Assault weapon bans

[Spendulus]

Governments can never be trusted as long as they are godless,...

Not to detail the subject, but I wouldn't trust a godly government, either. See Dark Ages and modern Middle East for why.

Better to make it short and pithy...

"Governments can never be trusted..."

[FirstAscent]

But they likely wouldn't matter, and here's why.  Basically, people that either grew up around firearms, who decided to learn about them, who are familiar with hunting, or who have had military or police style training know A LOT MORE THAN YOU.  Now don't be offended - this happens in virtually every discussion where a liberal progressive tries to talk to what he thinks are "gun nuts".

If you know so much, how come you don't grasp some of the basics? Furthermore, what does it matter what your own personal opinion is regarding how adept you are at using firearms? The chances of you causing injury to yourself or someone else while in the possession of a firearm is infinitely greater than those who are not in possession of a firearm.

Do you understand that all gun deaths are caused by those in possession of a firearm? They are never caused by those not in possession of firearms. All homicides, all suicides and accidents caused by guns are caused by those in possession of firearms. You seem to think that your claim as to proper gun usage eliminates gun deaths. It doesn't.

[Rassah]

So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars 

[FirstAscent]

So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars  

This again? It's called utilitarian value. It's been discussed.

[TheButterZone]

So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars  

Because there is no utilitarian value in keeping yourself from being killed, unless you are a criminal, then by all means, use gun control to do nothing but disarm innocent victims so you effectively cannot be killed in self-defense by them.

Then continue to use any murder weapon you please, especially guns, because there is absolutely no way you, a criminal, can be prevented from having it in the first place. And finally, taunt your legally disarmed and defenseless victims about "the Wild West", which was statistically safer for innocents by far, than every jurisdiction with "gun control", which is ONLY safe for criminals, in other words, a criminals' utopia.

[FirstAscent]

So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars  

Because there is no utilitarian value in keeping yourself from being killed, unless you are a criminal, then by all means, use gun control to do nothing but disarm innocent victims so you effectively cannot be killed in self-defense by them.

There are many many other ways to avoid being killed by criminals that you're so eager to arm with guns. Criminals not armed with guns, prudence, and a socially responsible government are the solution.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wild West is on its way out.

[Rassah]

So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars  

Because there is no utilitarian value in keeping yourself from being killed, unless you are a criminal, then by all means, use gun control to do nothing but disarm innocent victims so you effectively cannot be killed in self-defense by them.

There are many many other ways to avoid being killed by criminals that you're so eager to arm with guns. Criminals not armed with guns, prudence, and a socially responsible government are the solution.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wild West is on its way out.

So, how do you keep criminals, or anyone else for that matter, from getting guns when anyone is able to make one easily in the privacy of their home?

[FirstAscent]

So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars  

Because there is no utilitarian value in keeping yourself from being killed, unless you are a criminal, then by all means, use gun control to do nothing but disarm innocent victims so you effectively cannot be killed in self-defense by them.

There are many many other ways to avoid being killed by criminals that you're so eager to arm with guns. Criminals not armed with guns, prudence, and a socially responsible government are the solution.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wild West is on its way out.

So, how do you keep criminals, or anyone else for that matter, from getting guns when anyone is able to make one easily in the privacy of their home?

Maybe it will be the case that such "empowering" technology will ultimately be the undoing of us all. Maybe one day we'll all be able to make much worse things in our own homes, and some crackpot will destroy us all. Who knows? Is there some natural law that says the inevitable technological achievements of the human race will always result in good?

On the other hand, maybe counter-technologies will arise simultaneously, such that detection of any such devices on anybody's person out on the streets will be trivial. Again, who knows?

[Rassah]

Maybe it will be the case that such "empowering" technology will ultimately be the undoing of us all. Maybe one day we'll all be able to make much worse things in our own homes, and some crackpot will destroy us all. Who knows? Is there some natural law that says the inevitable technological achievements of the human race will always result in good?

On the other hand, maybe counter-technologies will arise simultaneously, such that detection of any such devices on anybody's person out on the streets will be trivial. Again, who knows?

Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think?

[Mike Christ]

I still don't get the focus on guns.  When we see "criminals", why do we think "guns"?  Were there no criminals before guns?  Was theft a relatively new concept once the first rifle was introduced?  For if there was no crime, there would be no need for law, but we know there was law, for there was crime and a form of government to punish the criminal.

The very core of these debates is as follows: how to handle the problem of crime.  The solution, however, does not seem to be, "Disarm the criminals and they won't do any crimes"; this did not work, ever, in the history of man.  The true solution will begin once we ask, "What is causing all this crime?"  What drives a man to rob another man, whether with a gun, a shiv, or just smashing the victim's head into concrete?  These are the questions we need to ask; the gun debate is simply a distraction for lesser men with lesser minds to focus upon, as if it were the deciding factor between paradise and a living hell, while crime, no matter the ruling of gun control, will continue to happen with no end in sight, guns or no guns.

For the record: I'd rather be shot in the heart than beaten to death.  But more than anything, I'd rather not be attacked at all.

[FirstAscent]

Maybe it will be the case that such "empowering" technology will ultimately be the undoing of us all. Maybe one day we'll all be able to make much worse things in our own homes, and some crackpot will destroy us all. Who knows? Is there some natural law that says the inevitable technological achievements of the human race will always result in good?

On the other hand, maybe counter-technologies will arise simultaneously, such that detection of any such devices on anybody's person out on the streets will be trivial. Again, who knows?

Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think?

On the second point, obviously. On the first, do you advocate distributing guns to criminals?

[FirstAscent]

For the record: I'd rather be shot in the heart than beaten to death.  But more than anything, I'd rather not be attacked at all.

Would you rather be shot in the heart from twenty feet away, or have someone throw punches at you from twenty feet away?

[mdude77]

Governments can never be trusted as long as they are godless,...

Not to detail the subject, but I wouldn't trust a godly government, either. See Dark Ages and modern Middle East for why.

I wouldn't consider those godly governments.

M

[mdude77]

Maybe it will be the case that such "empowering" technology will ultimately be the undoing of us all. Maybe one day we'll all be able to make much worse things in our own homes, and some crackpot will destroy us all. Who knows? Is there some natural law that says the inevitable technological achievements of the human race will always result in good?

On the other hand, maybe counter-technologies will arise simultaneously, such that detection of any such devices on anybody's person out on the streets will be trivial. Again, who knows?

Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think?

On the second point, obviously. On the first, do you advocate distributing guns to criminals?

Here you go with the same argument again.  Of course we don't.  Do you know what makes a criminal a criminal?  They don't follow laws.  Governments don't either.  Both are excellent reasons for law abiding citizens to exercise their God given right to defend themselves by owning guns.

M

[Spendulus]

But they likely wouldn't matter, and here's why.  Basically, people that either grew up around firearms, who decided to learn about them, who are familiar with hunting, or who have had military or police style training know A LOT MORE THAN YOU. Now don't be offended - this happens in virtually every discussion where a liberal progressive tries to talk to what he thinks are "gun nuts".

If you know so much, how come you don't grasp some of the basics? Furthermore, what does it matter what your own personal opinion is regarding how adept you are at using firearms? The chances of you causing injury to yourself or someone else while in the possession of a firearm is infinitely greater than those who are not in possession of a firearm.

Do you understand that all gun deaths are caused by those in possession of a firearm? They are never caused by those not in possession of firearms. All homicides, all suicides and accidents caused by guns are caused by those in possession of firearms. You seem to think that your claim as to proper gun usage eliminates gun deaths. It doesn't.

Go back to the basic statement, highlighted above.

Then look at the second bolded statement, which is of course ridiculous.  For example, a rapist corners a girl, she pulls out her gun and shoots him.  He dies.  The "gun death", as you put it, was caused by the rapist attempting the assault, not by the girl acting in self defense.  

Far more commonly, we should note, she pulls out that firearm and once the bad guy sees it, that guy is off running.  How common is that compared to an actual self defense shooting?  You never hear about those cases where the gun was not fired, do you?  They are a hundred to one.  There are any number of real life situations where just the sound of a pump action shotgun chambering a round caused the bad guys to become total cowards....

Many examples like this where the presence of deadly force in the hands of the good guys prevented something bad from coming down.  What you've done is tried to assert that the good guys are the bad guys!

By any rules of debate with  you have just lost the argument.  But I already noted that gun control nuts always lose these arguments, because of a lack of actual knowledge.....

You seem to think that your claim as to proper gun usage eliminates gun deaths. It doesn't.

I suspect that ownership of chainsaws is far, far more prone to causing tragic accidents than ownership of guns.  But let's stick with YOUR logic.  Obviously, we need to take guns away from police and the military.  Because as long as they have them, gun deaths could occur.

Really?

[Spendulus]

For the record: I'd rather be shot in the heart than beaten to death.  But more than anything, I'd rather not be attacked at all.

Would you rather be shot in the heart from twenty feet away, or have someone throw punches spears or arrows at you from twenty feet away?

Fixed it.

Unfortunately the fix makes smaller, weaker people such as women, children or the elderly far more capable of being assaulted...

Darn, you don't think that might be the reason guns became popular, do you?

[Rassah]

Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think?

On the second point, obviously. On the first, do you advocate distributing guns to criminals?

I don't advocate doing the impossible, as you propose.

[Schleicher]

Interesting statistics here:

[FirstAscent]

Interesting statistics here:

An excellent example of why guns are so much worse than the others. Guns are listed at 20 percent, and yet account for some 75 percent of all homicides.

[FirstAscent]

Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think?

On the second point, obviously. On the first, do you advocate distributing guns to criminals?

I don't advocate doing the impossible, as you propose.

I didn't propose anything to you. I did ask you a question, and it appears I haven't received an answer. Let me rephrase it. Do you condone the current case in the U.S. where criminals are regularly supplied with guns by gun buyers, gun owners, and gun sellers either through their ineptitude or deliberate intent?