A belief in gun control

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by CrazedJava, Aug 14, 2014.

  1. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    In the past I was a big supporter of gun control. The problem with that was two-fold.

    1. I'm a big believer in the right to self defense. You can talk about the 2nd Amendment all you want, but even without the Constitution and the Bill of Rights I still believe it is a fundamental right to be able to defend yourself and your property. The only people who do not have a right to self defense are property and I'm pretty sure slavery was outlawed in this country.

    2. Over the years every piece of gun control that I thought was a good idea has been debunked. I won't go into detail here but what I believed did not align with the facts. I am a rational person but sometimes I hold strong opinions without all the facts. That just makes me human. As I uncover facts I find that my reasons for holding an opinion are no longer valid, so I re-evaluate and possibly change my opinion. I am now to the point that I can't think of any existing gun control laws that accomplish anything constructive or worthwhile.

    I do believe that no right is absolute. We have laws on the books around free speech, voting, searches, etc. Some of those laws are untenable but some of them are important to a functioning society.

    Here is my challenge to anyone proposing any new gun control.

    Show me how it makes us better. Quantify it. How does it make us safer and/or reduce violence? I don't want to hear about how it makes you feel, I don't want abstractions, I don't want anything that starts with "I think that...".

    Argue with facts, real facts and not made up or disproven numbers. Reality or it doesn't matter. If you can't argue with real numbers, real data, and without misrepresentation then your cause is not noble. If you have to lie, use emotional appeals, or resort to name-calling then you do not have the moral high ground.

    I am willing to give up part of my individuality for the greater good. I am not a selfish person. Well, I AM selfish but not so self-absorbed that I will put my own well being before the good of society.

    I am not comfortable with just anyone owning or carrying a gun. That's alright, the Bill of Rights doesn't say I have a right to be comfortable. The facts show that more guns equal less crime. If there are facts from current studies that counter this I'd like to see them. I will go with the facts even though they run counter to how I feel.

    I know some will flame me for ever having a pro-gun control stance and I know some will argue that under no circumstances should we have gun control. We don't live in a world of absolutes. I think the gun control agenda as it exists today has no basis in crime control. I believe it is about control but not in a way this country was founded on. I am not interested in telling people how they should defend themselves, I just believe they have the right and should be able to procure the means.

    Here's the point. I am willing to have a conversation on gun control with those that want it. Bring me the facts. If you can't do that, your cause is not just. It is that simple. If this were anything else, the right to free speech, the right to worship, your property, and someone was trying to take it away and they did so by providing lies and false information you would feel deceived. You would think the other party is in the wrong. If the gun control crowd wants us to listen, then quit trying to deceive us. The real reason why Everytown for Gun Safety and their ilk are run by upfront public relations professionals is that they have to spin the story. The next time someone who is a gun grabber wants to have a "conversation" with you, insist on them providing facts. Don't let them argue with emotion and if they use an outdated and debunked study, call them on it. Force them to argue with reason. Not so that they will change your mind but because it might actually change theirs if they bother to find out the real story.
     
  2. JCS53

    JCS53 That looks like it hurt Lifetime Supporter

    2,394
    0
    0
    All I can say is if you want BS talk to a Legislator or a dedicated Liberal. If you want the real world talk to Gun owners from either side that do not have anything invested in having gun control... or not having Gun control.
     

  3. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,022
    41
    48
    What are the facts. ?
     
  4. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    Let's use an example.

    Magazine capacity limits.

    How does a magazine capacity limit make us safer?

    A popular argument is that mass shooters would need to reload more often. Well, first of all, mass shooters are the exception and not the rule. More people will die in Chicago this weekend than in any mass shooting and mass shootings are not as common as the sensationalist media makes them out to be.

    Second, there have been mass shootings where the shooter had limited capacity magazines. That didn't stop them. Typically, mass shooters carry more than one weapon. Also, since they tend towards Gun Free Zones, reloading is not an issue. The idea you can "rush the shooter" is right out of Hollywood, not reality.

