Gun Control

[sxetnrdrmr]

First off, i checked the forum for this topic and didn't find it...

Ok, so this is sort of bothering me:

Bob Costas is getting blamed for saying "controversial remarks" about gun control in light of the recent murder suicide with the Kansas City Che ifs player and his wife.

The "controversial remarks"? - That if he did not have the gun, this would not have happened.

I don't see how that is controversial...it is the truth. Is it controversial because we live in a society where the majority of people think that owning or having a gun is some kind of right? It is definitely a result of living in a society where people are generally not smart, or patient enough to own a gun. WE have been trained to be reactionary by our cultural surroundings, and a gun is NOT a good thing to have in the hands of a reactionary person. "I want it, and I want it now...including death and or revenge"

As you can probably tell, I am all for gun control, and honestly the utopian idea of getting rid of all guns. I think that killing should be more one-on-one if it has to happen at all. The act of killing should be something that would require the assailant to look into the eyes of the victim before they do the deed. The playing field should be evened by the situation having to be hand-to-hand. This alone would allow for WAYYY more contemplation of the act before initiating it. Killing with a gun is the cowards way out in that you don't have to look into the victims eyes, you don't have to see or experience the direct reaction to the pain or realization that their life is ending.

Many people will bring up the 2nd Amendment etc. etc. My personal response to that is two fold:
1. if there were no "arms", we would not need to bear them
2. if there has to be "arms" (because humans are too greedy by instinct to live in peace when they are in large groups), it should be hand-to-hand so that you have to think about killing before doing it.

I also think that it sucks that we live in a time where people can not say what they think in a public forum anymore....but that is another thread topic

[hotbeats645]

if he was driven to commit murder and end his life, it doesn't matter if there was more gun control or not. he would have found a way to get one or done it another way.

it sucks that guns and violence exist, but they do, and people suck a lot of the time and are going to hurt other people and themselves. i prefer to have the option to carry a fire arm for defense, because there are bad people out there that may intent to use them regardless. should we be able to own assault rifles? i don't think that's necessary personally.

what happens when we make things illegal that are easy to get? look at alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition. gangs took over the black market sale, gangs in cities and now mexico have lots of power and money. you make owning a gun illegal, people who really want a gun (to commit a crime, for defense, whatever) are now giving their dollars to criminals.

i agree with you in principal, but it'll never work.

[ottomagne]

I've always had a couple issues with the gun control policy advocates. Not that I disagree with them completely, but full out control/outlawing of guns doesn't necessarily make for a safer/better place to live.

First off, as I've seen, gun control - from a statistical point of view - actually does not lower violent crime rates much at all. I've seen various reports of crime going up, staying the same, or lowering a nominal amount, all pointing towards the actual laws not being effective. I won't claim to be the end-all, be-all of gun control-vs-crime rate statistics because I haven't read very much into it, but speaking from my own experience, I haven't seen very much, if any, data corroborating higher amounts of gun control leading to safer residencies.

Secondly, and this is more important in my eyes, is the idea of self-defense. I'm not claiming everyone should get a gun and have a mechanism of defense, nor am I one of those guys who spouts off about needing guns to "protect mah freedoms!", but I think that citizens should have an option to protect themselves.

I think the bigger underlying problem is actually the entire illegal arms trade. Gun control laws are rendered ineffective by the black market of guns that make it easy for would-be-criminals (who have no regard for the illegality of guns in the first place) to acquire their weapons, while simultaneously preventing the would-be-victims of these crimes from having access to one of the few things that may provide them some sort of safety at the moment of the crime.

I am in favor of "common sense" gun control - controlling who can own them, having some sort of process to acquire them, and outlining the types of guns that you can own (I don't really think it's necessary for people to own assault rifles for example) - but I think overall that people should have access to firearms and maybe making the process a little bit easier/more approachable. Until we can solve the problem of underground market for firearms, having stricter gun control will do us no good. If we can simultaneously quell the issue of that illegal trade and implement stronger gun control laws, then I think we have a winning formula. But I don't think we're there yet.

[hotbeats645]

we think alike OMG

[HaViiK]

if he was driven to commit murder and end his life, it doesn't matter if there was more gun control or not. he would have found a way to get one or done it another way.

Yep.

Outlawing guns will not help. The killer is already breaking the law, it's not stopping the person from killing anyone. Why is he going to follow a gun law?

Just my two cents.

[Ryan]

Seems naive to turn the gun control issue in to an either/or issue.

From what I can see, there's truth on both sides of this one.

$.02

[sxetnrdrmr]

...and my intention was not to turn it into either/or, but just to bring it up since I don't think we ever have here.

I realize that:

- if a person is going to commit violence, they are going to do it...BUT not having a weapon that allows you to distance yourself from your foe will definitely make you feel less invincible, and possibly give the act second thoughts. Even a sword forces you to be within "sensory distance" of the foe, and experience the death with them.

- we will never get rid of guns now, and are sort of at the whim of overreaching human intelligence, wisdom and compassion (read as "We are screwed) as far as control goes

it is just frustrating to me that things like the Cheifs incident could be more easily avoided...

