Gun laws do they work

Worse than what?

The Black Death which wiped out half of the population of Europe?

World War II with over 60 million dead, where WMD's have only ever been used in anger on civilian targets and global superpowers were exterminating their civilians en masse.

The Chinese famine of 1958 killing at least 15 million, probably millions more?

As I say to all with an apocalyptic view, get a grip.

Come on dat, we are talking about people, one on one. How you and me treat our neighbors, how they treat us, how they want to take away what others have. You and I don't have much control over WMD do we, but I do have control over how I treat you.
 
Come on dat, we are talking about people, one on one. How you and me treat our neighbors, how they treat us, how they want to take away what others have. You and I don't have much control over WMD do we, but I do have control over how I treat you.

No, we're talking about the disparity between how threatened you feel and how safe you actually are.
 
You're applauding an individual who thinks it necessary to arm themselves against another forum member.

Given that forum member's mental state - YES. Just because they are a forum member doesn't make them sane. And with Colin, I have serious questions about his mental state (based on his previous actions). Having him basically threaten to come do me bodily harm (I do have the emails that he sent which state that), does make me take notice.

You can be an ostrich. I choose to be prepared. I don't stress over something happening. I am prepared should something ever happen (SHTF or whatever) and I will not be one who regrets not being prepared. Being prepared does not mean being paranoid. Being able to defend ones self if the need arises, does not make one paranoid. Being paranoid is expecting that someone is out to do you harm when they aren't. I don't expect someone to do me harm. I just have made sure that should that unthinkable thing be attempted, I have a way to respond without peeing myself and crying, "please don't, please don't." You can be that one. I refuse to be a willing victim.
 
Given that forum member's mental state - YES. Just because they are a forum member doesn't make them sane. And with Colin, I have serious questions about his mental state (based on his previous actions). Having him basically threaten to come do me bodily harm (I do have the emails that he sent which state that), does make me take notice.

Way to go Bob. Now we're going to have to read months worth of forum posts demanding you explain your qualifications for diagnosing mental states.

I can't help but picture Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthau when I think of you and Colin getting into a scuffle.

You can be an ostrich. I choose to be prepared. I don't stress over something happening. I am prepared should something ever happen (SHTF or whatever) and I will not be one who regrets not being prepared. Being prepared does not mean being paranoid. Being able to defend ones self if the need arises, does not make one paranoid. Being paranoid is expecting that someone is out to do you harm when they aren't. I don't expect someone to do me harm.

Up to this point, I can understand your argument. It comes off as very neutral and non-judgmental.

I just have made sure that should that unthinkable thing be attempted, I have a way to respond without peeing myself and crying, "please don't, please don't." You can be that one. I refuse to be a willing victim.

This is where you appear to be paranoid. You belittle those who choose a different route than you. No one wants to be the victim of gun crime. You are basically saying the only way around that is to be armed at all times, and those who think differently are weak, dumb, etc.

If someone does carry a gun, and is still shot during one of those unthinkable things, what then? Do you call them an idiot for not being prepared enough? Or not being a quick enough draw?

Do you really want to live in a country where the expectation is everyone is armed at all times?
 
There has been some statistical studies of states who have and don't have conceal carry laws. (The legal gun owners concealing guns legally aspect) There was a statistically significant finding that your chances of getting shot is much higher in those with the law that allows it.

So that's just one small aspect of it, but yes. The law of course hardly ever changes human behavior, that is a pipe dream indeed. However, we can influence access. Raise the questions like: "Why does John Doe need an assault rifle?" Why as a society would we want to invest our physical resources into creating killing machines for personal collection/recreation?

What is my hobby was collecting anthrax? Should exceptions be made just for me? Even if I'm all super safe and responsible about it?

What laws mainly do in the case of guns is affects what gets manufactured and distributed. Since many of them are finely crafted and engineered pieces of machinery, there really aren't going to be a lot of belligerent, angry, dumb, delusional, violent people who can make them on their own. Let alone get access to all those machine tools and materials.