    Ok, so what about everyday criminals? Well, that doesn't really matter. Crimes are usually committed as one-to-one or many-to-one where the numbers favor the criminals. A criminal with a single-shot weapon against an unarmed victim has all the ammunition he needs.

    However, restricting magazine capacity does make citizens less safe. Again, this is not Hollywood. A 6 shot revolver does not mean I can take on 6 bad guys. I *MIGHT*, if I'm lucky, have enough shots to stop 2 attackers. Or, I might not even have enough to stop a single attacker without needing to reload. In that situation, the need to stop and reload may be deadly.

    A single armed aggressor against multiple unarmed defenders has an advantage and the luxury of reloading.

    A single armed defender does not have the luxury of reloading regardless of how their multiple assailants are armed.

    In other words, I cannot find anything quantifiable that would indicate magazine capacity limits would make anyone safer except criminals.

    Unless someone has facts that prove otherwise. Though considering the community I don't think anyone here will try to debunk me. :D

    (Sidenote: Capacity limits are a gun control item I NEVER supported)
     
  5. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    1
    0
    most gun controls laws are written to restrict a certain group of people from possessing firearms.

    in current times they use the notion that these gun control laws, restrictions or bans are in the interests of the public to deter criminal acts or to keep guns out of the hands of violent or deranged individuals. history has proven that to be false and misleading.

    not one gun control law ever passed has prevented or deterred criminal activity nor prevented criminals from obtaining a gun to be used in criminal act.

    gun control laws are about controlling groups of people from having guns. currently that group tends to be any LAC that wants to own a gun as the group they wish to control.

    our own government fears it's citizens because we are armed. look back in history and look at any country that enacted gun control laws, then registration and then confiscation and tell me they are citizens who enjoy the same freedoms as we do here, because we are armed.

    talking softly and carrying a big stick, go further than just talking softly.
     
  6. rn-cindy

    rn-cindy Active Member

    3,184
    6
    38
    Thank you for taking the time to write that very thoughtful post...Gun Control is a diversion.....It's already illegal to shoot / kill people. With any kind of gun..with any magazine capacity..Making all those type laws redundant.......You will get no flame from me.....:) Welcome to the other side.....
     
  7. AmPaTerry

    AmPaTerry Forum Chaplain Lifetime Supporter

    2,429
    72
    48
    I am a firm believer in gun control.
    A good two handed grip will get it every time - -
     
  8. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,820
    125
    63
    Glad you came around. :)
     
  9. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    Not to cherry-pick but the last domino to fall for me was background checks.

    I believed background checks were at least a deterrent and made it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons.

    Then the Washington Naval Yard shooting happened.

    The shooter had a history of violence but not convictions. His history still should have been known to investigators but they gave him a SECRET clearance anyway.

    Keeping in mind, a SECRET clearance is a more rigorous check into your history than most members here will ever go through.

    Well, after that I started paying attention and found out about conviction rates for people who were caught in a background check, and even the numbers of people who failed the check versus the numbers performed.

    A huge expensive system that catches a tiny fraction and punishes an even tinier fraction. A multi-million dollar boondoggle that accomplishes nothing.

    Background checks don't make us safer? They obviously don't stop criminals from getting guns. If you can get SECRET clearance you'll easily pass a normal background check for a firearm, but it won't stop you from shooting up a Federal facility.

    So now I don't even believe background checks are worthwhile.
     
  10. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    1
    0
    gun control is the ability to hit your intended target!:D
     
  11. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    We have legitimate Constitutional restriction of the 2A, Im pretty sure you have to be an adult citizen to be afforded the full power of the Constitution. Thats a law and I agree with that law, at 18, a citizen has the right to the full power of the constitution unless a court can prove otherwise.


