Right-wing idiots (UK)

[foeofthelance]

I'm extremely opposed to guns in the hands of civilians unless it's required for their occupation.

My problem with this view is that the measure of a person can not be taken by their occupation, only from their behavior. I fully agree with DG, that there are numerous people are simply unsound to own a firearm, whether it be for reasons mental, moral, or of maturity. The thing is, there is very rarely anything to keep them out of a position where they might acquire a gun. Sure, law enforcement and the military use psych exams to weed out the worst of the worst; yet we still see plenty of news reports about abusive assholes in uniform. Nor have any of the numerous attempts at prohibition of guns or substances proved to be particularly effective at keeping illegal materials out of the hands of determined criminals. So why, in a world where the thugs can find ways to arm themselves and the nominal protectors of society cannot all be trusted to uphold their oaths, should the individual be denied the ability to defend themselves on equal terms simply because they would rather be a teacher, doctor, or artist?

[magusfang]

I'm extremely opposed to guns in the hands of civilians unless it's required for their occupation.

I have taught CATM (Combat Arms Training And Maintenance) to both military and law enforcement and trust me, you should be terrified these people (well a good portion of them anyway) are carrying weapons!

Looks a little scary huh, seen it happen all too often.

Love the guy in the back, I know exactly what he's thinking" "Sir, we're gonna have to confiscate those donuts in your front seat!"

Edited June 6, 2014 by magusfang

[JayDee]

Hmmm......, almost as bad as Left-wing idiots. No one wants to speak about them. I wonder why not.

Seems funny (or maybe not so) to me. But, I digress....

You could always start a thread of your own. With hookers. And Blackjack.

[DemonGoddess]

Cite your source for that information please. I'm curious as to where you've gotten it. Every study I've every seen, using countries where gun control is the norm, shows that gun crimes are far less prevalent.

[BronxWench]

Actually, not an anti-gun nut myself, but I've seen the same studies as DG, apparently.

Look at Japan, for example.

[foeofthelance]

It's a little more complicated. Those studies tend to just directly project the US (which has a wide mish mash of gun laws) against the stricter European countries, while ignoring places like Israel and Switzerland with much more open gun laws and still have lower crime rates than the US. Inside the US, cities that have stricter gun laws (Chicago, Washington DC, LA) tend to have more gun crime than those that are more lax. The problem with the US crime rate is not guns; they are just a semi-convenient tool. The problem with crime in the US is more a matter of culture and politics interacting in really bad ways. Second, while banning guns can lead to a decrease in gun crimes, it does not cause much of a decrease in violent crimes. If anything, its been noted that countries such as England and Australia saw an increase in assaults, rape, and felony thefts after their bans.

[BronxWench]

I think, living in an urban center like I do, it colors one's perceptions as well. There is no real reason to own a gun within the confines of a city other than for self-defense, and if you need a gun to be safe, your problems are far larger than gun control. You also have the issue of young, largely ignorant and far from upwardly mobile males who treat guns as an extension of their manhood. The sad truth is that you can't legislate against stupid.

[magusfang]

Cite your source for that information please. I'm curious as to where you've gotten it. Every study I've every seen, using countries where gun control is the norm, shows that gun crimes are far less prevalent.

The annual FBI crime statistics as of the 2013 report, the cities with the strictest gun restrictions have the highest violent crime rates; a few such as Chicago and Detroit also have very high gun crime rates

Sad truth is are never going to legislate guns away, I can walk into damn near any city in the world and get a gun in about an hour; just a matter of knowing where to go.

[DemonGoddess]

Well, you obviously CANNOT legislate against stupid. However, given that the ease of purchase allows for some real nutjobs to get at the things, something really does need to be done about that.

Bans, like any other form of prohibition, make it so whatever the banned item is, it's more attractive to HAVE said item. Whether or not the person getting the item should get it.

Personally, I'll never own a handgun. You know why? The recoil of most of them gives me issues in controlling the weapon, and certainly affects my targeting ability WITH the weapon. Mind you, the handgun I learned on was a Colt. I much prefer rifles.

[magusfang]

Handguns have their uses, but your right, they require a fair amount of skill to operate safely; rifles are easier to aim and more accurate to begin with.

But, this isn't a marksmanship thread; the problem with banning guns is the same problem that prohabition ran into. If people want them, and criminals do, then they will get them and the blackmarket in guns will create a whole new level of orginized crime. Illigal drugs is another example.

[BronxWench]

I can't shoot an automatic handgun with any accuracy at all. I'm better with a revolver, but in all honesty, I'm very aware that in all likelihood, any handgun would be taken from me and used against me. I try not to be delusional most of the time.

But yes, Prohibition is a good example of what bans do. More people will own guns because they become attractive as forbidden fruit. Background checks and properly supervised sales will ensure that people who want guns and are not a risk to the populace at large can own them.

My dad loved guns, and always had them. He kept them in a gun safe, he shot mostly at a range, and he was one of the range members who volunteered to teach gun safety to Scouts and other groups. I went to the range with him, and enjoyed it thoroughly. My objection to guns is the idiot boy-child holding it sideways like a freaking rap video, who couldn't hit the broad side of a skyscraper with a freaking howitzer. Personally, I say we take all these young idiots, put them in a locked arena, and let natural selection do its thing.

[magusfang]

Yeah, unfortunately there's not much you can do about stupid except hope they win a Darwin Award

[BronxWench]

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison (30 January 1787)

Do not interpret that as a blessing for the immediate distribution of weaponry to a populace that can't manage to hold reasonable discourse on any subject without obscuring the issue with irrelevant considerations. Unless, of course, you truly believe that only people who are male, straight, and in a heterosexual marriage have rights? That statement, in and of itself, shows a marked lack of respect, sir, given that a number of participants in this discussion are female. Not all of us are Christian, either.

[magusfang]

OK, this thread has gone on for three pages so I invoke Goodwin's Law!

Don't hate me, your just jealous I though of it first, now before the mud starts flying, let me step back...

[BronxWench]

I'm generally a most moderate person, but I have limits. If you want reasonable discourse, steer clear of muddying the waters. I was perfectly willing to listen quietly until you began to define your point of view with your gender (irrelevant), sexual orientation (irrelevant), and marital status (irrelevant). Tossing in the reference to Christianity was just icing on the cake, because this nation, while founded on an acknowledgement of certain Christian principles, was also crafted by Unitarians and Universalists, and a few Roman Catholics as well.

[magusfang]

I'm generally a most moderate person, but I have limits. If you want reasonable discourse, steer clear of muddying the waters. I was perfectly willing to listen quietly until you began to define your point of view with your gender (irrelevant), sexual orientation (irrelevant), and marital status (irrelevant). Tossing in the reference to Christianity was just icing on the cake, because this nation, while founded on an acknowledgement of certain Christian principles, was also crafted by Unitarians and Universalists, and a few Roman Catholics as well.

ok, I'm sorry, but as mudslinging goes that's just weak!

It's logical, concise, and well thought out!

Frankly BronxWench I am very disappointed in you!

Edited June 25, 2014 by magusfang

[magusfang]

Another pirated thread...oh my...