To some extent, creating and >ENFORCING< meaningful regulations can significantly cut down on many kinds of gun violence. So why not?

The fact is, we aren't safer with more guns. Untrained people in flight or fight states with no recent combat experience aren't likely to make good decisions. Bullets also miss their targets, or go through them, and many times uninvolved people receive those bullets too.

I won't even go into the whole combat reality of firearms that average gun owners are oblivious to when they fantasize about saving the day.

Our main problem is a culture sickness. How we treat one another, and how we look at the rest of society with mistrust. And those suspicions get validated by every bad deed. We look for immediate remedies, when a lot of our social problems are complex. It's easier to buy a gun and feel safe, than it is to help fix society and eliminate poverty. Help educate children, rather than leave them out to be neglected and/or abused. These things do come back to haunt us.

The lax gun laws do lead to more gun crime. This in turn actually has a very pleasing result for gun manufacturers. People go out and buy more guns. In some places after the Colorado shooting, gun sales went up 40% for a week. There is a reason why gun companies, aided with the NRA (who don't actually serve their members best interests), lobby the government for less gun law/regulation. Because it does have an effect. They've known it for a while. This is what marketing people get paid to do.

So as a society, we're in a state of a big collective shoulder shrug.

I just wonder how bad it will get before the country finally decides it's not worth anymore.
 
There has been some statistical studies of states who have and don't have conceal carry laws.
Please cite the references if that is real and not just made up.


The lax gun laws do lead to more gun crime.
Bull pucky and you don't have evidence to back that statement up. Gun laws don't keep criminals from getting guns any more than drug laws keep people from getting drugs. Just like prohibition - the prohibition of something only makes sure that the criminals get rich.
 
Way to go Bob. Now we're going to have to read months worth of forum posts demanding you explain your qualifications for diagnosing mental states.

I can't help but picture Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthau when I think of you and Colin getting into a scuffle.

Ha, well put. This is what I'd pay good money for, the entertainment value.


Up to this point, I can understand your argument. It comes off as very neutral and non-judgmental.

It does? He started off by calling me an ostrich. Obviously implying I'm blind to some sort of clear truth. What truth was that? That I am in imminent danger perhaps?


This is where you appear to be paranoid. You belittle those who choose a different route than you. No one wants to be the victim of gun crime. You are basically saying the only way around that is to be armed at all times, and those who think differently are weak, dumb, etc.

He started off on the 'ostrich' track and went downhill from there. The 'us versus them' sentiment speaks volumes.
 
This is where you appear to be paranoid. You belittle those who choose a different route than you. No one wants to be the victim of gun crime. You are basically saying the only way around that is to be armed at all times, and those who think differently are weak, dumb, etc.
People can choose to do nothing for personal defense. That is their choice. However, if they choose to do nothing, or have no means for self-protection of them, or their family, then I reserve the right to think that as stupid. But that is my opinion. My opinion is that - my opininon just as much as your opinion is just that - your opinion. Does it make it right? To me, my opinion is right. To you, yours is right.
If someone does carry a gun, and is still shot during one of those unthinkable things, what then? Do you call them an idiot for not being prepared enough? Or not being a quick enough draw?
There is always a risk when defending yourself. Regardless of what you have at your disposal, you may be killed. That has always been the case across history. If someone hits you with their fists, they may hit you just right and it can kill you. Someone can take a knife to you, or set your house on fire or come up behind you and hit you with a hammer and kill you right away. Those things have really happened. Can you be prepared to meet all of those? No. Sometimes there just isn't a way to defend yourself. But there are many time where you do have the ability to do something. And that is where I take issue with some people. They choose to do nothing voluntarily. And they would rather be killed than to resist (which many who do not resist are also killed).