[HaViiK]

I see what you're saying now. That is a good argument, but in the end I just don't think it matters. I wish there were better ways to make people think about it without outlawing guns. It's tough.

[TVOham]

First off, i checked the forum for this topic and didn't find it...

Ok, so this is sort of bothering me:

Bob Costas is getting blamed for saying "controversial remarks" about gun control in light of the recent murder suicide with the Kansas City Che ifs player and his wife.

The "controversial remarks"? - That if he did not have the gun, this would not have happened.

I don't see how that is controversial...it is the truth. Is it controversial because we live in a society where the majority of people think that owning or having a gun is some kind of right? It is definitely a result of living in a society where people are generally not smart, or patient enough to own a gun. WE have been trained to be reactionary by our cultural surroundings, and a gun is NOT a good thing to have in the hands of a reactionary person. "I want it, and I want it now...including death and or revenge"

As you can probably tell, I am all for gun control, and honestly the utopian idea of getting rid of all guns. I think that killing should be more one-on-one if it has to happen at all. The act of killing should be something that would require the assailant to look into the eyes of the victim before they do the deed. The playing field should be evened by the situation having to be hand-to-hand. This alone would allow for WAYYY more contemplation of the act before initiating it. Killing with a gun is the cowards way out in that you don't have to look into the victims eyes, you don't have to see or experience the direct reaction to the pain or realization that their life is ending.

Many people will bring up the 2nd Amendment etc. etc. My personal response to that is two fold:
1. if there were no "arms", we would not need to bear them
2. if there has to be "arms" (because humans are too greedy by instinct to live in peace when they are in large groups), it should be hand-to-hand so that you have to think about killing before doing it.

I also think that it sucks that we live in a time where people can not say what they think in a public forum anymore....but that is another thread topic

To you, I say this:

[tommyservo7]

I agree with Costas' comments, as well as the journalist he cited. The solvable problem does not lie in drug traffickers and serial killers that see violence as a necessary part of their day-to-day lives. Its with people who normally would not commit murderous acts. Its seems to me like most gun related acts of violence you hear about are committed with legally acquired weapons, and you must suspect that at least some of those would not occur if the guns were not able to be acquired legally (think this case or Trayvon Martin).

I think the problem with the gun-ban argument is most flawed when it comes to pure defense. Say guns are banned, but a burglar with an illegal gun breaks into my home. Truth be told, I would probably just let them take what they want and leave if I were on my own, though I understand not everyone feels that way. But if I had a wife or a kid, I would want to be able to defend them if possible.

[Short1]

As far as removing guns to even the playing field, I don't see how that's true. Without guns in society, all the big jerks who happen to be huge have a physical advantage over those of us who aren't as big. Guns even the playing field so that physical size doesn't create an advantage.

[hurt-a]

As far as removing guns to even the playing field, I don't see how that's true. Without guns in society, all the big jerks who happen to be huge have a physical advantage over those of us who aren't as big. Guns even the playing field so that physical size doesn't create an advantage.

Thats like saying calculators make stupid people smart.

[lij2015]

The debate over personal fire arms(Handguns) make sense.
But I find it extremely unnecessary that owning an assault rifle or a high capacity magazine is even necessary.
The difference between a psycho with a gun and a psycho with a knife is pretty different.

[Hertaz]

As far as removing guns to even the playing field, I don't see how that's true. Without guns in society, all the big jerks who happen to be huge have a physical advantage over those of us who aren't as big. Guns even the playing field so that physical size doesn't create an advantage.

Thats like saying calculators make stupid people smart.

No... that's like saying calculators put people who can't solve math problems in their head on the same level as people who can.

And that's kind of what they do..

[VoteLobster]

I love the idea of gun control, but it's not as simple as creating a law then the world will be perfect. (that's just general knowledge though, that's why the country as a whole has not been able to reach a consensus.

Problem 1 - The 2nd amendment exists. We can't just take guns away. It would be quite a rigorous process to remove an amendment (and may cause much more conflict than is already present WITH guns). Most gun supporters would refuse to let this happen, because the amendments, in theory, are set in stone.

Problem 2 - Criminals don't follow laws. If we had gun control, and removed guns from the country, the criminals will find a way to acquire them, if not another weapon. (Slingshots, crossbows, and bows could trend...) For example, just because cocaine is illegal, and the involved laws are strictly enforced, it still happens and exists in the country. There's no way around it. Sure, it could help quite a bit, cutting down these crimes, but the criminals will find a way around it.

Problem 3 - Guns for sporting purposes. The majority of gun owners probably use them for hobbyist purposes. Target shooting, hunting, etc. They would be greatly disappointed if their guns were taken away from them. After all, [in theory], they're not hurting anybody! They're just practicing their skills! Yeah! But that's what the accused killers would say when asked why they have rifles in their homes.

As said earlier, owning a small handgun for hobbyist or maybe self defense purposes is somewhat understandable. But no one needs to own an assault rifle in their home for self defense. But what would the police and military people do? Would they be able to keep their guns? But all men are created with equal opportunity, therefore if someone owns a gun, everyone else can! There are quite a few issues with eliminating guns... I'm sure it would be very good if we live in a perfect world and we're somehow able to remove guns, period. But we don't. Limiting guns would help, (such as if you're been accused of a gun crime, you're not allowed to possess one) but eliminating guns is close to impossible.

To you, I say this:

[video]

That's hilarious

[KJennings]

I don't understand how you can cite "Criminals don't follow laws" without feeling really dumb. I guess we should never address laws that will still be broken. Like things related to murder, stealing, guns, or anything...

[HaViiK]

The way I see it, is outlawing guns would create a prohibition like deal. More crime and violence than before. I don't care if guns are outlawed or not. I don't hunt or target shoot. I live in a very pro-2nd amendment area and I can already see a black market developing. Also, assault rifles are not the issue. Adam Lanza did not use an assault rifle. He used illegally obtained handguns.

[VoteLobster]

I don't understand how you can cite "Criminals don't follow laws" without feeling really dumb. I guess we should never address laws that will still be broken. Like things related to murder, stealing, guns, or anything...

Ok, sorry. I guess I over-generalized a little. Let me rephrase. Just because a law exists doesn't mean people won't try to break it. That's why we have crime. But if there was NO law, then our amount of crimes (I know they're not really crimes because there's no law, you get the point) would be a heck of a lot higher. Crimes still happen, but laws help to lessen them. If guns were not allowed in the country, then stores would have to get rid of them. That would make it less likely for someone to acquire a gun and cut down gun crimes.

Yet again, the reason they're called 'criminals' is that they disobeyed a law.

[flamtaps5]

I didn't read the other comments, but bad people are gonna get their hands on guns anyway.

[Cubee]

I didn't read the other comments, but bad people are gonna get their hands on guns anyway.

What an intellectual cop-out.

[KJennings]

I didn't read the other comments, but bad people are gonna get their hands on guns anyway.

What an intellectual cop-out.

This is exactly what I'm saying

[flamtaps5]

I didn't read the other comments, but bad people are gonna get their hands on guns anyway.

What an intellectual cop-out.

This is exactly what I'm saying

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gun control. But to ban guns completely is a bit extreme in my opinion.

[hotbeats645]

What an intellectual cop-out.

This is exactly what I'm saying

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gun control. But to ban guns completely is a bit extreme in my opinion.

good thing that NOBODY IS TRYING TO DO THAT. the current proposal being discussed would still allow you to own your grandfathered assault rifle (one you buy before the law goes into effect). it would just require magazine clip ban, no future sales of rifles (after the law actually becomes law), and would require background checks. you could still have hunting rifles and shotguns.

personally, I don't think this is enough, but it will help the gun problem OVER TIME. as in, when you all grow up and have kids, there will be less access to these types of weapons. people with mental disorders will have a harder time getting access to them. sure, criminals will still be able to get guns through black market or whatever, but there will be fewer guns and hopefully we would be able to account for most of them with the strict background checks.

[Snare Playa]

***

[schorsquatch]

What an awesome conversation.

First off, we live in a society where owning firearms IS a right. So, any argument about who, or to what extent is moot. This is the USA, and its a right. End of story.

FYI, the second amendment is there so the people can form militias and defend themselves from the government. It was designed as a safeguard FOR society. Ironic, huh?

So I guess what it boils down to is what that means for us. With guns out there, its a matter of time before someone meets the business end. There is no use getting all emotional about it, that's just the fact. People have always find inventive ways to kill each other, and I have no reason to expect that will change in the foreseeable future.

I'm a firm believer that when you pick up a gun to exercise your right, then you are doing more than that. You are entering a social contract where you accept a society where guns can proliferate, and that also means that you accept that people are going to die gun related deaths. How people die (suicide, accident, single murder, mass shooting) by it is nothing more than window dressing. In addition, who gets killed is as irrelevant as it is inevitable. Innocent bystanders, children, etc. Doesn't matter. If you accept that we live in a society with guns, you accept that the deaths of innocent people and children will happen. If you choose to keep a gun, then you own a piece of the responsibility for what that means for society as a whole.

Attempts at gun control (assault rifle bans, mandatory background checks, and 7-day waiting periods) don't mean anything to me. If they are available, and people partake, then its only a matter of time before someone dies because of it. I also don't believe in the "outlaw guns and then only outlaws will have them" argument. Simply because every person is a potential outlaw. Today I'm a stable, fully functioning, reasonably responsible adult. Tomorrow my life could unravel and turn me into a desperate and unstable lunatic.

Anyway, I think it sucks that we choose to accept this contract. I'm not a gun owner myself, but all I know is that it sucks that any random stranger on the street has the power to draw and fire, and it sucks that I have to treat every interaction with anybody I meet with that in mind. I think it sucks that lethal violence is part of our public discourse... like that is somehow "on the table" for anything you do. I think it really sucks that I have to raise a child to live in that society. I also think it draws into question just how much of a civilized society we actually are.

</rant>