The Global Gun Control Threat

[RaptorBites]

But no one is talking about a complete ban on guns. No one is talking around going around and rounding up all firearms. All that's being talked about is limitations and banning certain types of guns. As long as you have the paper work and use them properly the government isn't going to care about your handgun or rifle. Yet is seems whenever the subject of gun law reform is brought up people start screaming that all their guns will be taken away. Heck since Obama has taken office we've seen several claims that he was going to take people's guns, and yet gun ownership has actually increased because people freak out and buy a bunch before it's "too late".

I understand your position Corp, I really do.

The states have enacted their own laws on gun ownership.

Do they need to be enforced harder? Absolutely.

Should there be changes made? Absolutely.

It needs to be left up to the state to make those decisions.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Just for the sake of indulging the logic of gun control advocates, I propose a solution to the dilemma of mass slayings committed by psychologically deranged individuals. According to you folks on the Left, guns are the cause of innocent people being murdered – humans are just incidental to the event. To listen to your myopic focus on guns, one would sense that in the absence of the existence of firearms, homicides and mass slayings would be virtually impossible. They would be justified in that illusion, but for some remarkable data that has turned up in my research.

Shocking as it might seem – and I apologize in advance for those who possess the cherished notion, I have discovered that people can and are killed by implements other than firearms. I realize how disconcerting such a revelation like that can be and that it can produce acute Cognitive Dissonance. Maybe, get up, step out to the kitchen and prepare yourself a soothing cup of Hot Cocoa. Alright, my progressive friends, feel a little better? Are your nerves stable enough to withstand evidence that demolishes your sense of reality?

Alright, for those of you who can handle the truth,

(rest of rant snipped)

Methinks the brush you are painting with is far, far too wide: 'gun control advocates', 'the Left', 'progressive friends', you forgot to put the word 'some' or even more appropriately, 'a few' before all of these. I haven't heard of anyone who says, 'humans are just incidental to the event', I've been hearing a lot of the opposite actually specifically in reference to mental illness.

But hey, let no one say you didn't utterly destroy that strawman though! Nothing can withstand a fully-bold-fonted post!

[Babe Ruth]

But no one is talking about a complete ban on guns. No one is talking around going around and rounding up all firearms. All that's being talked about is limitations and banning certain types of guns. As long as you have the paper work and use them properly the government isn't going to care about your handgun or rifle. Yet is seems whenever the subject of gun law reform is brought up people start screaming that all their guns will be taken away. Heck since Obama has taken office we've seen several claims that he was going to take people's guns, and yet gun ownership has actually increased because people freak out and buy a bunch before it's "too late".

No, there is no talk of a gun ban. Just talk of a ban for 'certain type' of guns, just like we've been through many times before. Repeating rifles with the modern label "assault weapons" are what the talk is centered on.

Even though I personally know 10 or 20 people who own such weapons, yet none of my friends have ever killed anybody.

So maybe we should talk about legislation that the only weapon to be owned by anybody would be a black powder muzzle loader? Yes, I'm being ridiculous, but so is this latest emotional tidal wave emanating from Newtown.

All this emotional talk demonstrates people want to "feel good" about some new and ineffective gun law. They want to pass something, and they never stop to think about whether their suggested legislation could have stopped what happened there.

It is all emotion, and not a bit of rational thinking or analysis. That is the worst possible foundation for law.

[+Liquid Gardens]

All this emotional talk demonstrates people want to "feel good" about some new and ineffective gun law. They want to pass something, and they never stop to think about whether their suggested legislation could have stopped what happened there.

It is all emotion, and not a bit of rational thinking or analysis. That is the worst possible foundation for law.

The criteria for legislation and law is not 'can 'x' law totally take resolve 'y' issue'; it is logical to pass 'x' law merely because it may help with resolving 'y' issue. Laws can involve both rational thinking and analysis and make people feel better, and your argument is not helped by offering points with glaring problems such as, 'well my friends own guns and none of them have killed anyone'. And especially in this case, IMO, where trying to keep assault rifles out of the hands of civilians doesn't hurt and doesn't have much downside.

