Two questions for gun control people

[MamaRoo]

I think the fuel driving the "more guns!" movement is less about real bad guys, and more about the fear of bad guys.

How many times in your life have you found it necessary to use a gun to defend yourself?

And, I'm sorry, but I don't have any idea what the first point you're trying to make is. If I don't ski in an avalanche area, I expect to be in less danger from an avalanche. If I don't, on a weekly, or daily basis put myself in the middle of a crime, I expect to be in less danger of being injured from crime. People doing bad things will probably kill each other at some point, it's the people who avoid bad things who should be able to feel safe.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote: uh, no. If you choose to put yourself in a dangerous situation, something dangerous could happen. Going to a movie shouldn't be thought of as a dangerous situation.

And I am all for better schools, better teachers, better healthcare, etc. Lots of failings in the country, and all should be addressed.

 

[Demosthine]

Are you saying that all weapons should be banned?

No, I'm not, because something will always take their place. Despite what ThaiThailand has said about other countries' statistics having no bearing on our problem, you can look at Britain and see the prime example of their weapons ban failures. Although firearms are virtually completely banned, knife attacks have taken their place among the crime statistics and resulted in some pretty major bans as well.
- In 1956, self-operated knives such as switchblades were banned.
- In 1988, Britain banned pocket knives in excess of 3" in length.
- In 1996, Britain banned razor blades from being sold to anyone under 16 years old.
- In 2007, it became mandatory to have and maintain a license to sell anything that is not a "domesticated knife." i.e. A kitchen knife.
- In 2013, they are discussing the banning of long, pointy kitchen knives because they are used in an estimated half of all stabbings. They are advocating that there's "no reason for anyone to go beyond a paring knife anyway."

A side note on that, all paring knives that I've ever owned were 3" in length. That's the same length as the pocket knife that was banned in 1988.

There are far more complex issues involved in all of this debate than just what weapons should or should not be banned. The weapons itself are not and have never been the primary issue. They are simply the easiest for our politicians to use as a cover for the problems that have been created.

 

[Demosthine]

I think the fuel driving the "more guns!" movement is less about real bad guys, and more about the fear of bad guys.

How many times in your life have you found it necessary to use a gun to defend yourself?

And, I'm sorry, but I don't have any idea what the first point you're trying to make is. If I don't ski in an avalanche area, I expect to be in less danger from an avalanche. If I don't, on a weekly, or daily basis put myself in the middle of a crime, I expect to be in less danger of being injured from crime. People doing bad things will probably kill each other at some point, it's the people who avoid bad things who should be able to feel safe.

How many times in your life have you found it necessary to file a life-insurance claim for yourself? Or had to use your health insurance for a major medical procedure that would have cost tens of thousands of dollars, resulting in your death if you did not have it done? How many times have you had to use the security system on your house to protect your property from an intruder? How many times have you had to defend yourself from being raped or tortured? It is not about the desire or necessity to use a firearm to defend yourself. It is about having a source of deterrent or safety net that may protect you if the time comes.

The point was the children living in the inner city don't have a choice about putting themselves in the middle of the crimes that occur. They can't control where they live, what school they go to, what parks are available to them, and what the other kids are doing in their area. They are at the mercy of their parents. The Brady Campaign was saying that something like 500+ kids are shot and 75 killed in inner-city Chicago every year at their schools. Chicago is the role model of gun control. Their laws are nearly perfect, says the Brady Campaign at the same time. Somehow, it is socially acceptable and a non-issue in our media. You can not tell me that that many children are doing so many illegal things that they deserved to be killed.

 

[hemet dennis]

There's 2 components to a shooting, the gun and the person, and most are focusing on the wrong one.

 

[thaiturkey]

No, I'm not, because something will always take their place. Despite what ThaiThailand has said about other countries' statistics having no bearing on our problem, you can look at Britain and see the prime example of their weapons ban failures. Although firearms are virtually completely banned, knife attacks have taken their place among the crime statistics and resulted in some pretty major bans as well.
- In 1956, self-operated knives such as switchblades were banned.
- In 1988, Britain banned pocket knives in excess of 3" in length.
- In 1996, Britain banned razor blades from being sold to anyone under 16 years old.
- In 2007, it became mandatory to have and maintain a license to sell anything that is not a "domesticated knife." i.e. A kitchen knife.
- In 2013, they are discussing the banning of long, pointy kitchen knives because they are used in an estimated half of all stabbings. They are advocating that there's "no reason for anyone to go beyond a paring knife anyway."

A side note on that, all paring knives that I've ever owned were 3" in length. That's the same length as the pocket knife that was banned in 1988.

There are far more complex issues involved in all of this debate than just what weapons should or should not be banned. The weapons itself are not and have never been the primary issue. They are simply the easiest for our politicians to use as a cover for the problems that have been created.

The UK, not just Great Britain, had a ban on rapid fire guns and handguns. There were two massacres involving one type of gun in each and, with public support, the law was changed. There's no need for any gun in the UK for civilians other than a sporting shotgun. I know that there are illegally held banned weapons but the risk of being shot by a criminal is virtually non-existent unless you go looking for it.

Knife bans are also a response to developments in violent crime. The recent suggestion that pointed kitchen knives be banned is a result of increasing domestic violence involving them. The government has asked chefs for their opinion and each said that there was no need for such knives in a kitchen.

But, once again, the present issue is the move to ban rapid fire rifles and high capacity magazines and other measures to control who can own a gun. That has nothing to with crime figures in any other country but is to do with massacres in the US and the incomprehensible reaction against the proposals.

 

[thaiturkey]

There's 2 components to a shooting, the gun and the person, and most are focusing on the wrong one.

The President's proposals are focusing on several 'components'. Most disagreement here seems to centre around the right to own a gun of a particular type. No-one has disputed the right to ban certain types of individual from owning a gun but some scream blue murder at the suggestion that certain types of gun should be banned.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote: So if I wake up in the middle of the night and two guys have broke into my house with knives, I have nothing to worry about ? Or did I go looking for it by having stuff they wanted ?

 

[Judy]

Predictably, this has turned into a mocking, flaming, etc, fight.