Gun Control

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Should Gun control be allowed?

Yes
117
52%
No
82
36%
Other (please explain)
26
12%
 
Total votes : 225

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:42 am

I don't see why a check every, say, five years or when circumstances suggest a check might be needed would be too much.

Just wondering what people think of flamethrowers? After reading this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34131334

Seems rather scary the lack of checks. On a flamethrower. I don't imagine the gun lobby and pro-guns feel this sort of thing being sold without checks is a good idea?
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14589
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Gray Riders » Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:55 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:I don't see why a check every, say, five years or when circumstances suggest a check might be needed would be too much.

Just wondering what people think of flamethrowers? After reading this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34131334

Seems rather scary the lack of checks. On a flamethrower. I don't imagine the gun lobby and pro-guns feel this sort of thing being sold without checks is a good idea?

What in the name of...

Chris Byars does not dispute the potential dangers of his invention.

He tells the BBC that as a "novelty tool" it is not his responsibility to check who is buying it or what it will be used for.

"Who are we to deny individuals the ability own a product?" he says. "We don't assume everyone is a criminal."

...
...
...
So, I assume Mr. Byars doesn't care about those old Soviet nukes being sold on the black market? After all, we don't assume everyone is a criminal. Especially not when they want to buy something as harmless as a flamethrower or a WMD!
Gray Riders
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:02 am

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby bodidley » Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:32 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:I don't see why a check every, say, five years or when circumstances suggest a check might be needed would be too much.


When circumstances suggest a check pretty much hits the nail on the head. If a person is believed by a qualified psychiatrist to be dangerous, then an examination is warranted. This is a fairly rare circumstance. The mentally ill are not deranged killers.

As to the flamethrower question, there are two issues. One, there are actually legitimate uses for flamethrowers, such as destroying contaminated or infested crops, and they are very easy to make at home. I don't believe that any additional regulation and criminalization of their use is going to prevent anyone from using them for no good, nor do I believe the use is likely. People are often murdered by arson, but rarely by flamethrower rampages.

The issue of active shooters easily muddies our perception of gun violence. The data available concerning these incidents (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of- ... -2000-2013) shows us that the likelihood of being killed in one is lower than the likelihood of being killed by lightning (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml). Whereas the lifetime likelihood of being burglarized, assaulted, robbed or raped is comparatively high, especially for people living in certain areas and people of lower socio-economic status.

I look at the issue in terms of these questions: 1. Does the fear of these incidents warrant serious restrictions on the right to self-defense? and 2. Will specific firearms restrictions effectively limit the ability of individuals to commit mass murder? My position on self-defense is that it is an inalienable right, and expecting the authorities to defend you is a foolhardy proposition. As to question two, I think the answer is resoundingly no. The most catastrophic mass killings have been accomplished without the use of any firearms at all. If you force would-be mass killers to use their imaginations you're only going to end up with a more efficient killings.
"We can't mortgage our childrens' future on a mountain of debt," - Barack Obama
bodidley
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:33 am
Location: I'm an everywhere man

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:10 pm

When circumstances suggest a check pretty much hits the nail on the head. If a person is believed by a qualified psychiatrist to be dangerous, then an examination is warranted. This is a fairly rare circumstance. The mentally ill are not deranged killers.


What I don't get is why (and this applies to other things like cars rather then a gun specific issue) we give people the relative license for a dangerous piece of equipment that, in the wrong hand, could kill and then leave it at that. Forever. As if mental and physical health will remain unchanging for the rest of their lives and if it does change, that it will be caught before anything is done by some random stroke of luck (heck we should just finger cross that nobody gets hurt when someone's eyes are too bad to drive).

As to the flamethrower question, there are two issues. One, there are actually legitimate uses for flamethrowers, such as destroying contaminated or infested crops, and they are very easy to make at home. I don't believe that any additional regulation and criminalization of their use is going to prevent anyone from using them for no good, nor do I believe the use is likely. People are often murdered by arson, but rarely by flamethrower rampages.


I agree there are needs for flamethrowers in certain professions. I don't see why government shouldn't seek to keep track of flame-throwers given that in the wrong hands, they could be a very nasty tool

2. Will specific firearms restrictions effectively limit the ability of individuals to commit mass murder? My position on self-defense is that it is an inalienable right, and expecting the authorities to defend you is a foolhardy proposition. As to question two, I think the answer is resoundingly no. The most catastrophic mass killings have been accomplished without the use of any firearms at all. If you force would-be mass killers to use their imaginations you're only going to end up with a more efficient killings.


So why hasn't that happened across western Europe? Mass murder and school massacres are fairly rare compared to US where once expects a few school mass shootings a year nowadays. Gun controls won't stop all shootings, I'm sure UK will suffer a mass shooting someday, but since we implemented gun controls, it hasn't been replaced by anything similar or worse. Why would the US be the only ones where introducing gun controls will lead to more efficient killing?
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14589
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby James » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:41 pm

bodidley wrote:The issue of active shooters easily muddies our perception of gun violence. The data available concerning these incidents (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of- ... -2000-2013) shows us that the likelihood of being killed in one is lower than the likelihood of being killed by lightning (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml). Whereas the lifetime likelihood of being burglarized, assaulted, robbed or raped is comparatively high, especially for people living in certain areas and people of lower socio-economic status.

US Gun deaths in 2013: 33,169*
Average annual reported U.S. Lightning Deaths and Injures, 2001-2010: 280
And that's deaths vs. deaths and injuries. So not sure about that comparison.
*CDC, which also keeps the best statistics on this subject.

Edit: Oh, I see you were actually speaking to active shooter statistics in that comparison.

I agree that active shooter situations can muddy the statistics—we should be far more aware of other circumstances such as a gun in the home increasing the probability of suicide—but these statistics do matter. It's not appropriate to point to larger-scale unfortunate statistics and suggest that because they exist we should disregard or downplay the importance of a circumstance such as mass shootings (however defined).

bodidley wrote:I look at the issue in terms of these questions: 1. Does the fear of these incidents warrant serious restrictions on the right to self-defense? and 2. Will specific firearms restrictions effectively limit the ability of individuals to commit mass murder? My position on self-defense is that it is an inalienable right, and expecting the authorities to defend you is a foolhardy proposition. As to question two, I think the answer is resoundingly no. The most catastrophic mass killings have been accomplished without the use of any firearms at all. If you force would-be mass killers to use their imaginations you're only going to end up with a more efficient killings.

1) Most of the simple first steps which are proposed in addressing America's gun problem are not those which would result in a 'significant restriction to the right to self-defense' by a measure I can imagine. For example, consistent and well enforced background checks backed by good cross-state data, or even what some would consider to be a more extreme measure such as proficiency evaluation (which should certainly tie in to self-defense where a lack of proficiency combined with a gun would statistically increase the probability of getting shot as opposed to saving one's own life). Consistent background checks is something supported by some 90% of the American population anyway. Or something which does impact a gun owner's options, such as an 'assault weapon' ban: not the go-to for self-defense.

This sounds like a reasonable concern on some level, but I don't think the actual discussion we're having revolves around change which would produce this result.

2) Guns are a far more effective means of killing than, say, a knife is. It is extremely hard to kill people en masse with a less lethal and efficient weapon. And they're more likely to survive the injury. And besides, if we're to be caught up on mass killing events the United States is the statistical anomaly among wealthy nations (even if this is a smaller part of gun deaths by statistics). It also seems rather inappropriate to argue against law and safety efforts on grounds that criminals will be criminals because we actually could prevent some of these gun purchases with programs like an effective background check, or laws which allowed law enforcement to act more effectively when concerning information is available.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17935
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Previous

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved