GUN banned no more.

posted on June 28th, 2008, 12:30 am

not necassaerly if guns were allowed on planes then the terrorists wud have guns also if a bullet had pireced the planed then all hell wud brake loose and the planes may have crashed somwere else

Fail... They tested that on Mythbusters... A bullet piercing a plane's fuselage (even through the windows) does not, in actualality, result in an explosive decompression...

posted on June 28th, 2008, 4:21 am

Gun bans do not prevent illegal weapons from falling into the hands of those who wish to use them illegally.

"Though officers can expect to draw their guns from time to time, few even in big-city departments will actually fire a shot (except in target practice) in the course of a year. This observation points to an important truth: people who are armed make comparatively unattractive victims.".

An excellent quoete.

posted on June 28th, 2008, 4:47 am

Well no, violence in DC either stayed the same or escalated when the ban went into effect.

I did not say violence in  my last post I said damage....

What good do guns do for the world?? You still have not answered this question. How is the world made a better place with guns?

posted on June 28th, 2008, 5:38 am

Can't help myself, gotta nose in...



ewm, you're arguing from an untenable position that is, to take a page from Scalia, "...frivolous". The net effect in terms of good or bad that guns have had on society is irrelevant and an nonsensical position for two big reasons.

1. Its unknowable. We say that the development of projectile weapons is generally negative, because they kill people, but we can't know that for certain. Its very possible that without the development of projectile weapons, society would be drastically different in a negative way. They may help to inspire ingenuity and industrialization. Wars in general are the periods of greatest societal and technological advancement and firearms may act as a catalyst in that process. Plus, as our ability to hurt ourselves increases, so does our ability to heal ourselves. I will submit to you that there is a very compelling argument to be made that, while the net effect of firearms and other projectile weapons is unknowable for certain, its probably positive.

2. A world without guns is inconceivable. It doesn't matter in the end whether they're good or bad, because we can't take them away. Its the genie being let out of the bottle phenomenon. Guns are simply a fact of life and that's not going to change no matter what kind of legislation you want to pass or moral arguments you want to make.



Really, sensible regulation is the only logical response to the pervasiveness of firearms in modern society. Banning them is impractical and ineffectual because only people who are going to acquire them legally and who are unlikely to misuse them in the first place are going to be affected by such legislation. That's exactly why gun free zones are hideously dangerous and foolish. They're the only places guaranteed to not have people who are unable to defend themselves and so become prime targets for psychotics bent on killing a lot of people.

posted on June 28th, 2008, 11:06 am

I did not say violence in  my last post I said damage....

What good do guns do for the world?? You still have not answered this question. How is the world made a better place with guns?

Not to steal Tiberius's thunder, as he hit the nail on the head in his post, but I'll go ahead and just throw in the short version for funziez.

If I could take back buying my rifles, and not have a single gun in the world exist, you can bet your left wing butt I would do so. The sheer destruction and harm they have brought upon us is absolutely despicable.

But here is the ugly truth, they already exist. There is nothing we can do to fix that fact now. We can however limit their destructive potential in what I guess could be described as a personal brinkmanship.

posted on June 28th, 2008, 12:26 pm

1) guns do one thing kill. Yes they have ispired industry for one reson people buy them people all so buy Computer games. What is it about guns its where the deths of so menny? We dont need to hunt to servive eny more.

a. Guns are no difrent a product than eny thing ell but unlike other things people have made a huge problome out of have a product that has no need in our worl.

b. Actioly I am not taking a good or bad look at them I am looking at theam as a product and looking at things as is not as my openon says they are.

2) Guns are only a fact of life becouse people wont them to be and I can see a good reson why whould wont killing tools whare they live of such ferocity.

a. A fact of life is tat we die or that we are born, guns are not a Fact of life they are a chose.

b. More guns = more guns/ more gun discharges. Less guns = less guns/ less gun discharges. People how kill outher are not of the mind set of thows how work for a living so even if citasins how work a full time job have a gun its just for show.

Can't help myself, gotta nose in...



ewm, you're arguing from an untenable position that is, to take a page from Scalia, "...frivolous". The net effect in terms of good or bad that guns have had on society is irrelevant and an nonsensical position for two big reasons.

1. Its unknowable. We say that the development of projectile weapons is generally negative, because they kill people, but we can't know that for certain. Its very possible that without the development of projectile weapons, society would be drastically different in a negative way. They may help to inspire ingenuity and industrialization. Wars in general are the periods of greatest societal and technological advancement and firearms may act as a catalyst in that process. Plus, as our ability to hurt ourselves increases, so does our ability to heal ourselves. I will submit to you that there is a very compelling argument to be made that, while the net effect of firearms and other projectile weapons is unknowable for certain, its probably positive.

2. A world without guns is inconceivable. It doesn't matter in the end whether they're good or bad, because we can't take them away. Its the genie being let out of the bottle phenomenon. Guns are simply a fact of life and that's not going to change no matter what kind of legislation you want to pass or moral arguments you want to make.



Really, sensible regulation is the only logical response to the pervasiveness of firearms in modern society. Banning them is impractical and ineffectual because only people who are going to acquire them legally and who are unlikely to misuse them in the first place are going to be affected by such legislation. That's exactly why gun free zones are hideously dangerous and foolish. They're the only places guaranteed to not have people who are unable to defend themselves and so become prime targets for psychotics bent on killing a lot of people.

PD,

Yes the world whould still be thare with less guns.

Yes they are here but we made them we can distoy menny of them  mabey not all but evry gun that is ditroyed makes the world a safer place to live.

posted on June 28th, 2008, 2:47 pm

I think with your belief that guns can actually be removed from world society indicates that there is no dialog to be reached here.


Maybe it will help if we rephrase it a bit. Guns are not just physical things. They're technology, which is basically information. Information cannot be destroyed, it cannot be unlearned, it cannot be suppressed indefinitely. If we were to have a way to magically destroy all firearms everywhere, the problem would still not go away because people still know how to make them and will inevitably do so. If nothing else, you'd have home made fire arms. Hell, making a simple muzzle loader is child's play.


The debate about moral worth is over in the real world as it was never a debate in the first place, as I explained earlier. If you wish to engage in a theory debate, please do, but in another thread.


The burden of proof here is really on the anti-gun crowd and by extension you. That burden is to provide a realistic way of removing guns from Global society without use of Orwellian societal controls.

posted on June 28th, 2008, 4:03 pm

well you could kill everyone who has knowledge about guns and raise a new mankind without them...

posted on June 28th, 2008, 7:18 pm

A couple more things that nobody seems to mention. Anybody here want to admit who buys guns vs who NEEDS them? Guns and licenses cost money. When one claims protection through the use of the gun, not everyone can buy a gun to afford protection. Odds are, that if I live in a slum (aka cheap housing) I don't have the money to afford this protection. On the other hand, those living in wealthier neighborhoods can buy a weapon to protect themselves. Thus we are talking about the protection of a few. Secondly, even if everyone has the right to buy these weapons, what makes you think that people won't abuse this right? I am not surprised that whenever I hear about school shootings that they involve a kid STEALING his parents rightfully-bought firearms. Also, where do you think criminals are able to get guns anyway? I believe that the majority of these firearms are originally purchased legally... but their serial numbers are then scratched off! Of course criminals will always have access to these weapons, but fighting fire with fire is no way to deal with it. (Didn't we learn anything from the Cold War? ... or our standoff with Iran currently?)

Another danger no one seems to have mentioned is the reaction time involved when a gun is pointed at you. With a knife, I have the time to scream, run away, fight back etc. With a gun *bang* you're dead. Period. Regardless of whether people claim that guns rarely discharge by themselves, or that triggers are rarely pulled by accident... the very fact that it happens speaks volumes. I cannot accidently throw a katana at you, likewise, I cannot accidently stab you 30 times with my pocket knife. Sure you can kill anyone with anything at all, but firearms offer a way to kill that is much more different that other weapons: I don't have to even see your face to pull the trigger as the DC snipers proved.

Thirdly, escalation. Who needs an ASSAULT RIFLE in their home? Seriously. These weapons are not made for personal protection, they are for war. I hate to bring in examples from home, but my uncle (a real gung-ho gunsrights advocate, who makes his own weapons) bought a Chinese assault rifle (SKS) . Why? My guess is that he likes it. He can't hunt with it. He can't protect himself with it (unless he's expecting a militant group to advance on his remote little falling apart hut on a mountain in California), so what's the point exactly?

The usual argument goes, when the crooks buy heavier weapons, we must do the same. So when a tank becomes inexpensive enough for the elite to buy it, you are telling me that they will??
I still believe that even IF criminals can afford better weapons, let the people who are trained to deal with it, do so. The more firearms, the more chance for accidents and misunderstandings (anybody seen pulp fiction by the way?) and the more wary people become of eachother, imo of course. As it stands now, I do not trust civilians to carry firearms around me, even if they have had the proper training. Even though cops may abuse power etc, I still trust someone whose job it is to keep the peace, rather than some guy next door who thinks he sees someone pull a gun on someone else.

Although PD, you mention that you don't want to live in a country dictated by these rules, are you saying that everyone who wants these rules should just get out? In the end I think that the freedom to buy firearms just propagates itself, and soon everyone who can afford it NEEDS one just to stay on equal terf. I think that the truth is, no matter if everyone legally can afford the littlest handgun, there will always be someone buying bigger and bigger calibers, leading to an unequal footing. I'm not gonna be the first in line to buy my SAM site when someone threatens to fly a plane into my house.

posted on June 28th, 2008, 7:27 pm

First off, you can get a handgun for 100 bucks pretty easy, Every single person in the US can afford a firearm if they can save up a very small amount of money.