[AsteroidX]

sweeping change would be better then this change right now. Issues run deeper then gun control. (derailment over)

Edited December 21, 2012 by AsteroidX

[Babe Ruth]

The criteria for legislation and law is not 'can 'x' law totally take resolve 'y' issue'; it is logical to pass 'x' law merely because it may help with resolving 'y' issue. Laws can involve both rational thinking and analysis and make people feel better, and your argument is not helped by offering points with glaring problems such as, 'well my friends own guns and none of them have killed anyone'. And especially in this case, IMO, where trying to keep assault rifles out of the hands of civilians doesn't hurt and doesn't have much downside.

I think it was Bismark who advised people, if you like law and sausages, don't watch either being made.

I do not accept the feel good notion LG. I respect your having it, that is your prerogative, but I don't accept that as a proper or valid use of the law.

Basically, we are cluttered with laws. I know the lawyers like that, and I have many lawyer friends, but it does get a bit weary--all the laws. Especially when they cause more harm than good.

That's why we have the repeal mechanism in congress, but it's never used.

[AsteroidX]

The judiciary system is corrupted and bloated. It needs to be tossed out and redone back on its basics.

[Obviousman]

If you people are so afraid of your government, why don't you overthrow it? Why don't you start a second American Revolution instead of just complaining about them?

Edited December 22, 2012 by Obviousman

[Babe Ruth]

The judiciary system is corrupted and bloated. It needs to be tossed out and redone back on its basics.

I think the design of the judiciary is good. Trouble is that certain members of it are corrupted. Most are good, I would like to think, but too many are corrupted.

[Babe Ruth]

If you people are so afraid of your government, why don't you overthrow it? Why don't you start a second American Revolution instead of just complaining about them?

If you people are so afraid of your government, why don't you overthrow it? Why don't you start a second American Revolution instead of just complaining about them?

Not so much afraid of it sir, just ashamed of it, and aware that it was hijacked by the bad guys quite a few years ago.

[AsteroidX]

I think the design of the judiciary is good. Trouble is that certain members of it are corrupted. Most are good, I would like to think, but too many are corrupted.

Couldnt agree about this more. The only ones that know the difference are the Judges themselves. But I would like to still see a striping of the books and rebuild them into a mamnageable and fun sense of rules. Otherwise dont need em. I can think of 2 Judges in my lifetime that I felt good with. Out of 10 or so. But then again part of the problem is they didnt even know me. Where is is that we should be prosecuted/attorneyed/judged/juried by a group of our non-peers. Just living in a multi million member community doesnt cut it. Justice should be handed out by people familiar with the individyual.

Think of it as spanking your kid for spitting gum on the sidewalk.

[Stellar]

The founding fathers were quite clear why they gave us the 2nd amendment. To insure our freedom by enabling us to protect ourselves from the government.

Its too bad they didnt give you another amendment to protect you from yourselves.

Seriously, where is all this talk about guns being obtained illegally coming from? How does a would-be criminal, in the heat of the moment, desiring to kill someone (but not having done so yet), go and figure out how to illegally purchase a gun? I dont know how. Does he google "Illegal gun vendors in Ohio"? Does he go out on the street and look for someone carrying a sign that says "Illegal guns for sale"? Because thats what most of the anti gun control makes it sound like.

p

I believe we fought a war in 1776 that settled this issue.

I believe that in 1776, the only way someone could sneak into a crowded area and kill 30 people in 5 minutes would be by carrying 30 firearms aswell...

[AsteroidX]

It has something to do with arms racing on a civil scale. Not much we can do about that.

[Stellar]

Now why would anyone go with the conspiracy theory. That would just be silly. I mean were only talking some of our basic rights. Lets keep it on topic. NO YOU CANT HAVE MY GUN.

I still have the right to say no dont I ? Or does no mean yes now ?

You sound like a 6 year old pouting when his mother tells him its time to go to sleep. How about adding something to the conversation?

[Stellar]

Just for the sake of indulging the logic of gun control advocates, I propose a solution to the dilemma of mass slayings committed by psychologically deranged individuals. According to you folks on the Left, guns are the cause of innocent people being murdered – humans are just incidental to the event. To listen to your myopic focus on guns, one would sense that in the absence of the existence of firearms, homicides and mass slayings would be virtually impossible. They would be justified in that illusion, but for some remarkable data that has turned up in my research.

Shocking as it might seem – and I apologize in advance for those who possess the cherished notion, I have discovered that people can and are killed by implements other than firearms. I realize how disconcerting such a revelation like that can be and that it can produce acute Cognitive Dissonance. Maybe, get up, step out to the kitchen and prepare yourself a soothing cup of Hot Cocoa. Alright, my progressive friends, feel a little better? Are your nerves stable enough to withstand evidence that demolishes your sense of reality?

Alright, for those of you who can handle the truth, here is what I discovered. Each of the following can be employed in the murder of a fellow human being:

• Explosives – 1927 – Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 44 dead
  
• Fire – Arson is the most common method of mass killings and the most prevalent. Countless victims
  
• Commercial Airliners and Boxcutters – September 11, 2001. 3,000 dead
  
• Gas – 125 killed in Moscow in 2002, by the Russian Government!
  
• Weaponized nerve agents – 1995 Sarin attack on Tokyo Subway – 13 dead
  
• Ammonium Nitrate (Garden Fertilizer) – 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. 186 dead
  
• Improvised Explosive Devices
  
• Swords
  
• Machetes
  
• Butcher Knives – 2010 in China; 6 Children and 2 Adults
  
• Automobiles
  
• Shoulder Fired Rockets
  
• Grenades
  
• Flamethrowers
  
• Axes
  
• Clubs
  
• Baseball bats
  
• Molotov cocktails
  
• Bows and Crossbows
  
• Chainsaws – Texas Chainsaw Massacre
  
• Drones – capable of killing dozens of civilians instantly
  
• Mines
  
• Mason Jar Grenades
  

Any and all of the above have been used to kill multiple human beings. Some of the items on this list are legal to own and some are illegal. The common denominator here is that none of them are guns. So, now that you’ve decided to ‘control’ or ban guns, you’ll also need to enact legislation to eliminate access to lawn fertilizer, kitchen knives, Baseball bats, Chainsaws, Compound bows, Automobiles, Swords, Machetes, Commercial Jets (actually aircraft of any type), Gasoline, Solvents and matches.

But wait, let’s not stop here. We want to prevent tragedies of all kinds, don’t we? There are many man made inventions and activities that can cause murderous impulses or result in unintended deaths. Let’s not forget to ban:

• Anti-depressants
  
• Alcohol (didn’t we try to get rid of that once before?) How did that work out?
  
• Video Games and Violent movies
  
• Death Metal and Punk music
  
• Dogs and other pets
  
• Islam – instructs followers to kill other human beings
  
• Smart phones
  
• Gay sex
  
• Rock Concerts – 1979, Riverfront Stadium, Cincinnati, OH. 11 dead from stampede.
  
• Swimming
  
• Bicycle riding
  
• Windows
  
• Stairs
  
• Gasoline pumps
  
• Skating
  
• Elevators
  
• Trains
  
• Soccer venues – 15 modern disasters, 1.252 dead
  
• Racing events (Auto, Boat, Off-road, Motorcycles)
  
• Air Shows
  
• Automobiles – 32,367 deaths in 2011. Nearly half a million in the past decade
  
• Bull Stampedes
  
• Horse Riding
  
• Boxing matches
  
• NFL Football games
  
• Skydiving, Bungee Jumping
  
• Amusement Parks
  
• Black Friday and After Holiday Shopping events
  
• Bus, Subway and Rail Transportation
  
• Suspension Bridges
  
• Cruise Ships
  
• Nuclear and Fossil fueled energy production.
  
• Skateboards
  
• Bathtubs (that’s O.K., we need to reduce out ‘Water footprint’ anyway.
  

Well, I think I’ve covered all the things we have to remove from society in order to be confident that we’ll be completely safe. Oh, dogg-gonnitt – I almost forgot one. Crazy people and Crime. Oops, another one – Abortion. That’s going to be a tough one. Hmm

How deliberately ridiculous you're being. The difference is, though, that many of the things you've listed (cruise ships, skateboards, etc.) are not designed to kill people. Deaths involving them are largely an accident. A number of other things (flamethrowers, grenades, shoulder fired rockets) are military weapons and employed to kill our enemies. No one advocating gun-control is suggesting that the military should disarm themselves. It is quite dishonest for you to even include those in your rant list.

Now, in general on your list, regarding all those things that can (either deliberately or accidentally) cause death, the difference is that we consider that to be an acceptable death rate. We consider it acceptable to, you know, keep our bathtubs legal even though it may result in a couple deaths a year. That's the difference. The number of deaths in the US as a result of firearms is not only considered unacceptable by the rest of the world, its also considered unacceptable by your own population as well. That's why whenever there's a school shooting, people don't just stop at "oh, thats a tragedy", they go on to discuss ways to prevent it from happening.

If you tell yourselves as well as the world that these school shootings are an acceptable price to pay for not having gun-control then, although we may look at you funny, we'll accept it and the debate will stop there --- but when you run around crying about how people keep dying because of guns and how unsafe your country is and how there might be a bad guy around every corner, don't turn around and b**** at us for giving you a suggestion.

Oh, and just to keep you sleeping easy at night, let me assure you that if bathtub related deaths ever reached levels not deemed acceptable, you can damn sure bet that something would be done about it quickly rather than an endlessly debating it akin to crossing your arms and pouting.

[AsteroidX]

And the consensus says ? bring it, No argument has held weight against what we say. Well maybe a few are still in discussion. But theres a consencus. FU Y

[Babe Ruth]

Couldnt agree about this more. The only ones that know the difference are the Judges themselves. But I would like to still see a striping of the books and rebuild them into a mamnageable and fun sense of rules. Otherwise dont need em. I can think of 2 Judges in my lifetime that I felt good with. Out of 10 or so. But then again part of the problem is they didnt even know me. Where is is that we should be prosecuted/attorneyed/judged/juried by a group of our non-peers. Just living in a multi million member community doesnt cut it. Justice should be handed out by people familiar with the individyual.

Think of it as spanking your kid for spitting gum on the sidewalk.

Yes, and it is from that sort of reasoning that we created the jury, of our peers.

[Babe Ruth]

Its too bad they didnt give you another amendment to protect you from yourselves.

Seriously, where is all this talk about guns being obtained illegally coming from? How does a would-be criminal, in the heat of the moment, desiring to kill someone (but not having done so yet), go and figure out how to illegally purchase a gun? I dont know how. Does he google "Illegal gun vendors in Ohio"? Does he go out on the street and look for someone carrying a sign that says "Illegal guns for sale"? Because thats what most of the anti gun control makes it sound like.

I believe that in 1776, the only way someone could sneak into a crowded area and kill 30 people in 5 minutes would be by carrying 30 firearms aswell...

Illegal firearms are purchased from the same general class of criminal that distributes illegal drugs. Black market. Unregulated.

[AsteroidX]

Illegal firearms are purchased from the same general class of criminal that distributes illegal drugs. Black market. Unregulated.

Yes and if the current policy by US Govt are continued and then enforced this trend will increase to as much as it can. Black Market guns will thrive under this coming policy.

[Stellar]

Illegal firearms are purchased from the same general class of criminal that distributes illegal drugs. Black market. Unregulated.

That doesnt answer my question. Where exactly can one go out and buy an illegal firearm? If you do not know, then may I suggest that most do not know either.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Stellar

[FLOMBIE]

He said it. At the black market. You seem to get just everything there, but somehow I cannot find that place on the map.

[Stellar]

He said it. At the black market. You seem to get just everything there, but somehow I cannot find that place on the map.

So you just follow the street signs to get to the black market? Telling me that you can get it from the "black market" is vague and no different than just telling me you can get it.

You act as if the black market will be advertised on every street corner if gun-control starts.

[FLOMBIE]

Heck, I have no idea where to get an illegal gun. My post was of a more sarcastic nature: I thought that would be obvious.

I do know a few places where I could start asking around, but that would more likely only get me in a lot of trouble.

[AsteroidX]

If there was ever a need the Black Market would be available. Its about supply and demand only. And armed.

[Stellar]

Heck, I have no idea where to get an illegal gun. My post was of a more sarcastic nature: I thought that would be obvious.

I do know a few places where I could start asking around, but that would more likely only get me in a lot of trouble.

And thats exactly my point. Most people have no idea where to get a gun illegally, so all this talk about how people will "just go buy guns illegally" is nonsense. Some will manage to do it, but most will not bother.