Do you really want to live in a country where the expectation is everyone is armed at all times?
Yes, I would. Believe it or not, I would feel safer knowing that should someone attempt a criminal act, there would be more than me who could meet that threat. And the thing you and many others who think it is crazy don't understand is that the criminals have specifically stated in interviews that they fear the public more than the police because they know what to expect from the police but the public that is armed can fight back and it puts the criminal at higher risk of death. They don't want non LEO's armed. It makes their job easier.

Now for a reveal of my wife's birthday present (she asked me to get it for her when we were out).

TammysDerringer(1).jpg


TammysDerringer(2).jpg
 
We look for immediate remedies, when a lot of our social problems are complex. It's easier to buy a gun and feel safe, than it is to help fix society and eliminate poverty. Help educate children, rather than leave them out to be neglected and/or abused. These things do come back to haunt us.

Now this makes sense. The notion of instant gratification or the quick fix which is rife in our society instead of actually thinking it through.
 
It does? He started off by calling me an ostrich. Obviously implying I'm blind to some sort of clear truth.
Clear truth - There are people out there who will kill you if given the chance. But you don't care. You think that the police will protect your life. If the police won't protect you then who can? You don't care that the police can't protect you so you think I'm nuts? No problem - You can call me nuts all day but I'd rather be able to protect myself than rely on some fairy tale version of life which thinks, "just run away or call the police." Yes, - OSTRICH.
 
Now this makes sense. The notion of instant gratification or the quick fix which is rife in our society instead of actually thinking it through.
And that is exactly what Gun Control Laws do. Put up a fake shield.
 
Way to go Bob. Now we're going to have to read months worth of forum posts demanding you explain your qualifications for diagnosing mental states.

No, I can't be arsed. I really don't care what Larson thinks. He thinks he's god so that's all that matters to him as he's always right. If not, he bans the forum member.

If he shoots someone dead and commits murder, he'll be happy his paranoia was justified.

BTW
What is "SHTF"?

Col
 
People can choose to do nothing for personal defense. That is their choice. However, if they choose to do nothing, or have no means for self-protection of them, or their family, then I reserve the right to think that as stupid.

It's about proportion Bob. If it's raining I'll wear a raincoat not a suit of armor.
 
I'm done here though. I'm not going to change anyone's opinion and you won't change mine, so no value in continuing.
 
i don't stress over something happening.

----->
----->
----->

clear truth - there are people out there who will kill you if given the chance. But you don't care. You think that the police will protect your life. If the police won't protect you then who can? You don't care that the police can't protect you so you think i'm nuts? No problem - you can call me nuts all day but i'd rather be able to protect myself than rely on some fairy tale version of life which thinks, "just run away or call the police." yes, - ostrich.
 
Please cite the references if that is real and not just made up.

Bull pucky and you don't have evidence to back that statement up. Gun laws don't keep criminals from getting guns any more than drug laws keep people from getting drugs. Just like prohibition - the prohibition of something only makes sure that the criminals get rich.

Well I do find it interesting that you're jumping on those statements for lack of evidence/fact, but then followed directly with the same thing. You say all that with such certainty. For me, my statements cannot be permitted without attaching citation, yours though can.

If that's your approach, then the research papers compiling the statistics and legislative history are for you to find. I'm just making a post, not writing a book. It's just me throwing in two cents to the original question. Strike that part out if you don't like it's lack of citation, and have no curiosity to investigate it. That's fair, because I'm not really wanting to dig around for it myself.

I don't really have the time or inclination to go into that, and for a forum topic that isn't going to change anything. Any sort of change will come from people only.

Much of my response is really that I think there is some misunderstanding here in what I was writing.

I didn't' say anything about laws stopping criminals. Though who would be a criminal if you had no laws to begin with? XD

But your argument can be applied to any law. Laws don't stop murderers, so why should we even have laws for murder

Also I didn't say anything about drug law. Why would drugs even be compared to guns? That's another stretch. Assuming things are somewhat transitive, because both have legislation written about them. I guess if I'm friends with Bob, and Bob is friends with Carl, that means me and Carl are friends too.

