Children killed in Connecticut school shooting (likely 27 dead,including 18 children)

FRED HALE SR. · 12-14-2012, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparky

Car's still serve a function other than killing stuff though. Your not going to ban car's when people use them improperly, but i mean getting rid of guns it's like who cares

Well thats just it, you aren't gonna get rid of guns. Criminals will still possess guns they bought illegally. Guys like me that go to Turners and Gun shops to buy guns and use them recreationally aren't gonna use them on people and we register our guns. Guys like this would still possess guns, because you aren't gonna go into someones house and audit their gun collection.

duga · 12-14-2012, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

Well thats just it, you aren't gonna get rid of guns. Criminals will still possess guns they bought illegally. Guys like me that go to Turners and Gun shops to buy guns and use them recreationally aren't gonna use them on people and we register our guns. Guys like this would still possess guns, because you aren't gonna go into someones house and audit their gun collection.

At the very least, we will know anyone with a gun should be arrested.

You can't tell me that strict gun laws won't at least diminish the rate of gun related crimes a bit.

FRED HALE SR. · 12-14-2012, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

At the very least, we will know anyone with a gun should be arrested.

You can't tell me that strict gun laws won't at least diminish the rate of gun related crimes a bit.

Well of course sheer mathematics would dictate that less guns or no guns equal less gun related crime. So does that mean we move onto knives next and any appliances that can cause harm because the lack of a gun created a demand in knives?

Guybrush · 12-14-2012, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

Well thats just it, you aren't gonna get rid of guns. Criminals will still possess guns they bought illegally. Guys like me that go to Turners and Gun shops to buy guns and use them recreationally aren't gonna use them on people and we register our guns. Guys like this would still possess guns, because you aren't gonna go into someones house and audit their gun collection.

I believe the idea that if guns are outlawed, criminals will still have them at the same frequency, is basically wrong. I think in a society where the regular guy won't be able to legally own a gun, a lot of people who would commit criminal acts won't have guns either. One reason could be that, despite them doing something criminal, they don't have criminal connections that can get them a gun prior to the criminal act. As an example, let's say two guys crash their cars and they start a fight. If one of them has a gun in the car, that fight could escalate and become a murder. If none of them have a gun, the likelyhood of things going that far decreases.

Also, if noone has guns, a criminal may not need that kind of power to f.ex rob someone. The threat of a knife or unarmed violence could be enough. Or maybe, lacking guns, they'll more often opt for criminal activities which do not require confrontations.

So I'm a big believer that less guns in society in general means less violence and less guns in the hands of criminals. When I'm sober, I'm sure I can find some studies to back that up.

FRED HALE SR. · 12-14-2012, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I believe the idea that if guns are outlawed, criminals will still have them at the same frequency, is basically wrong. I think in a society where the regular guy won't be able to legally own a gun, a lot of people who would commit criminal acts won't have guns either. One reason could be that, despite them doing something criminal, they don't have criminal connections that can get them a gun prior to the criminal act. As an example, let's say two guys crash their cars and they start a fight. If one of them has a gun in the car, that fight could escalate and become a murder. If none of them have a gun, the likelyhood of things going that far decreases.

Also, if noone has guns, a criminal may not need that kind of power to f.ex rob someone. The threat of a knife or unarmed violence could be enough. Or maybe, lacking guns, they'll more often opt for criminal activities which do not require confrontations.

So I'm a big believer that less guns in society in general means less guns in the hands of criminals. When I'm sober, I'm sure I can find some studies to back that up.

I understand all of that and even agreed with Duga on the fact. My point was that the people who would be handing over guns voluntarily would be people such as myself not criminals who are the basis for the argument originally. That is where the problem lays, you have to take away more civilian rights in order to attain this goal which then leads to more asinine takings of civil liberties.

I'm obviously against the taking of innocent life but I will never surrender to the fact that I should not have the right to bear arms. And drink up Tore its gonna be a long weekend, why search for URL'S that i'll never agree with anyway.

Guybrush · 12-14-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

I understand all of that and even agreed with Duga on the fact. My point was that the people who would be handing over guns voluntarily would be people such as myself not criminals who are the basis for the argument originally. That is where the problem lays, you have to take away more civilian rights in order to attain this goal which then leads to more asinine takings of civil liberties.

I'm obviously against the taking of innocent life but I will never surrender to the fact that I should not have the right to bear arms. And drink up Tore its gonna be a long weekend, why search for URL'S that i'll never agree with anyway.

I think this seems rather close minded. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws and less violence which still has fair civil liberties. It's perfectly possible. Why not learn from that?

One could argue that some sort of principle that you should maximize your amount of civil liberties is anti-societal. After all, society is about giving up freedoms that you'd otherwise have for the benefit of everyone. You give up the right to kill and rob others because that makes it better for everyone, you included (unless you're a robber/killer). Similarly, you should be prepared to give up your right to own guns if that makes it better for everyone. That should be the principle; increased life quality for the people who live in society. Not maximum freedom.

FRED HALE SR. · 12-14-2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I think this seems rather close minded. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws and less violence which still has fair civil liberties. It's perfectly possible. Why not learn from that?

One could argue that some sort of principle that you should maximize your amount of civil liberties is anti-societal. After all, society is about giving up freedoms that you'd otherwise have for the benefit of everyone. You give up the right to kill and rob others because that makes it better for everyone, you included (unless you're a robber/killer). Similarly, you should be prepared to give up your right to own guns if that makes it better for everyone. That should be the principle; increased life quality for the people who live in society. Not maximum freedom.

I guess you would have to look at it from my perspective then. I look at it from the perspective its a hobby and something I collect. I don't look at it as giving me the ability to rob and kill people. I will agree with you that it would be possible as evidenced by other countries, but it would cost me one of main passions in life, so I guess close minded may be a decent analyzation in a sense.

I will point out one thing, you are clearly only looking at it from the gun law side of things. How is it better for a gun owner and one who follows the rules and does it recreationally to give up his guns? I paid my hard earned money to attain these weapons, took extensive classes on how to not only fire them but break them down. Where does this money come from to replace these said weapons the Govt? Obviously with the National debt skyrocketing that would create another problem and obviously involve some type of tax on the people which includes me. Would i be paying taxes to take my own guns away from myself to better the people?

**Janszoon** · 12-14-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

I will point out one thing, you are clearly only looking at it from the gun law side of things. How is it better for a gun owner and one who follows the rules and does it recreationally to give up his guns? I paid my hard earned money to attain these weapons, took extensive classes on how to not only fire them but break them down. Where does this money come from to replace these said weapons the Govt? Obviously with the National debt skyrocketing that would create another problem and obviously involve some type of tax on the people which includes me. Would i be paying taxes to take my own guns away from myself to better the people?

I would imagine if stricter gun laws were enacted they wouldn't apply to the guns people already own but would rather be in effect for new purchases.

FRED HALE SR. · 12-14-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I would imagine if stricter gun laws were enacted they wouldn't apply to the guns people already own but would rather be in effect for new purchases.

I agree with this also. I think people have focused the discussion on taking guns from existing owners though which I don't agree with. If I'm wrong then please disregard everything i've said.