Another school shooting sigh Edit - looks like more than school (1 Viewer)

[Hawkeye21]

For the guys wanting to ban all guns, do you know that in the state of PA, you can go hunting with a modern flintlock rifle? Or even with a modern muzzleloader? You want to include those in the ban too?

Or how about a shotgun that you have to open the breech to reload? Those too?

I mean, are we really talking about all guns or just some guns drawn at some hypothetical line? Because these types of guns seem like they would do less damage than a knife in a crowded room.

Muzzleloaders are used in many states for hunting.  My in-laws deer hunt with them every year and their is a specific season just for using them.

The 2nd amendment would have to be completely changed to do this too because it would have nothing to do with the original purpose of it.  The original purpose has nothing to do with hunting so basically it would be changed to only allow specific guns for hunting purposes since those types of guns would not do any good for forming a militia against a tyrannical government. 

 

[Politician Spock]

We're not talking about who we wanted as President.  This is much, much bigger than that.  There is a percentage of those gun owners who are not just going to hand over their guns.  You're going to see a lot of people now labeled as criminals now that it's illegal to own them. 

Yes. Intentionally breaking the law is pretty much what makes a criminal a criminal. 

You'll most likely see more violence for a time as some fight to keep their guns.  You'll also still have the black market for guns and that's going to become very dangerous as guns become more valuable.

Which is a added deterrent to those seeking to obtain them. 

As much as I am against it I would hand over my guns because I don't want to go to jail but I would not be happy about it. I also would not feel as safe without having a gun but that's just my own feeling.  I know it's unlikely I would ever need it for that purpose but I still like knowing I have it, just like insurance.

The fact that one third of 4% (around 1.3%) of the population owns 48% of the guns in the world is evidence of irrationality within that 1.3%. Such as irrational fear. 

I recognize your fear, as well as that of everyone else who owns guns. And to be honest, if the US had only 5%, or maybe even 10% of the worlds guns, I wouldn't be taking the position I'm taking. It's because it's 48% that I believe we need a much bigger solution than more gun laws.   

 

[Hawkeye21]

Here's one scenario that I could see as very possible if guns suddenly became banned.  This was taken from another site.

"Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted."

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's one scenario that I could see as very possible if guns suddenly became banned.  This was taken from another site.

"Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted."

Yep. Irrational people tend to behave irrationally. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

Yep. Irrational people tend to behave irrationally. 

That may be but it could happen.  There are many people who may feel you're being irrational by saying all guns should be banned.

 

[Politician Spock]

That may be but it could happen.  There are many people who may feel you're being irrational by saying all guns should be banned.

If there was a need for guns, then it would be irrational to not provide for that need. 

In the 18th century there was a need for guns. In 2017, there's not. The 2nd amendment provided for the need that states have to protect themselves with more than just pitchforks. Today, the guns the populace owns are less effective in 2017 warfare than pitchforks were in 1791 warfare. If we as a country were still protecting the need that the 2nd amendment actually protected, then the definition of "arms" would include tanks, artillery, jets, helicopters, destroyers, aircraft carriers, submarines, drones, and even nuclear weapons. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

If there was a need for guns, then it would be irrational to not provide for that need. 

In the 18th century there was a need for guns. In 2017, there's not. The 2nd amendment provided for the need that states have to protect themselves with more than just pitchforks. Today, the guns the populace owns are less effective in 2017 warfare than pitchforks were in 1791 warfare. If we as a country were still protecting the need that the 2nd amendment actually protected, then the definition of "arms" would include tanks, artillery, jets, helicopters, destroyers, aircraft carriers, submarines, drones, and even nuclear weapons. 

Why isn't there a need for guns?  I haven't seen a good answer for that yet.

What happens if there comes a time when citizens do need guns but we don't have any because they were taken away?  You can't just say it won't happen and that it's just an irrational fear.

 

[Politician Spock]

Why isn't there a need for guns?   I haven't seen a good answer for that yet.

That's like asking why isn't there a god. If there's a need, then prove it. Don't ask me to prove a negative. 

What happens if there comes a time when citizens do need guns but we don't have any because they were taken away?  You can't just say it won't happen and that it's just an irrational fear.

And what would a situation where citizens need guns look like? Being fearful of the unknown is a textbook example of irrational fear.

 

[Hawkeye21]

That's like asking why isn't there a god. If there's a need, then prove it. Don't ask me to prove a negative. 

And what would a situation where citizens need guns look like? Being fearful of the unknown is a textbook example of irrational fear.

Home invasion.  I don't think that's an irrational fear since that does happen. 

I know guns are not always necessary for hunting but I feel banning them would mess a lot of things up. 

There are some very unlikely instances but I don't think they need to be called irrational fear.

If I lived in an area that an natural disaster took place I know I would feel much safer with a gun.

 

[kface]

Home invasion.  I don't think that's an irrational fear since that does happen. 

I know guns are not always necessary for hunting but I feel banning them would mess a lot of things up. 

There are some very unlikely instances but I don't think they need to be called irrational fear.

If I lived in an area that an natural disaster took place I know I would feel much safer with a gun.

And that's just it with gun people...they are scared.  It's hard to change an opinion, no matter how rational, when people are operating from a place of fear.  

 

[Politician Spock]

Home invasion.  I don't think that's an irrational fear since that does happen. 

I know guns are not always necessary for hunting but I feel banning them would mess a lot of things up. 

There are some very unlikely instances but I don't think they need to be called irrational fear.

If I lived in an area that an natural disaster took place I know I would feel much safer with a gun.

Actually, yes, the supposed "need" for a gun to protect against home invasion is irrational. Just because something happens doesn't mean protecting against it is rational. If the act of protecting against it actually increases overall risks, then the decision is irrational if the intent of the decision is to make you and your family safer. I forget what thread it was in (maybe even this one), but I showed statistically that homes with guns have an increased risk of suicide deaths, which alone was a higher risk than the risk of home invasions that result in deadly force being used by the invader (note: deadly force is in most states required before shooting an invader is legal). I could have shown other increased risks (domestic shootings, accidents, theft,...) but that wasn't necessary given the risk of a family member committing suicide was enough to show owning a gun increased risk in the home. 

Thank you for agreeing that guns are not "needed" for hunting. 

Again, I have no problem for someone protecting against unlikely things. If someone wants to do some of the things shown on Doomsday Preppers, a lot of what they do wouldn't be irrational. But some of it is when they do things that actually increase their risks overall when their intent is to reduce it. It's when that happens that the behavior becomes irrational. 

As for being in an area where a natural disaster took place, given we live in a country that has 48% of the guns, anyone who would want to come and steal your resources will likely be armed too. Living in a country that is far too saturated with guns is a bigger problem than being in an area that suffered a natural disaster, because the saturation of guns extends to everything, including creating a anarchy of armed citizens after natural disasters. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

And that's just it with gun people...they are scared.  It's hard to change an opinion, no matter how rational, when people are operating from a place of fear.  

I don't feel that ex-military people are scared.  There are many people that strongly believe in our Constitution and will fight back to keep it unchanged.

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't feel that ex-military people are scared.  There are many people that strongly believe in our Constitution and will fight back to keep it unchanged.

And that's just another form of irrationality.

Why do we assume that people who lived in 1791 know how to better deal with 2017 issues than we who are living in it do?

 

[kface]

I don't feel that ex-military people are scared.  There are many people that strongly believe in our Constitution and will fight back to keep it unchanged.

The point i hear the most is that i fell safer with a gun.  What if someone breaks into my house?  What if there is a disaster?  What if there is a shooter?  Those are all positions based out of fear.  Sure there are some people that just believe the 2nd Amendment gives them pure unadulterated rights to whatever they want but those are in the minority from what i hear

 

[kface]

I don't feel that ex-military people are scared.  There are many people that strongly believe in our Constitution and will fight back to keep it unchanged.

And with the level of PTSD and trauma in the military, I think a lot of ex-military guys are very scared.  

 

[Hawkeye21]

And with the level of PTSD and trauma in the military, I think a lot of ex-military guys are very scared.  

There are certainly a large amount who are.  I would consider many to be irrational.

 

[KCitons]

Yep. Irrational people tend to behave irrationally. 

Serious question. What is the difference between banning guns and banning alcohol? 

A lot if your same posts here could be applied to alcohol related deaths.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Serious question. What is the difference between banning guns and banning alcohol? 

A lot if your same posts here could be applied to alcohol related deaths.

Doesn't really compare to killing other people though.  No one is going to kill a large group of people with alcohol.

 

[kface]

Doesn't really compare to killing other people though.  No one is going to kill a large group of people with alcohol.

And there are a ton of rules and regulations around alcohol.  You can drink and carry a gun in most states but you can't get into a car for example

 

[Hawkeye21]

And there are a ton of rules and regulations around alcohol.  You can drink and carry a gun in most states but you can't get into a car for example

You can drink and then drive legally, you just can't be over the limit.  I believe it's the same for guns in the majority of states as well.

I would be in favor of more regulations for guns, similar to alcohol.

 

[Politician Spock]

Serious question. What is the difference between banning guns and banning alcohol? 

A lot if your same posts here could be applied to alcohol related deaths.

I don't see the point of comparing the two. As I said before, if Americans only owned 5%, or even 10% of the guns in the world, I wouldn't be taking the position I am now. The problem is not guns. The problem is our over-saturation of them. 

If 48% of the drunks in the world existed in the US, then I'd have similar concern. 

 

[KCitons]

I don't see the point of comparing the two. As I said before, if Americans only owned 5%, or even 10% of the guns in the world, I wouldn't be taking the position I am now. The problem is not guns. The problem is our over-saturation of them. 

If 48% of the drunks in the world existed in the US, then I'd have similar concern. 

My point was in reference to you asking when enough is enough. When it happens every day? 

People die every day as a result of drunk drivers. Not to mention the number of people that did because the fell off a balcony or something else. 

I guess only gun deaths count when it comes to outright banning items.

 

[Politician Spock]

My point was in reference to you asking when enough is enough. When it happens every day? 

People die every day as a result of drunk drivers. Not to mention the number of people that did because the fell off a balcony or something else. 

I guess only gun deaths count when it comes to outright banning items.

If you can show me that the US is suffering from alcohol at a rate multiple times higher than any other country in the world, then I would consider comparing them. As of 2016, 31% of all mass shootings in the world occur in the US, and 2017 is going to bump that percent even higher. So will 2018. So will 2019. So will 2020.... The closest other country to us in 2016 is 6%. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

My point was in reference to you asking when enough is enough. When it happens every day? 

People die every day as a result of drunk drivers. Not to mention the number of people that did because the fell off a balcony or something else. 

I guess only gun deaths count when it comes to outright banning items.

I'm not sure this is a very good argument.  I think every person has the right to do what they want to themselves, for the most part.  If you want to smoke giving yourself cancer or drink yourself to death then go right ahead.  The issue starts when that affects other people.  No one has the right to affect other people in that way.  Drinking is something you do to yourself, not like taking a gun and shooting others with it.  The only thing I could see being comparable is if someone forced a bunch of people to drink until they died.

 

[kface]

I'm not sure this is a very good argument.  I think every person has the right to do what they want to themselves, for the most part.  If you want to smoke giving yourself cancer or drink yourself to death then go right ahead.  The issue starts when that affects other people.  No one has the right to affect other people in that way.  Drinking is something you do to yourself, not like taking a gun and shooting others with it.  The only thing I could see being comparable is if someone forced a bunch of people to drink until they died.

We are banned in this country from even studying the issue or researching solutions (which is just so incredible that anyone puts up with that).  If you were able to sue gun manufacturers or stores or whatever, things would change quickly in regards to how safe guns were.  

 

[EYLive]

Oh boy, back to the terrible drunk driving analogy. 

 

[EYLive]

I don't have an answer for that yet.  What happens if mass killings do not drastically drop after all guns are banned?  What if the people who want to kill find another way to do it, do we ban whatever they used for that?  What if an entire black market for gun manufacturing happens and the people who want to kill still get their hands on guns?

I know these are just hypothetical but it's possible.  Are we going to be able to go back to having guns sales again? 

If mass killings don't drastically drop over the course of several decades then we're no worse off then where we are now. Even if innocent deaths moderately drop, it'll be worth it. I value human life over a hobby.
I bet 99% of gun owners are safe and responsible, but the 1% has ruined the privilege for everyone else that enjoys shooting for sport or hunting. 

 

[KCitons]

Oh boy, back to the terrible drunk driving analogy. 

Just want to make sure I understand this:

-Guns do not serve any purpose in society, but alcohol does?

-We want to ban guns because they lead to deaths, but alcohol does not? Our sole concern with banning guns is to save lives. As Politician Spock asked, "what frequency do we need to get to before people care?" I would ask what frequency of gun deaths would be acceptable? My guess is most would say zero, that's why they want to ban guns. But, what frequency of drunk driving deaths do we need to get to before people care? How about one every 51 minutes? Shouldn't we be striving for zero there as well?

-When I mentioned banning alcohol, someone countered with the 18th Amendment. When posters counter the gun ban with the 2nd Amendment, they are considered gun nuts. 

-When I mentioned banning alcohol, someone countered with the economic impact it would have. When I asked about the economic impact a ban on guns would have to hunting suppliers, state revenue, and local communities, I'm told that's a ridiculous argument and not important.  

Hypocrisy at it's finest. You don't care about all lives, just this subset.  

 

[KCitons]

If mass killings don't drastically drop over the course of several decades then we're no worse off then where we are now. Even if innocent deaths moderately drop, it'll be worth it. I value human life over a hobby.
I bet 99% of gun owners are safe and responsible, but the 1% has ruined the privilege for everyone else that enjoys shooting for sport or hunting. 

What percentage of drinkers would you say are safe and responsible??

 

[Politician Spock]

Just want to make sure I understand this:

-Guns do not serve any purpose in society, but alcohol does?

-We want to ban guns because they lead to deaths, but alcohol does not? Our sole concern with banning guns is to save lives. As Politician Spock asked, "what frequency do we need to get to before people care?" I would ask what frequency of gun deaths would be acceptable? My guess is most would say zero, that's why they want to ban guns. But, what frequency of drunk driving deaths do we need to get to before people care? How about one every 51 minutes? Shouldn't we be striving for zero there as well?

-When I mentioned banning alcohol, someone countered with the 18th Amendment. When posters counter the gun ban with the 2nd Amendment, they are considered gun nuts. 

-When I mentioned banning alcohol, someone countered with the economic impact it would have. When I asked about the economic impact a ban on guns would have to hunting suppliers, state revenue, and local communities, I'm told that's a ridiculous argument and not important.  

Hypocrisy at it's finest. You don't care about all lives, just this subset.  

I've made my point very clear that I wouldn't have this issue if our mass shootings stats were similar to other countries. As it stands now, we have a problem that no other country has, or even comes to close to having. If that somehow makes me a hypocrite in your eyes because of "alcohol", then so be it. It's just you holding onto a ridiculous argument. 

 

[KCitons]

I've made my point very clear that I wouldn't have this issue if our mass shootings stats were similar to other countries. As it stands now, we have a problem that no other country has, or even comes to close to having. If that somehow makes me a a hypocrite in your eyes because of "alcohol", then so be it. It's just you holding onto a ridiculous argument. 

So, you're only concerned with stats compared to other countries? Not saving lives. Got it. 

 

[Politician Spock]

I've made my point very clear that I wouldn't have this issue if our mass shootings stats were similar to other countries. As it stands now, we have a problem that no other country has, or even comes to close to having. If that somehow makes me a hypocrite in your eyes because of "alcohol", then so be it. It's just you holding onto a ridiculous argument. 

So, you're only concerned with stats compared to other countries? Not saving lives. Got it. 

Thanks for confirming the bolded. 

 

[KCitons]

Thanks for confirming the bolded. 

You're welcome. Thanks for confirming my point as well. 

Edit: BTW, what is the acceptable number of gun related deaths in your opinion? And how do you achieve that number?

 

[Politician Spock]

You're welcome. Thanks for confirming my point as well. 

There is no solution that is going to save all lives. But our problem is so ridiculously worse than the rest of the world that we can save a ton of lives by doing this, even if it means we don't save them all. 

 

[KCitons]

There is no solution that is going to save all lives. But our problem is so ridiculously worse than the rest of the world that we can save a ton of lives by doing this, even if it means we don't save them all. 

Please see my edit above. Curious how you answer.

 

[KCitons]

Also, if you ban all guns how are you going to get them off the street? Who pays for the gun buy back program? Are you going to tax me to buy back my gun?

 

[Politician Spock]

Please see my edit above. Curious how you answer.

It's a loaded question, because "acceptable" can be interpreted multiple ways. I feel the US should not be ridiculously higher than the rest of the world. But that doesn't mean if we lower it to a similar level that I find that level of deaths "acceptable". It simply means were now suffering from the same problems as the rest of the world, and not our over saturation of guns problem anymore. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, if you ban all guns how are you going to get them off the street? Who pays for the gun buy back program? Are you going to tax me to buy back my gun?

No one is going to buy back your gun. You can sue those who sold it to you if you want. 

 

[KCitons]

It's a loaded question, because "acceptable" can be interpreted multiple ways. I feel the US should not be ridiculously higher than the rest of the world. But that doesn't mean if we lower it to a similar level that I find that level of deaths "acceptable". It simply means were now suffering from the same problems as the rest of the world, and not our over saturation of guns problem anymore. 

The why ban all guns. Why not take other measures to bring that level down instead?

 

[KCitons]

No one is going to buy back your gun. You can sue those who sold it to you if you want. 

Then you're proposing the government confiscate your gun? 

 

[Politician Spock]

The why ban all guns. Why not take other measures to bring that level down instead?

Because no amount of laws can protect 4% of the world population from 48% of the guns in the world. It's a undue burden on the government. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Then you're proposing the government confiscate your gun? 

If you don't voluntarily turn them in? Yes.

 

[KCitons]

If you don't voluntarily turn them in? Yes.

And if I just tell them that I sold it via a private sale last year? Then what?

 

[Politician Spock]

And if I just tell them that I sold it via a private sale last year? Then what?

Then you posses illegal guns. Good luck with that. 

 

[EYLive]

Just want to make sure I understand this:

-Guns do not serve any purpose in society, but alcohol does? I don't recall anyone stating either point. I have no idea where you're getting this.

-We want to ban guns because they lead to deaths, but alcohol does not? Our sole concern with banning guns is to save lives. As Politician Spock asked, "what frequency do we need to get to before people care?" I would ask what frequency of gun deaths would be acceptable? My guess is most would say zero, that's why they want to ban guns. But, what frequency of drunk driving deaths do we need to get to before people care? How about one every 51 minutes? Shouldn't we be striving for zero there as well? Reducing gun deaths and alcohol related deaths are not mutually exclusive. Both can be improved. Pitting one against the other doesn't make sense.

-When I mentioned banning alcohol, someone countered with the 18th Amendment. When posters counter the gun ban with the 2nd Amendment, they are considered gun nuts. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and loses relevance every year.

-When I mentioned banning alcohol, someone countered with the economic impact it would have. When I asked about the economic impact a ban on guns would have to hunting suppliers, state revenue, and local communities, I'm told that's a ridiculous argument and not important.  I, personally, don't care about economic impact.

Hypocrisy at it's finest. You don't care about all lives, just this subset.  You keep deflecting to alcohol related deaths instead of addressing the death toll of mass shootings. The severity and frequency of these events don't matter to gun enthusiasts. You just offer up condolences, thoughts and prayers for the victims and scurry back to the range. How close to home does a death need to be for it to change your mind?

 

[Hawkeye21]

We are banned in this country from even studying the issue or researching solutions (which is just so incredible that anyone puts up with that).  If you were able to sue gun manufacturers or stores or whatever, things would change quickly in regards to how safe guns were.  

I think that's wrong as well.  It's time to make changes like that.  I'm not sure being able to sue gun manufacturers is the answer though.

 

[Hawkeye21]

If mass killings don't drastically drop over the course of several decades then we're no worse off then where we are now. Even if innocent deaths moderately drop, it'll be worth it. I value human life over a hobby.
I bet 99% of gun owners are safe and responsible, but the 1% has ruined the privilege for everyone else that enjoys shooting for sport or hunting. 

Do you know that the banning of guns wouldn't have other negative affects though?  That has to be taken into consideration.  There are more uses for guns than just shooting innocent people.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Oh boy, back to the terrible drunk driving analogy. 

Its an incredibly stupid analogy yet he keeps going to it. We have to be north of a dozen times that he's done it now. Its really something to behold.

 

[EYLive]

Do you know that the banning of guns wouldn't have other negative affects though?  That has to be taken into consideration.  There are more uses for guns than just shooting innocent people.

I'm all ears.

 

[Politician Spock]

Do you know that the banning of guns wouldn't have other negative affects though?  That has to be taken into consideration.  There are more uses for guns than just shooting innocent people.

I don't know for fact that Alabama is going to beat Mercer this weekend. But the risk of Mercer beating Alabama is not a reason to expect they will. 

I don't know for a fact that things won't be worse if we ban guns. But the risk of things being worse than they are now is not a reason to expect they will. It's like expecting Mercer to win. 

And if you really believe that, the burden is on you to provide a good explanation for it, or else people will think you're nuts.