you have to keep it stored at a regulated facility.

You haven't really been reading the thread, have you?

There are a lot of people in rural areas that have need of guns to protect themselves and their livestock or goods from wild animals. There are people who regularly hunt who would have a problem with your ideal situation. If someone was accosted by a criminal who had a weapon, they'd be screwed. Etc. Regulation is infringement. You can't tell someone what they can do with their own property within the confines of their own homes, unless they are directly infringing on someone else's rights.

 

[Kalypso]

We have 10 people. 1 is a criminal with a gun, 5 are normal people with guns, 4 are normal people without guns.

If the criminal is going to break into someone elses house, he has a 5/9 chance of breaking into one where the owner is armed and at a territorial advantage, aka he has very bad odds. This is risky. Because of this, all 9 normal people are safe, because crime is much less likely to happen.

Gun control happens. Now we have 9 normal people, none have guns, and one criminal. He still has a gun. Why? He doesn't follow the law.

The criminal now has a 100% chance of entering a house without a gun. He can freely rob all 9 people, with no chance of being opposed. Why? He has the gun, no one else does.

Gun control is a complete sack of ****, and does not work, because Criminals don't follow rules.

 

[Mediocre]

We have 10 people. 1 is a criminal with a gun, 5 are normal people with guns, 4 are normal people without guns.

If the criminal is going to break into someone elses house, he has a 5/9 chance of breaking into one where the owner is armed and at a territorial advantage, aka he has very bad odds. This is risky. Because of this, all 9 normal people are safe, because crime is much less likely to happen.

Gun control happens. Now we have 9 normal people, none have guns, and one criminal. He still has a gun. Why? He doesn't follow the law.

The criminal now has a 100% chance of entering a house without a gun. He can freely rob all 9 people, with no chance of being opposed. Why? He has the gun, no one else does.

Gun control is a complete sack of ****, and does not work, because Criminals don't follow rules.

Um... you realize that gun control is already in place, right? And people still have guns. Amazing.

Gun control is just that, controlling them. Not banning guns. Banning guns is obviously a really bad idea, because then the black market for guns would surge, and that would make it even more difficult to regulate.

I don't see anybody pushing for banning guns, so I'm not exactly sure who you're arguing with.

 

[Kalypso]

Um... you realize that gun control is already in place, right? And people still have guns. Amazing.

Gun control is just that, controlling them. Not banning guns. Banning guns is obviously a really bad idea, because then the black market for guns would surge, and that would make it even more difficult to regulate.

I don't see anybody pushing for banning guns, so I'm not exactly sure who you're arguing with.

The idea of limiting guns is exactly the same as the idea of banning them, it's only the degree to which the idea is implemented. Possession of firearms is a matter of liberty.

There's obviously just cause for 3 day waiting periods and scanning for background of felons, but that's not 'Gun Control,' that's Gun Regulation. And... common sense.

Gun politics fundamentally involves the politics of two related questions: Does a government have valid authority to impose regulations on guns? And, assuming such authority, should a government regulate guns and to what extent?[1]

Waiting periods are already in place and not going anywhere. The Gun Control argument commonly deals with how to 'phase out' guns, and reduce the number of guns in America. That's what I was responding to. Obviously, this has to involve either encouraging people to not possess guns, or outright taking them away.

Those lobbying to do away with guns are dismissed by my previous post. Those arguing for gun regulations have no reason to argue, because they're already in place. Waiting 3 days for a gun, and not being able to possess them if you have past gun infractions or felonies is pretty much common sense to me, and I've never seen it debated, although I didn't read the entire thread.

The other issues are those of concealed weapons and where you are allowed to possess guns, which I thought belonged in the 'concealed weapons' thread. Personally, I think you should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, so long as they are legally owned and not loaded, nor posing any immediate risk to those around you, for defense purposes. I don't think you'd ever need to use it, but some people want to have it there, and I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[Blackadder]

Also, since you are banning firearms, let's assume that means destroy all firearms then, completely. Then people will come at you with knives. Ban all knives and people will come at you with rocks and sticks. See my point? But completely banning something you are forcing criminals to go through other means that you might not be able to protect yourself from.