I wouldn't think to make assault rifles I just have to get some bullets and plant them in the ground and water them.

Drugs are not something that can ever be hoped to be controlled in the way our "War on Drugs" idealizes. Despite it's failure, it still is undeniable that access for more sophisticated types of lab synthesized drugs have become more difficult to obtain. I couldn't just find something like DMT if I wanted to tomorrow. All that said, our current approach on drug laws are absurd. They'll continue though for the foreseeable future, because industries have formed around it, and they lobby and create propaganda with great effect.

I do agree, prohibition is naive, but it's not really a matter of sorting that out. Again it's industries colluding with government to perpetuate it. Most people are at least hip to the idea that pot isn't any worse than alcohol.

Our prohibitions do create powerful crime organizations, and thousands of people in Mexico are dying in quite violent and extreme ways for it every year. I would imagine it's only a matter of time before that spills over into America. It'll be interesting to see how those states react (mishandle it), given their tendency to dehumanize and scape goat anyone not of white skin.

Drugs, homicide, whatever. It's not going away because of laws themselves, like a law that says "Don't shoot people". But rather with laws on how we direct our resources, and how we treat things will influence our society. We can influence things for a better outcome. There is really is no solution, but there are (far) less costly alternatives. Smarter ways of doing things. And then... there are things that make money for a small margin of society.

Laws do affect societies. They're constructs of course, but people who act according to their beliefs, their actions translate to our reality. Companies (to some degree these days) mostly operate within the law. If you change laws in smart ways (I keep saying this as though we're in a habit of doing this ^_^) , you can affect their output. I get the feeling you were also implying I'm suggesting an outright gun ban. A gun ban would be bad legislation. Guns or no guns is far too black and white for me.

In an ideal situation, would there be no gun violence if not a single gun existed? XD

Is that achievable? Not so likely when there are more guns than people in this country alone. (Not citing this. Apologizing in advance.)

I can offer an anecdotal story on my end that changed my opinion long ago: When I was in college I was out drinking with a someone I'll call an old associate. He gotten into a seriously heated argument with another person, and some shoving and threats were made. Both we bounced out. I followed to find him, and drove him home. On the way home, he had told me with dead seriousness in fit of rage that if he had his gun with him (the handgun he left at home) he would shut that guy up. The following day I asked if he was serious about shooting that guy, and he said "Yeah, but I was drunk though. I wouldn't do it now." (/facepalm) I asked him why he didn't have his gun with him, and he said "Because it's illegal to carry it around." (/doublefacepalm)

So one belligerent tragedy averted. And some people are like that. They can't handle themselves when they're drunk, but they will consider the law before they get liquored up and leave the gun at home. That sort of thing we have an impact on. The real problem with demonstrating this benefit to people is that you can't prove something would've happened. You can't show people a list of things that were prevented, because they didn't happen. On the opposing end though, you can show a lot of nasty things that did happen, and draw conclusions from that.

We're not going to stop the determined criminal, but why make it easy for them? I'm sure they'll still get their assault weapons, but those will be organized criminals. Not something the general public is likely to cross paths with. The anti-social spree shooter, probably isn't going to have the connections or money to amass a military style arsenal in a society that more tightly controls their weaponry.

Fundamentally I'm not someone who looks at laws as magical thing that stops people from doing what they'll do (I think that's what you were assuming), but I do see them as a way to hold people accountable for transgressions, and a means for society to regulate resources (whether that happens for ill or for better).

But derp, look at me rant for 20 minutes. :eek:
 
I'm done here though. I'm not going to change anyone's opinion and you won't change mine, so no value in continuing.

That shouldn't be the goal though. Discussions are about hacking down each others BS. It's how we audit one another, and improve our perspectives. Generally it's good for everybody involved.

But yeah, if things becomes merely an ideological contest, then it's more about people wanting to win. It's going to be completely unproductive. XD
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom