Poll for Gun Control Advocates

[Mike Jones]

In my years of selling weapons, I have yet to figure this out.

[myrkul]

That's interesting. Someone voted yes. I'd be very interested in hearing the story there.

[ElectricMucus]

inb4 matt referencing OP to be atlas

[Brunic]

That's interesting. Someone voted yes. I'd be very interested in hearing the story there.

Because it's a policeman.

[RodeoX]

That's interesting. Someone voted yes. I'd be very interested in hearing the story there.

Because it's a policeman.

Ha, that could be. My Dad was an FBI trained weapons expert and lifelong LEO. But he was in favor of gun control and the day he retired he was most excited about never having to keep track of his gun again.

[Brunic]

That's interesting. Someone voted yes. I'd be very interested in hearing the story there.

Because it's a policeman.

Ha, that could be. My Dad was an FBI trained weapons expert and lifelong LEO. But he was in favor of gun control and the day he retired he was most excited about never having to keep track of his gun again.

A little story...

In Canada, we made the gun registry a decade ago (a real big mess that cost 5 times the initial price). But at least, it been completed. Now, Harper(our crazy PM) decided that he wanted to destroy the gun registry with all the data in it because he want to relax the gun controls laws. You know who protested the most against it? Yeah, our police services.

Why? Because it made their job easier.

I know policemans who were proud of saying that they never used their gun in their career (after 20-25 years of service).

If I pay high taxes, it's to be able to pay professionals who can handle guns in a responsible way to protect my ass.

[myrkul]

You're probably right, it was a cop/ex-cop.

I know policemans who were proud of saying that they never used their gun in their career (after 20-25 years of service).

So do I. A policeman who never has to fire his weapon is a very happy one indeed. (well, if he's a "good" cop)

If I pay high taxes, it's to be able to pay professionals who can handle guns in a responsible way to protect my ass.

Obligatory AnCap comment: Couldn't you do that without also paying for other services you don't use/want?

[Brunic]

Obligatory AnCap comment: Couldn't you do that without also paying for other services you don't use/want?

[Moved to the other topic]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98114.0

[myrkul]

I know my answer is long and off-topic, but I wanted to explain clearly my position on your question. Even if you don't agree, I hope it helps you understand the socialists.

Thanks. I opted to continue this conversation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98114.0 rather than derail this thread.

[Explodicle]

Am I the only one who counted "restrict them from kids" as gun control? Even without laws against it I'd want to stop anyone who knowingly gave guns to children.

[RodeoX]

Am I the only one who counted "restrict them from kids" as gun control? Even without laws against it I'd want to stop anyone who knowingly gave guns to children.

I don't know this for a fact, but I bet almost all gun owners would agree with restrictions on children. That is the the law now in the U.S. If you are a child you can go hunting with a grown-up but can't carry a gun. Having said that, I got my first real gun when I was 10 and took it to the woods all the time.

[compro01]

A little story...

In Canada, we made the gun registry a decade ago (a real big mess that cost 5 times the initial price). But at least, it been completed. Now, Harper(our crazy PM) decided that he wanted to destroy the gun registry with all the data in it because he want to relax the gun controls laws. You know who protested the most against it? Yeah, our police services.

Why? Because it made their job easier.

I know policemans who were proud of saying that they never used their gun in their career (after 20-25 years of service).

If I pay high taxes, it's to be able to pay professionals who can handle guns in a responsible way to protect my ass.

Only the long gun (rifles, shotguns, etc.) registry is gone.  handguns and stuff still need to be registered and licensed, which I fully agree with.

The long gun registry was nothing but a money burning boondoggle and never would have made any difference to anything.  Exactly how often do you hear about a murder or robbery involving a rifle?

Pitching the long gun registry out is the ONLY thing I agree with the Conservatives on.

[Brunic]

Only the long gun (rifles, shotguns, etc.) registry is gone.  handguns and stuff still need to be registered and licensed, which I fully agree with.

The long gun registry was nothing but a money burning boondoggle and never would have made any difference to anything.  Exactly how often do you hear about a murder or robbery involving a rifle?

Pitching the long gun registry out is the ONLY thing I agree with the Conservatives on.

The fuss is mainly with the destruction of the data. We paid for it, why is he destroying everything? If Canadians don't want to manage the registry, fine, we can do it ourself. Maybe the RCMP doesn't use it, but our own national police force is interested in keeping the data. We consider the gun registry as a useful tool and we want to keep using it.

Don't wonder why half the Quebec wants to get out. We always get forced decisions like that down our throat, and we need to sue the country for something that our own provincial government could easily manage. Give us the data and stop messing around.

[TheButterZone]

Gun registries have proved extremely useful for burglars and genocidal war criminals...

To answer the poll question, many gun control advocates "own" guns, as the entire International Criminals Union supports "gun control" (making victims defenseless to keep criminals alive and prosperous). Why would a criminal choose to be as defenseless as his victims are legally required to be?

[AntiCap]

Gun control in the US? Absolutely.

There are many countries with a lot more guns per capita than the US that have far fewer gun related crimes, so clearly the gun isn't the issue. But violence seems to be embedded in US culture and that's why gun control is necessary. Fewer guns, fewer killings/injuries.

Like taking pointy objects away from out-of-control children.

Fix the culture and the gun control can go away again.

[TheButterZone]

Fewer guns in the hands of good Samaritans, more killings/injuries with all other weapons.

[Explodicle]

Like taking pointy objects away from out-of-control children.

Here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

[AntiCap]

Like taking pointy objects away from out-of-control children.

Here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

Seems about right. "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right."

When US-ians stop shooting at each other and start behaving like other countries gun-wielding citizens, they can have their guns back.

[AntiCap]

Fewer guns in the hands of good Samaritans, more killings/injuries with all other weapons.

Well, looking at this info it seems that other weapons are less lethal, which is probably why we developed guns in the first place.

Direct admission to the mortuary was three times as common in cases of gunshot compared with stab wounds. The hospital mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 8 times that for stab wounds. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02/24/knives-00006/

More limited access to guns, fewer deaths. Some criminals would still have them, but most wouldn't risk it if carrying one was an offense that had a few years imprisonment attached to it.

[Explodicle]

Like taking pointy objects away from out-of-control children.

Here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

Seems about right. "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right."

When US-ians stop shooting at each other and start behaving like other countries gun-wielding citizens, they can have their guns back.

If your goal is to prevent harm to others, then you also want to prevent the potential harm from NOT having a gun. Since the whole group won't grow up at the same time, it's more fair and efficient to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis with mandatory liability insurance (like cars). That way you won't deem society ready and give guns to idiots, and won't deem society unready and deny guns to to cautious trained citizens.

Gun laws DON'T reduce murders, look it up if you don't believe me.