I can see the logic in that statement, Crimson, but I would like to disagree a little.
Say we did ban guns entirely. Totally. Forever.
Surely the murders in the world decrease. And war, huh,
46 countries, 60000000 peoples (Or something) all running at each other with
Knives and sticks? I hardly see how that's a feasible idea...
I think overall putting a higher ban on guns would help nations.
Sure, crooks would start using things like knives and stuff more, but the crime would lower somewhat...
But then, as it just occurred to me, a shot to the head is instant.
Being stabbed 40 times isn't.
...darn…
Well, I think I would have to go with a higher ban, but not a TOTALL ban on guns.

 

[Kalypso]

I can see the logic in that statement, Crimson, but I would like to disagree a little.
Say we did ban guns entirely. Totally. Forever.
Surely the murders in the world decrease. And war, huh,
46 countries, 60000000 peoples (Or something) all running at each other with
Knives and sticks? I hardly see how that's a feasible idea...
I think overall putting a higher ban on guns would help nations.
Sure, crooks would start using things like knives and stuff more, but the crime would lower somewhat...
But then, as it just occurred to me, a shot to the head is instant.
Being stabbed 40 times isn't.
...darn…
Well, I think I would have to go with a higher ban, but not a TOTALL ban on guns.

And now, Reality with Kalypso.

The world bans guns. All honest people give up their guns. Criminals keep theirs, because they don't follow laws.

Nothing else really needs to be said. A lock only keeps out an honest man, a criminal will find a way in regardless. In the same fashion, banning guns only removes honest folks defense from criminals. See my first post in this thread.

 

[Falco&Victory]

What Kalypso says is true, even if he is a little less empathetic about it.

How would you possible ban guns? It is highly unfeasible, unreasonable, and wouldn't solve much. As Kalypso said, the innocents would be the one's giving up their guns, not those who we deem dangerous. Then we would be defensless.

In Blackadder's defense, maybe criminals would be more afraid of us when facing being stabbed 40 times instead of just getting shot. Tazer's and pepper-spray would suck too.

I'm all for pacifism, but it is impossible to achieve. Man is fallible in more ways than we like to admit, and though peace is what most strive for, we all have that gnawing urge for power, chaos, and destruction. We could simply not live without violence without taking extreme measures.

 

[OnyxVulpine]

And now, Reality with Kalypso.

The world bans guns. All honest people give up their guns. Criminals keep theirs, because they don't follow laws.

Nothing else really needs to be said. A lock only keeps out an honest man, a criminal will find a way in regardless. In the same fashion, banning guns only removes honest folks defense from criminals. See my first post in this thread.

True, lets say all guns are banned. A majority of the owners that WILL turn in the guns, are the ones that use them for recreation/self defence. That won't do much good will it?

Having a more free access to guns wouldn't be a very good decision either. You'd have many many people walking on the streets with guns, the more jitterly people might be quick on the trigger and end up doing more harm than good.

The only thing I can really see is trying to get more control into the distribution of firearms. I know there will still be a large amount going into the black market and being sold illegally. But control is the only reasonable way to go to keep things the best.

I'm not sure if this is a good example. But take paintball for example, many people think that the sport is very dangerous. But the truth is, most if not all of the injuries (Outside of over exertion and falls AKA exhaustion, and broken/sprained/twisted joints) are eye related. And even then a very very large amount of those are from unsupervised, unprotected, or illegal settings such as at home or backyard. I used to play paintball and they take safety as the #1 priority to go so far as having a 20 foot rule (so you don't get shot at point blank) and referees stationed at firing stations to watch players from taking their masks off.

In conclusion, paintball (Which includes guns to an extent) is a very safe sport when its under good control and supervision.

-Onyx