• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Islamic Dilemma

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But it would still take a lot of effort to get a gun, and a lot of people who commit gun crimes aren't career criminals who would put that much advance thought into getting a gun if it wasn't so easy. Sure the Bloods and Crips will still have and be able to get guns, but they're not currently getting into shootouts with everyday people. What disarming the general population would do would be to prevent the regular dude who just snaps and shoots someone because he would normally get in a fistfight with them (or just even give them the finger) but instead shoots them because a gun is nearby and he is really pissed and not thinking clearly. And I think those types of pissed off shootings are far more common than actual premeditated, planned-out shootings. So I think most people not living in criminal circles would be safer.
Click to expand...

You remove that random guy gets so pissed off that he gets his gun and kills someone shooting. But you also remove all self defense that a gun owner has. You give criminals near 100 percent certainty that if they show up at your house at night that you will be unarmed.

I don't think this is a worthwhile trade. I think that the guy who snaps and is willing to go and get his gun and shoot you, but is not so angry that he will find a lead pipe or a knife or will wait for you with his car to run you over is a pretty small percentage of killings. Most likely a guy who would do that is rather predisposed to committing a violent act anyway.
 
Deacon923 said:
I think this is absolutely the case. Also, significant benefits to lowering accidental deaths from unsecured guns and suicide deaths.
Click to expand...

Suicide by gun would definitely go down dramatically. I am not sure it would have a large impact on overall suicides. Pills and tall places and CO2 all pretty easy ways to commit suicide without getting to creative.
 
TownieDeac said:
take the L, knowell
Click to expand...

Thanks townieboy. You don't get points for being in the majority. Does show lack of ability to think outside the box.

You got anything to add to the conversation beside grammar corrections and declarations of victory?

Didn't think so.
 
I think that the death and injury rate of fracases involving guns has to be higher than those involving a lead pipe. I would feel pretty good about my chances getting away from someone trying to hit me with a lead pipe but if they can just shoot me in the back while I'm running away that's a lot harder to avoid.

Great post from 2&2
 
knowell said:
Thanks townieboy. You don't get points for being in the majority. Does show lack of ability to think outside the box.

You got anything to add to the conversation beside grammar corrections and declarations of victory?

Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the OP strongly. Islam has a Western problem, not the other way around.

And you're simply nuts about guns. I have no interest discussing them with you because you're crazy if you believe the things you say.
 
knowell said:
You remove that random guy gets so pissed off that he gets his gun and kills someone shooting. But you also remove all self defense that a gun owner has. You give criminals near 100 percent certainty that if they show up at your house at night that you will be unarmed.

I don't think this is a worthwhile trade. I think that the guy who snaps and is willing to go and get his gun and shoot you, but is not so angry that he will find a lead pipe or a knife or will wait for you with his car to run you over is a pretty small percentage of killings. Most likely a guy who would do that is rather predisposed to committing a violent act anyway.
Click to expand...

Not really. Most reasonable gun control proposals have exceptions for hunting weapons. As a gun owner, if someone were to break into my house tonight I'm reaching for my shotgun anyway, not my H&K, and the sound is going to scare most thieves away without ever having to pull the trigger. So if you really want something for home protection you're likely able to get it anyway. But not too many impulse dust-ups result in someone getting pissed and pulling a 30 ought 6 out of their pants or from under their car seat and doing the same primary and collateral damage that comes from a 17+1 semi auto pistol magazine.
 
knowell said:
Suicide by gun would definitely go down dramatically. I am not sure it would have a large impact on overall suicides. Pills and tall places and CO2 all pretty easy ways to commit suicide without getting to creative.
Click to expand...
Pills and tall buildings and lengths of hose aren't exactly "easy" ways to commit suicide. In fact, they all take some degree of planning and premeditation beyond pulling the trigger. Also, sometimes they don't die.
 
knowell said:
You remove that random guy gets so pissed off that he gets his gun and kills someone shooting. But you also remove all self defense that a gun owner has. You give criminals near 100 percent certainty that if they show up at your house at night that you will be unarmed.

I don't think this is a worthwhile trade. I think that the guy who snaps and is willing to go and get his gun and shoot you, but is not so angry that he will find a lead pipe or a knife or will wait for you with his car to run you over is a pretty small percentage of killings. Most likely a guy who would do that is rather predisposed to committing a violent act anyway.
Click to expand...

The validity of your argument regarding the self-defense interest of the law-abiding gun-toting defender has an extremely weak foundation.

First, we have to consider how likely it is that a law-abiding person would actually need to defend him/herself. A very, very large percentage of gun violence victims have criminal records, the majority of them extensive criminal records. Example. A law-abiding person not involved in the drug trade has a very, very low chance of being a victim of gun violence. Importantly, those persons who are law abiding and get killed by guns are generally killed by a domestic partner or in an accident or suicide. So, there is an issue here of balancing the liberty interests of these purported law abiding defenders, who in reality are very rare, against the liberty interest of the rest of us in our lives not being threatened by the free availability of guns.

Second, you are clinging to an assumption that making guns harder to get legally will result in some kind of arms imbalance between criminals and non-criminals. So how do these hypothetical criminals get their guns?

(Hint: review the rates of gun crime in countries where it is hard to get a gun legally)

Pretty much every gun ever used by a criminal began life as a legally purchased weapon. From there, they get into the hands of criminals because the non-criminal who bought it became a criminal by using it, (b) sold it or gave it away to someone who shouldn't have it, directly or indirectly, or (c) had it stolen from him by a criminal. The entire rest of the civilized world has proven that reducing legal access to guns does not increase gun crime, it decreases it. This is not a pie in the sky liberal hypothetical. This is an actual real world observed and verifiable result.

Unlike booze, cocaine, marijuana, and heroine, guns (or the ingredients to make guns) don't just grow out of the ground. A couple of your posts have attempted to draw a false equivalence between drug/alcohol bans and gun bans. They are nothing alike. In countries with strong gun laws, the black market in guns barely exists and a criminal has to be very, very motivated to get his hands on one.
 
TownieDeac said:
I disagree with the OP strongly. Islam has a Western problem, not the other way around.

And you're simply nuts about guns. I have no interest discussing them with you because you're crazy if you believe the things you say.
Click to expand...

How millennial of you. Feelings mutual.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Not really. Most reasonable gun control proposals have exceptions for hunting weapons. As a gun owner, if someone were to break into my house tonight I'm reaching for my shotgun anyway, not my H&K, and the sound is going to scare most thieves away without ever having to pull the trigger. So if you really want something for home protection you're likely able to get it anyway. But not too many impulse dust-ups result in someone getting pissed and pulling a 30 ought 6 out of their pants or from under their car seat and doing the same primary and collateral damage that comes from a 17+1 semi auto pistol magazine.
Click to expand...

The conversation was about banning all guns, not certain ones.
 
I'd be ok with researching methods of making firearms that only work in your own home. Still too many kids will die from accidents, but it seems a compromise for home defense vs. public safety. Doesn't seem like that technology should be impossible or unrealistic.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I'd be ok with researching methods of making firearms that only work in your own home. Still too many kids will die from accidents, but it seems a compromise for home defense vs. public safety. Doesn't seem like that technology should be impossible or unrealistic.
Click to expand...

It already exists. It's called geofencing. The technical wizardry that enables it can fit inside a smartphone so I'm sure it could fit into a reasonably sized gun and linked up to the firing mechanism.
 
Deacon923 said:
The validity of your argument regarding the self-defense interest of the law-abiding gun-toting defender has an extremely weak foundation.

First, we have to consider how likely it is that a law-abiding person would actually need to defend him/herself. A very, very large percentage of gun violence victims have criminal records, the majority of them extensive criminal records. Example. A law-abiding person not involved in the drug trade has a very, very low chance of being a victim of gun violence. Importantly, those persons who are law abiding and get killed by guns are generally killed by a domestic partner or in an accident or suicide. So, there is an issue here of balancing the liberty interests of these purported law abiding defenders, who in reality are very rare, against the liberty interest of the rest of us in our lives not being threatened by the free availability of guns.

Second, you are clinging to an assumption that making guns harder to get legally will result in some kind of arms imbalance between criminals and non-criminals. So how do these hypothetical criminals get their guns?

(Hint: review the rates of gun crime in countries where it is hard to get a gun legally)

Pretty much every gun ever used by a criminal began life as a legally purchased weapon. From there, they get into the hands of criminals because the non-criminal who bought it became a criminal by using it, (b) sold it or gave it away to someone who shouldn't have it, directly or indirectly, or (c) had it stolen from him by a criminal. The entire rest of the civilized world has proven that reducing legal access to guns does not increase gun crime, it decreases it. This is not a pie in the sky liberal hypothetical. This is an actual real world observed and verifiable result.

Unlike booze, cocaine, marijuana, and heroine, guns (or the ingredients to make guns) don't just grow out of the ground. A couple of your posts have attempted to draw a false equivalence between drug/alcohol bans and gun bans. They are nothing alike. In countries with strong gun laws, the black market in guns barely exists and a criminal has to be very, very motivated to get his hands on one.
Click to expand...

I am not against making guns more difficult to obtain or even making some unavailable. This discussion was about guns being illegal.

There is a big difference.
 
Deacon923 said:
It already exists. It's called geofencing. The technical wizardry that enables it can fit inside a smartphone so I'm sure it could fit into a reasonably sized gun and linked up to the firing mechanism.
Click to expand...

They also can make guns that can only be fired by the owner, by being within close proximity to a ring or the like. I am not against anything of this sort.
 
knowell said:
I am not against making guns more difficult to obtain or even making some unavailable. This discussion was about guns being illegal.

There is a big difference.
Click to expand...

OK. Well, they're basically completely illegal in Japan, and there is essentially no gun crime in Japan. So if you want to talk about a complete gun ban, my post still applies with full force.
 
Deacon923 said:
OK. Well, they're basically completely illegal in Japan, and there is essentially no gun crime in Japan. So if you want to talk about a complete gun ban, my post still applies with full force.
Click to expand...

Was there a time when there were more guns than people in Japan? Do you think banning guns in the US would have similar results to Japan? There are quite a few cultural differences. Specially in regards to respect for authority. How does their crime rate compare to ours irrespective of guns?
 
you've gotta learn your to/too and there/their/they're differences, knowell, i beg you
 
TownieDeac said:
you've gotta learn your to/too and there/their/they're differences, knowell, i beg you
Click to expand...

Thanks, teach. I will work on my grammar and punctuation.

Mocksville, from the other board was my tutor for a while, so I think I am doing great.

Plus, if it really annoys you, at least I am accomplishing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top