    Its also reasonable to restrict and or prohibit some rights while a person is being legally detained by LEO's, Under court ordered restrictions of freedom (incarcerated, Probated or other ongoing punishment) or deemed a Danger to themselves and others via a fair and very thorough assessment by respected professionals without an anti 2A agenda (easy to say but prolly as scarce as hens teeth). We have a thing called a PINS Petition, Persons in need of supervision, its not an easy thing to get on an adult and it shouldnt be but its a legitimate method of affirming control over someone that cant be trusted not to harm themselves and others. That one will draw fire from both sides but to be fair, Gun access isnt the only danger from the folks Im talking about, we need to be ready to mitigate more than firearm risks from folks that screwed up that they pose a risk to specific or non folks by existing in public unrestrained.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2014
  12. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,022
    41
    48
    I would agree they don't have magazine limits even in the gun unfriendly UK. I don't see the logic behind it.
     
  13. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    I just wonder how government control of an inanimate object (like a firearm), will make us safer?
     
  14. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,820
    125
    63
    Why do handgun sales require the purchaser to be at least 21?
    Aren't underage adults in the military and police issued sidearms?
     
  15. Defiant_one

    Defiant_one New Member

    559
    0
    0
    Your answer is here

    There are no quantifiable facts - Quantitative research involves analysis of numerical data - numerical statistics are irrelevant as the results are ignored. In their minds, one is too many.

    Gun control initiatives are knee jerk reactions to a basically unsolvable issue - violence. They are no more effective in preventing gun violence as restraining orders are in stopping assaults. The data and the methods are similar. Severity of either does not hamper or prevent the small percentage of those who don't care what the law is or the ramifications and acts out.

    So here is the situation. Gun crimes happen. Car accidents happen. Knife violence. Air crashes. Falling in the shower. In all of those cases, with the exception of guns, no one advocates banning them. Why ?

    Guns are foreign to many - they don't have a place in the anti-advocate life. All they see is the net result of a small percentage but want to penalize all. They know cars, knives, airplanes, showers. Guns (to them) seem unnecessary. So since they kill and are unnecessary, ban them.

    That's not me. That's the psychology of the situation. Its not really about the small restrictions. Those are knee jerk half measures by politicians who want to placate the anti's but know the fight they would lose if they called for an all out ban. Not a single mag restriction, permit restriction, weapon type restriction has prevented the occasional nutter or criminal from shooting someone.

    Sorry this is so long...But it is reality. It TICKS me off...and sometimes I don't know how to fight it anymore...politicians don't listen. Anti's don't listen. I would just love for SCOTUS to lay down the law and slam some states.
     
  16. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    Defiant_one,

    I feel your frustration. I usually don't bother to engage unless someone is a fence-sitter who might be leaning anti-gun.

    So far no luck with this new tactic. Haven't tried it on more than one person but they mostly just excused themselves and walked away mumbling. If nothing else it saved me a long debate.

    We're always looking for a new tactic but can't use emotional appeals as well, so I quit letting them do it. It takes too long to argue against emotion, so instead I am going to challenge them to defend their argument. I suspect many will just refuse to engage but it may just convince some that I'm more trouble than I'm worth to argue with about guns.

    I'm not really pro-gun, I'm pro-self defense and anti-tyranny. Some of my anti-gun friends and family don't understand the difference. I enjoy shooting but a hobby is not a right, so I never try to defend it as such. Firearms just happen to be the great equalizer, but if something comes along that is better for personal defense I would advocate it as well.
     
  17. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    Me neither Manta!

    In NY, 7 is safe, 8 is dangerous! In IN VA, 20 rounds makes your Weapon an Assault Weapon and restrict-able, in Maine, over 5 rounds in an "Auto Loader" and restrictions come in, 7 other states have restrictions of one kind or another that try to lead us to believe were safer if criminals (that follow the law) dont have 5 or more bullets in their gun. No more mass killings, only 5 shots! Thats awesome right?
     
  18. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    1
    0
    people still can slip through a background check. if a person has a clear criminal record, never been confined for mental illness, and walks into a gun store and appears sane, what's t stop him from getting a gun? nothing and he could be loonier than a fruit loop as well.

    point is, not even a background check is going to stop all deranged or violent people from committing criminal or violent acts with guns.

    gun control laws, magazine restrictions, bans on so-called "assault" rifles or those that have features of "assault" weapons, background checks, or waiting periods or any of that other garbage will stop criminal acts from occurring. it never has, and it never will.

    i have said this before, but it may need repeating. even if guns were never invented, or every gun on the face of the earth were to disappear, violent crime would still exist. it existed before guns were invented, it's just that guns are more efficient means of killing. guns were never the problem, and still aren't. what is the problem are some people.
     
  19. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,022
    41
    48
    True , I was surprised to see information on a butler creek magazine I bought for my 10/22 listing some American states it was not to be sold in.
     
  20. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,721
    61
    48
    CrazedJava,

    There is NOTHING repeat NOTHING in this universe that can make you "safe" or "unsafe". "Safety" is an entirely fictional human brain notional concept that revolves around the not so bright idea that there is a state of being whereby you can't be adversely physically or emotionally affected by something or someone.

    If "safety" ever existed, there would be some physical evidence that we could throw in a bucket, which is always the case when a real versus fictional concept exists. For instance, we can throw the number of cases where someone was shot by a criminal in a bucket; the number of people shot can be quantified. "Safety" can't be quantified because it doesn't exist.

    Regarding facts, no one can point to any "gun control" measure that has reduced violence. Violence may involve other forms of combative behavior that may or may not be as lethal as violence perpetrated with firearms, but the violence doesn't go away, even if firearms are totally removed from a society. Since firearms have never been totally removed from society since they were created, the notion that this is possible has never been proven. In other words, it's technically possible but it has also never been done. Even if it were done, interpersonal violence would not magically increase or decrease, except for violence perpetrated with firearms.

    Regarding "gun control", the operative term in that equally fictitious notional human brain construct is "control". There is no such thing as "control" in the nominative case. You can't "control" anything or anyone anymore than you can jump off a building and fly but that doesn't stop people from believing that they can.

    Regarding magazine capacity limitations, it does nothing to stop crimes. A person intent on committing a mass murder with a firearm would simply buy and carry more magazines and/or more firearms.

    Firearms are an equalizer in interpersonal violence that would otherwise not exist. A woman (or child) can receive all the martial arts training or primitive weapons training she wants, that's not going to make her as strong as a man or capable of taking the same amount of punishment in a fight as a man. It is certainly not going to make her capable of taking on multiple men that are twice her size. That's Hollywood bovine excrement. There's simply no such thing as a "fair" fight in real life, which is why I always recommend training with and carrying a firearm after you've had basic hand-to-hand combat training.

    So, from my perspective, protecting my woman and children, especially against multiple assailants, outweighs whatever moral or "safety" conundrum exists in the willfully ignorant brains of the liberals/progressives who want to enact laws that will ultimately inhibit or prevent them or me from using the most effective means to kill anyone who attempts to assault them.

    I could care less if liberals/progressives are not intelligent enough to defend themselves or prefer to live their lives as victims of whatever criminal or group of criminals decides that they should be a victim. I have a big problem when they try to force their inexcusably poor decision making on everyone else.

    When the number of people murdered with rifles and shotguns exceeds the number of people murdered with blunt objects (clubs, hammers, and rocks), we can have a conversation about what possible positive effects may result from magazine capacity restrictions or what types of rifles or shotguns someone can legally purchase. Until that comes to pass, I see little point in wasting time legislating whether or not a rifle has 10 or 30 rounds of ammunition in it when more people are murdered with construction tools every year than with rifles and shotguns of any type or magazine capacity.

    America has real problems, but firearms aren't anywhere near the top of the list.

    When we come up with a solution for obesity, heart disease, cancer, medical malpractice, and drugs (legal or otherwise) we can then focus on how best to prevent firearms related deaths. Until then, why not focus on what actually kills the most Americans, by an incredibly wide margin, every single year?

    Lastly, guns are not for everyone. If anyone can't keep their hands to their self or only take what they've been given, then guns are probably not for them. If the thought of shooting someone or being shot is not something someone can live with, then probably not for them. If someone is incapable of personal responsibility, then guns are probably not for them.