If you don't want a firearm, then don't get a firearm, you can wait the 4 minute average response time for the police. If you want to defend yourself, you have the right to defend yourself, be it a handgun, shotgun, or AK-47 like I have Not everyone has to be on equal footing, because most situations are already lopsided. Someone who breaks into your home already has the element of surprise, and sometimes there is more then one.

[ewm90]

posted on June 28th, 2008, 7:42 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on June 28th, 2008, 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think with your belief that guns can actually be removed from world society indicates that there is no dialog to be reached here.


Maybe it will help if we rephrase it a bit. Guns are not just physical things. They're technology, which is basically information. Information cannot be destroyed, it cannot be unlearned, it cannot be suppressed indefinitely. If we were to have a way to magically destroy all firearms everywhere, the problem would still not go away because people still know how to make them and will inevitably do so. If nothing else, you'd have home made fire arms. Hell, making a simple muzzle loader is child's play.


The debate about moral worth is over in the real world as it was never a debate in the first place, as I explained earlier. If you wish to engage in a theory debate, please do, but in another thread.


The burden of proof here is really on the anti-gun crowd and by extension you. That burden is to provide a realistic way of removing guns from Global society without use of Orwellian societal controls

any thing is posable. Because I say it is how am I to say such a thing I am a person how dose not take can't and the end of the game.

But how information is used is what keeps things running. The information for how to make a A-bomb is out there I don't see people making one is your back yard for self defiance. Why would we need any weapon round especially weapons that can cause mass distraction (GUNS).

Yes but it can be illegal and enforced.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 4:00 am

@Dominus: tl;dr Seriously, basically I can sum your post up to a slippery slope argument. It does not logically follow that allowing people the right to buy firearms is going to lead to an arms race that only the elite and rich will be able to keep up with. We have that right now and it doesn't happen. You're arguing like we currently don't have the right. The truth of the matter is, a .22 can be just as deadly as a .50AE. Granted, the bigger gun is more likely to inflict a fatal wound with each hit, but if someone points any gun at you, even if its a rinky dink derringer, you're going to do what they say unless you're phenomenally stupid. I really don't understand your alarmist stance as there's no reason it can't happen right now and its very clearly not. Plus, nobody except a few radicals argues seriously for no regulation of guns. Very clearly, there has to be some reasonable, common sense regulation.


@ewm: Sorry you're writing is a little hard to follow but I think you're arguing that information can be suppressed or controlled or something because pepole aren't making A-Bombs. Well they're certainly trying, but while the design is relatively simple in concept, it takes a lot of resources to actually construct one. That's why nuclear terrorism is a fairly low threat. Its just too difficult to make one.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 1:21 pm

No my point its, that guns are just a product like any other but unlike other product these are killing mushiness. For some resign people are so sold on the idea that to not have guns legal some how hurts the democracy.

How dose it benefit to have guns on the streets?

a. citizens.. No

b. Low informant.. No

c. Democracy.. No

e. Companies.. Yes

Its all about selling some thing at the expense of human life.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 2:26 pm

Ohhh I see, thank you.

Well most of the people who believe in gun ownership are hesitant to put a blanket high worth on human life so are untouched by the cost of human life, so long as its not them, their family, their neighbors or other good people. Which I happen to think is a fairly reasonable outlook on life, even if most people wouldn't articulate it quite like that.


I think that the actual net effect is not so important as the perceived effect. A lot of people feel safer in their homes and their government if guns are acknowledged as a basic right, as was clearly intended in our most sacrosanct of legal documents. It is very clearly indisputable though that allowing citizens to carry hand guns has had at worst no impact on crime rates and there's a considerable body of research to indicate that its actually had a positive effect, especially in regards to gun related violent crime.

[ewm90]

posted on June 29th, 2008, 3:34 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on June 29th, 2008, 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just so I understand what you are saying is that people how have guns don't care about others? Thats not what I think or have thought even throw I pocked at people in the fast witch accusing them of this with was not what I thought and the out come of that was people thought that I thought they did not care..

Feelings can be misleading and in this case they are. "as a basic right" defined by our government that represents the people, A norther way to put that is people wont guns.

The research I read has a clearly different store Therese some thing missing here.

We have 2 people that are clamming that the eveandents points in both directions...

D.C Gun Ban Decision: Poll and Comment - D.C. Wire -

Guns for home use - Law Enforcement Forum - Local and International Law Enforcement Community

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence

Moms Against Guns: Laws, Changes Needed, and Legislative Positions


By the way DC was anti gun why would some one from out side DC wont them to do some thing they don't wont?

--

Future lawsuits

The justices also barely touched on a threshold issue for future lawsuits.

The decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller did not say the 2nd Amendment applies to states and localities. Washington, D.C., is not a state.

[align=right]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-na-scotus28-2008jun28,0,1285566.story[/align]