Gun Control Debate #5

[Woodland]

Not sure this can be blamed on lax gun control laws. The kid couldn't have bought the gun legally. There's already a law for that. Prohibiting a person under the age of 21 from buying a handgun. And, murder is also illegal. But somehow this kid ignored the law and shot people anyway.

Enforcing existing laws would go a long way to curbing gun violence. Jmo.

 

[bobcat]

With all due respect - your posts reflect the mindset that nothing will work so don't bother. Most are here to help with finding a solution and will continue to do that regardless.

Ammo in someone's bedroom when they were young has no bearing on this thread - imo.
No one said anything about punishment on the level you imply. Kindly remember those are your words/interpretation.
Maybe a separate thread for those wishing that the status quo remains?

I didn't realize this thread was only for those who want the strictest possible gun control, or even better yet in some people's minds- the total elimination of all guns, or at least the handguns and "assault rifles."

 

[Blef]

I didn't realize this thread was only for those who want the strictest possible gun control, or even better yet in some people's minds- the total elimination of all guns, or at least the handguns and "assault rifles."

Yawn - Do we really have to do the gun control doesn't equal gun prohibition debate thing again?

 

[Blef]

I didn't realize this thread was only for those who want the strictest possible gun control, or even better yet in some people's minds- the total elimination of all guns, or at least the handguns and "assault rifles."

Why are you so opposed to you making guns safer? Why do you kick back every time any single gun control measure is mentioned. If you are a responsible gun owner and user, then stricter gun control shouldn't impact on you, as you would already be taking measures to keep your guns in the right hands.

 

[bobcat]

I've noticed sometimes Google likes to give a page within their like.. browser kinda thing so the address comes up weird and to get the true address to the article you have to click the little link icon to get a little box with the address so you can copy and paste. See attached screenshots and hope that's helpful


So the second screenshot shows how I've clicked the link and the box popped up so then you long press the box and it'll give you the option to copy link address

Thank you! Learned something today. I've had problems with that in the past as well and couldn't figure out how to get the correct link.

 

[Woodland]

I didn't realize this thread was only for those who want the strictest possible gun control, or even better yet in some people's minds- the total elimination of all guns, or at least the handguns and "assault rifles."

Your mindset and your interpretation. No solution to what most perceive as a problem. That is part of the problem imo.

My opinion is regarding the post - not a personal attack on the poster btw.

 

[flourish]

People really need to be held accountable for what happens with their guns. I mean, if I didn't secure my prescription medications, and a child got into them and consumed them and died, I'd, rightly, be held responsible. If I don't secure my guard dog and he attacks someone, I'm liable. So how is it remotely okay for people to not secure their firearms???

There should be fingerprint scanners on all guns so only the people programmed in can use them. They should be mandatory with harsh punishments which are consistently prosecuted.

And for those people who are all but but but what if my fingerprint sensor doesn't work and I can't shoot an intruder... Your gun itself could jam and still not kill said intruder, too.... But you still want it, so.... The amount of good outweighs the "what ifs."

 

[bobcat]

Why are you so opposed to you making guns safer? Why do you kick back every time any single gun control measure is mentioned. If you are a responsible gun owner and user, then stricter gun control shouldn't impact on you, as you would already be taking measures to keep your guns in the right hands.

Guns are already safe, if people follow all the rules we are all taught, such as "always treat every gun as if it was loaded" and "always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction."

I'm not against "making guns safer," I just haven't heard of any ideas that would actually do that. Background checks, that's fine, and they're already being done. In my state, even for private party sales. What's the other idea, minimum age of 21 for ALL firearm purchases? Okay, I could live with that. Would either of these things have stopped any of the latest school shootings? I doubt it.

What ideas do you have other than gun bans and gun registration?

 

[bluesneakers]

I didn't realize this thread was only for those who want the strictest possible gun control, or even better yet in some people's minds- the total elimination of all guns, or at least the handguns and "assault rifles."

That's not what this thread is about. Wanting solutions to gun violence isn't the same thing as "the total elimination of all guns." I don't think I've seen more than one post suggesting it.

I don't understand why anyone is opposed to finding solutions to our gun problem. Too many people are dying in vain. (Unless someone thinks 3-year-old died for the cause of gun freedom.)

