Supporters of Gun Control: Simple Question

Do you honestly believe that if people can't access guns, they will somehow decide not to kill anymore?

Simple question.

 

Of course not. But having a gun around the house does increase the chances of impulsive use I think. That's just one reason to have stringent storage and security requirements for legal firearms.

Killing can be achieved with a pillow in the right circumstances, I'm not arguing that pillows be locked away though, primarily because the regular use of pillows is to rest our little heads when we're sleeping. Same for knives. They are easily used during - in particular domestic incidents - I can tell you that from personal experience in my former police career (never let the warring parties remain in the kitchen), but we have to have knives so we can cut up our food when we eat our meals. Firearms are efficient killing instruments, unlike pillows and knives, which can be used to inflict physical damage, they have no other purpose other than to kill something. That's sufficient reason to treat them as a special case.

 

And I agree. I'm not opposed to gun control at all, I'm only opposed to confiscation or making them nearly impossible to get.

As a former police officer, what social demographic (i.e. poor, rich, middle class, religious, non-religious, etc.) was most involved in violent crimes?

 

Jeez I feel a bit daunted by the question. I'm not sure if I can even answer it. I locked up people from various socio-economic backgrounds for violent offences so I'm not even sure if there is a propensity based on social status. I do think the less educated suffer from an inability to control their impulses, especially when drinking or using drugs. By less-educated I suppose I mean those with lower social status, the two usually go together. I have locked up some high social status people for domestic assault though, so it's not solely found in lower status families. As for religious status, don't know, not something that was recorded.

 

No, but it'll make things a hell of a lot harder. See, a gun is remote and doesn't require much in the way of thought or effort to use. Ever see a drive-by knifing?

 

No, but that will change, I'm sure, when they start getting ahold of ballistic knives.

 

I feel obligated to note the case in China recently where a madman stormed a school and stabbed 22 kids before he was apprehended. The interesting thing about that case?

Nobody died.

I think that on a theoretical level, those who want to kill will still want to kill. But on a practical level, the additional barriers will simply make it far more difficult. Those who still want to get guns will acquire them illegally, but it'll be harder, and we'll be able to catch people in the process of doing that, before they go and kill people. And how many gun deaths are simply a matter of impulse, or drunken decision-making?

 

On the whole, the mad fury that goes with adolescence, jealousy, self-righteousness and insane political nonsense will just pass over unless the victim is armed with a killing weapon. So to your incredibly loaded question, the answer is that without your silly popguns the murder-rate will fall to near British levels.

 

Double post caused by inadequacy of system.

 

Let's put it this way....what if we had a "strict Constructionalist" view of the US Constitution "as the Founders intended", particularly the 2nd Amendment?

Then the "arms" that we were "guarenteed the right to bear"....would be cap & ball pistols and muskets.

If Adam Lanza had been restricted to those weapons...would he still have killed? Yes.
What else would have happened?

 

The above is the good common sense mindset that needs to be injected into the thinking of all Americans.

As things now are, we've lost our sanity.

 

So my kitchen is in the process of being remodeled, and I not only have a butcher block full of knives, I also have a 16 Oz claw hammer sitting on the bar.


So in your world, the only chance my poor wife has, when we get into and argument about paint schemes and tile, is for those knives and hammer to be locked away, so some impulse doesn't have me siezing that hammer and planting it in her brain?


Is that really the world you envision?


Perhaps we'll have to fill out paper work with a government agency and have them show up with the keys to unlock my hammer so I can tack down the new molding?


If this is your version of a "Safe" world, you've got allot more of an impulse control problem than you do a gun problem....

 

The next guy to do this, in China, or if guns are banned in America,...


The next guy to do this, will simply coat the blade with insecticide before he goes into the school.


You won't stop violence by trying to lock everyone and everything up in a rubber room.


You won't stop accidental deaths by making everyone always wear a crash helmet and kevlar jumpsuit.


There is no such thing as 100% SAFE.


There is easily a point were your obsession with safety has made productivity impossible and made life not worth living.


-

 

22 kids have to live with the trauma of crazy madmen trying to stab them. I'd hardly call that a good thing.

 

And what of your other violent crime statistics?

 

He likely would have been subdued before he could get the second shot.

But that's irrelevant. This isn't about the Second Amendment.

 

You are correct and making good sense.

 

Of course not.

But it would be much harder to kill lots of people. And even much harder to kill one person.

I am not in favor of taking away all of our guns. But I think it is worth looking at whether any type of gun restrictions would reduce gun violence in America.

 

Gun control does not necessarily mean banning guns. I support gun ownership, but not ownership of military weapons, such as machine guns, assault rifles, explosives, etc. Hand guns and hunting rifles are fine, as long as certain laws are in place to make the majority of gun crimes can be punished.

Any example of these laws would be....
1; Mandatory Ballistics Records for all guns. When a gun is produced, the manufacturer does ballistics tests and gives the results to all state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies. When a gun is bought, the gun owner must register his ownership of the weapon along with those records so if that gun is ever used in a crime the bullet can be tracked to him.

2; A three day waiting period for buying a gun so that mental health, criminal, and other background checks can be made to make sure that a person is mentally fit enough to use a gun properly, and does not have violence mental instability, and does not have violence felonies on their record.

 

I've seen drive-by jousting, does that count?

 

Is harder to kill many people if the access to weapons is harder.

For example, in Spain is near impossible that someone makes a killing spree like the ones suffered in USA. Mainly because the max that a normal person could access are shootguns of two shots or some rifle(but that would be really hard) and with difficulty they could access to pistols. So, yes I believe that is more difficult, obviously nothing stops you to cause a killing spree, but there are ways to harden this task.

 

You can make a bomb out of fertilizer and racing fuel. It really isn't as hard as you think.

 

It is harder.

I said, that nothing stops someone if he wants to make a killing, but if he has really difficult or even no access to weapons that make easier that killing, maybe the person won't try it, or only would kill the ones closest.

Obviously nothing stops you, and what is more important is the culture and USA is a violent culture. But if you have to look for in black market for assault weapons and all that, instead of being able to have them in the supermarket or in any easy way, people that would make that killing would think it before, because it requires more preparation. And in a moment of crazyness you won't be able to do that, because you don't have access to the weapons, you need to think it and plan it, it is, you must have a truely psicopathic mind and the absolute decission to take that action of murder many innocents.

As I've said, nothing stops a person to kill someone else or many others, but there are actions that can make more difficult doing that, and restricting the access to the weapons that make that easier is effective.

Later, we could talk about the ethics of it.

And now, I know that sounds contradictory because I defend the drugs legalization, but I believe that is the same idea, if someone really wants drugs nothing will stop him to get it, like if someone really wants weapons nothing will stop him to get them.

 

Tiles. Having been through that in building a house I reckon discussion about tiles, let alone colour schemes, should be banned.

Just kidding of course.

My point was that firearms are a special case when it comes to domestic use and storage. My point also was that in any average household there are many items that can be used to inflict physical harm. The difference between those items and firearms is that those items have a primary use that is not about killing, whereas firearms's primary use/purpose is to kill. Hence the distinction.

As for your kitchen utensils. No, of course you can't lock them away. Just don't have an argument in the kitchen

The impulse to grab a hammer or a knife and use it on one's spouse is a spectacularly unusual impulse and probably one that can be controlled by the average person who is not suffering from some sort of psychological problem with anger.

But it does happen.

A hammer in the head can do some terrible damage, as, of course, can a knife. Why add firearms to the mix? This is my point. I don't have a problem with privately owned firearms. I do think that for good utilitarian reasons they should be locked away in your house if you own them. This secures them against theft and also prevents the impulsive use of firearms in the house. It's one less instrument that can be used to inflict harm.

So, to deal with your strawman – no, I'm not suggesting that kitchens be locked down.

 

When I used to go opal mining it was the explosive of choice - cheaper than gelignite and bloody effective. You just had to be careful when transporting it, not good to have diesel and prilled ammonia mixing it up in the back of the truck....