 

[ohreally]

In that case why have punishments after any event? Oh yes, because it is a deterrent. Tell people they will face a strict punishment for not securing their guns and ammo. A hammer, used for handywork, a baseball bat, used for baseball. A gun, used to kill and maim. Very different things.

Why do you oppose so much sensible gun control? Why is it such a hardship to you if it makes other less sensible gun owners more accountable? I HATE seeing motorbikers not wearing helmets and appropriate clothing, I fully understand why riding a bike needs a test and a licence. I understand why registration, tax (in the UK), insurance and motor vehicle testing is necessary. Would I support even stricter laws? Yup, because I want to see motorcyclists and those around them to be safer. Is all this inconvenient to me? Sure, I would love not to have to pay so much on my hobby and my primary mode of transport. But I don't just want anyone and everyone to ride a bike. I understand that it's something not everyone should do, and there needs to be restrictions.

In 2017 Ontario had a gun injury or death every day. I checked to make sure the source I am getting my information from is legit. Slight to moderate left leaning and high in factual reporting.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3333517/...jured-by-gun-violence-in-ontario-study-warns/
More than 1 million restricted guns are in Canada. Numbers are rising. The sight I got the information from is slight to moderate left with I high in factual reporting. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/guns-firearms-restricted-canada-1.4129994
Canada does have a gun problem, but not a school shooting problem. It seems like they even with all the regulations school shootings could easily occur in Canada, but they don't. Why? Could it be because there is another issue behind the US school shootings than guns themselves? Could it be a difference in mental health and how it is treated making the differance?

 

[bluesneakers]

People really need to be held accountable for what happens with their guns. I mean, if I didn't secure my prescription medications, and a child got into them and consumed them and died, I'd, rightly, be held responsible. If I don't secure my guard dog and he attacks someone, I'm liable. So how is it remotely okay for people to not secure their firearms???

There should be fingerprint scanners on all guns so only the people programmed in can use them. They should be mandatory with harsh punishments which are consistently prosecuted.

And for those people who are all but but but what if my fingerprint sensor doesn't work and I can't shoot an intruder... Your gun itself could jam and still not kill said intruder, too.... But you still want it, so.... The amount of good outweighs the "what ifs."

Your gun could be used to kill yourself or a family member - those are much more likely than shooting an intruder - but for some it's worth the risk, I guess.

 

[Blef]

Guns are already safe, if people follow all the rules we are all taught, such as "always treat every gun as if it was loaded" and "always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction."

I'm not against "making guns safer," I just haven't heard of any ideas that would actually do that. Background checks, that's fine, and they're already being done. In my state, even for private party sales. What's the other idea, minimum age of 21 for ALL firearm purchases? Okay, I could live with that. Would either of these things have stopped any of the latest school shootings? I doubt it.

What ideas do you have other than gun bans and gun registration?

You know what ideas I have, I have explained them more than once in the 5 threads. YOU may treat guns sensibly and with respect but it is obvious that MANY MANY others don't. Why are you so opposed to punishing those who aren't?

Tighter gun regulations don't seem like they would impact you at all, if you really are a sensible, responsible gun owner, so why so opposed?

 

[flourish]

But people don't do those things!!!

So "if" doesn't reflect the reality!!

 

[Blef]

In 2017 Ontario had a gun injury or death every day. I checked to make sure the source I am getting my information from is legit. Slight to moderate left leaning and high in factual reporting.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3333517/...jured-by-gun-violence-in-ontario-study-warns/
More than 1 million restricted guns are in Canada. Numbers are rising. The sight I got the information from is slight to moderate left with I high in factual reporting. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/guns-firearms-restricted-canada-1.4129994
Canada does have a gun problem, but not a school shooting problem. It seems like they even with all the regulations school shootings could easily occur in Canada, but they don't. Why? Could it be because there is another issue behind the US school shootings than guns themselves? Could it be a difference in mental health and how it is treated making the differance?

They have tighter gun regulations all round. Yes, there is a problem, but nowhere on the scale of the US. The difference in gun regulations in Canada and the US has already been linked in these threads somewhere.

 

[flourish]

Guns are already safe, if people follow all the rules we are all taught, such as "always treat every gun as if it was loaded" and "always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction."

I'm not against "making guns safer," I just haven't heard of any ideas that would actually do that. Background checks, that's fine, and they're already being done. In my state, even for private party sales. What's the other idea, minimum age of 21 for ALL firearm purchases? Okay, I could live with that. Would either of these things have stopped any of the latest school shootings? I doubt it.

What ideas do you have other than gun bans and gun registration?

Required fingerprint scanner things on the actual gun or it's illegal. Required on all guns sold from this date on regardless of the method of sale. Discounts on retrofitting.

 

[Woodland]

Why are you so opposed to you making guns safer? Why do you kick back every time any single gun control measure is mentioned. If you are a responsible gun owner and user, then stricter gun control shouldn't impact on you, as you would already be taking measures to keep your guns in the right hands.

Jumping off this post to get something off my chest - not speaking for Blef at all.

One thing that really stood out for me recently was a post that someone bought a gun (rifle, shotgun whatever) for their 12 year-old child. So why didn't the 12 year-old buy the gun themselves? The question is rhetorical.

This is setting up the 12 year-old and the parent(s) for a possible future problem - I guess I should add imo. The 12 year-old is only 12 for a short time - they soon become 14, 15, 16 ... and will want what they want, when they want it. That is a normal attitude for a teen - imo it kicks off the learning phase regarding consequences for ones actions.

This is precisely the gun owner that should have liability insurance - if the parent is insisting the gun belongs to the 12 year-old, then the 12 year-old is quite sure the gun belongs to them. They can and often will figure out how to get that gun out of lock-up (if it's locked up) and take it to a gathering of friends someday. That's when trouble can happen - no violent intent, no intent to menace others, no ill will - and no comprehension of the possible consequences. Teens don't know about consequences beyond the possibility of being grounded, losing privileges for a while etc. They are not yet wired for that.

Ok - I feel better now.

 

[bobcat]

There should be fingerprint scanners on all guns so only the people programmed in can use them.

Totally impractical idea. No offense, but it's obvious you're not very knowledgeable about firearms. They're not electronic devices like a smart phone. With these kinds of ideas, to me you might as well just ban guns entirely. I don't want to go deer hunting with a rifle that has an electronically controlled trigger that only lets me fire it. No way would I ever buy a gun like that, if it was available. Most likely couldn't afford it anyway, as it would likely cost several thousand dollars.

 

[Woodland]

In 2017 Ontario had a gun injury or death every day. I checked to make sure the source I am getting my information from is legit. Slight to moderate left leaning and high in factual reporting.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3333517/...jured-by-gun-violence-in-ontario-study-warns/
More than 1 million restricted guns are in Canada. Numbers are rising. The sight I got the information from is slight to moderate left with I high in factual reporting. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/guns-firearms-restricted-canada-1.4129994
Canada does have a gun problem, but not a school shooting problem. It seems like they even with all the regulations school shootings could easily occur in Canada, but they don't. Why? Could it be because there is another issue behind the US school shootings than guns themselves? Could it be a difference in mental health and how it is treated making the differance?

Jmo - but can we leave how a person or entity leans chit out of the conversation? Who cares? We need facts and opinions stated as opinions. People get that.

 

[Woodland]

They have tighter gun regulations all round. Yes, there is a problem, but nowhere on the scale of the US. The difference in gun regulations in Canada and the US has already been linked in these threads somewhere.

It's the mindset regarding guns that is creeping into Canada that bothers me the most. The same apathy and even worse the glorification of guns as a possession - life is not a movie. Jmo.

 

[bluesneakers]

Totally impractical idea. No offense, but it's obvious you're not very knowledgeable about firearms. They're not electronic devices like a smart phone. With these kinds of ideas, to me you might as well just ban guns entirely. I don't want to go deer hunting with a rifle that has an electronically controlled trigger that only lets me fire it. No way would I ever buy a gun like that, if it was available. Most likely couldn't afford it anyway, as it would likely cost several thousand dollars.

JMO but a great deal of your arguments go back to that. It's illogical because every idea does not lead directly to "ban guns entirely" or "get rid of all the guns."


Reductio ad absurdum

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.