NameSilo

Gun Laws

Labeled as discuss in The Break Room started by Bernard Wright, May 13, 2019.

Replies:
45
Views:
595

  1. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    This is just a hodgepodge of thoughts. I won't distinguish between good and bad people. I'll focus on peoples' actions.

    Bad actors shouldn't have guns for committing acts of violence against innocent people, nor for threatening innocent people with potential violence. It would be nice if society could prevent a bad actor from obtaining the gun used in a bad act.

    Good actors should have the right to defend themselves and others against bad actors with necessary force. Such force includes the threat of lethal violence, and the use of lethal violence if necessary.

    Bad actors don't have regard for the rule of law when acting in a criminal manner.

    Society is comprised of individuals pursuing their own interests. Laws are instated to ensure that individuals' rights are not infringed upon by another person or entity. When an individual infringes upon another individual's rights, there are criminal and civil procedures to deal with such matters, overseen by our governing officials. In extreme cases, when the infringing party is a usurping government, it is up to the citizens to protect their natural freedoms from that government. This happens rarely, but it happens. It is wise for an individual to aspire to maintain his/her own personal sovereignty and ability to protect him/herself from unjust threats.

    A good actor is responsible for protecting him/herself and, if desired, other people from threats and acts of violence. When police officers are capable of assisting, assistance is welcomed, but the police's main duty is to maintain law and order, not to protect another individual from immediate threat. The individual's primal concern is his/her own personal safety, and this is a responsibility that lies within every individual when faced with a threat of violence.

    A gun is a tool. A gun can do a number of things. Here are three examples.

    1. a gun can be used to engage in a violent act.
    2. a gun can be used to deescalate/end a violent act.
    3. a gun can be used to deescalate/end a threat of violence.

    We are all players in society with an interest in pursuing our best interests and defending our well-being. Laws that would take guns away from some bad actors are sure to also result in fewer armed good actors who could deescalate violent and potentially violent situations. Violence is not good. Good actors with guns end violent situations more quickly and effectively than good actors without guns do. There are hundreds of millions of firearms on this planet. A bad actor with the desire to obtain a gun will always have the means to locate a gun. Black markets are real.

    Good actors should have the legal right to possess guns in order to protect themselves, and others, from bad actors.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    They're all interesting philosophical arguments, but the only reason they exist is because the NRA has half of the U.S. brainwashed. Countries with strict gun laws don't have these "concerns".

    Facts based on many studies:
    • Gun ownership increases the risk of gun-related homicides and suicides.
    • Guns are almost twice as likely to be stolen than to be used for self-defence.
    • A gun in a home with a history of domestic violence dramatically increases the risk that a woman will be killed.
    • Guns intended for self-defence are commonly involved in fatal accidents. Higher levels of gun ownership are linked to higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.
    A study done in 2014 even showed that for every self-defence gun homicide in the United States, guns were used in 34 criminal homicides.

    Guns do not make people safer! They create the illusion of safety.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  3. HotKey

    HotKey Made in Canada VIP

    Posts:
    2,057
    Likes Received:
    4,708
    4. Survival hunting.

    imo, to procure your sustenance, is the only partly LEGITIMATE reason to own a firearm. NOT for protection. NOT for collecting. NOT for deescalation. NOT for target practice. NOT for sitting in a platform in a tree and waiting to shoot your prey to saunter by to claim your trophy. NOT for any pathetic fool on to have the ability to pull a 2 inch trigger and end another mans life.

    Wish guns were never invented. They turn a coward into a coward with a hand cannon. We only get one opportunity on this earth, and to think that a tiny piece of a lead projectile can steal that opportunity from us, on the whim of some loser.

    Even #4, survival hunting. There are alternatives. Learn archery. Use a long bow. Learn trapping. Learn the art of knife-throwing.

    Yes, we need to protect our homes and property. So the cycle will not end. It is too late. Because even if homeowner becomes the bigger man, rids the gun, the bad guys will always be the tiny cockroaches who will use that hand cannon. And what chance to we have against cockroaches? Apparently they can survive a nuclear holocaust.

    So the world invented guns. We have to live with them now. The only solution would be to eradicate them completely. But how do you eradicate them? The only effective counter-attack is, another gun. Bullets even from a 9mm can travel 1.5 miles! They can print guns from a 3D print machine, so these things don't even have to be made of metal anymore!

    As with all responsible decisions in life, it has to come down to the individual. Both the homeowner and the bad guy, have to agree not to use the gun. Will that happen in this lifetime or any?

    **

    Nichols has it right, guns create the illusion of safety. In turn, it also creates the illusion of courage, and power.

    What's real courage? This right here:

    Colorado school shooting victim died charging attacker
     
  4. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    I disagree. I contend that the statements I made exist because they hold merit. If you disagree with the validity of any of my statements, please address their flaws on the basis of this lack of validity.

    • Gun ownership increases the risk of gun-related homicides and suicides
      Yes.
    • Guns are almost twice as likely to be stolen than to be used for self-defence.
      Perhaps gun owners could do a better job of stowing their guns in a safe place. That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from this. It seems like bad actors are very intent on obtaining firearms they should not possess. We should make more efforts to keep guns from being stolen from gun owners who might someday use their weapons for the defense of innocents.

    • A gun in a home with a history of domestic violence dramatically increases the risk that a woman will be killed.
      I think you are pointing out that bad actors with guns are dangerous. I agree here. Your statement makes me wonder whether women who are trained in the use of a firearm, with a gun in the home, are potentially less-likely to be killed. I know of cases where a woman killed her domestic abuser with a firearm. I saw one in the news two days ago. As I stated in my first post, bad actors with guns are best-stopped by good actors with guns.

    • Guns intended for self-defence are commonly involved in fatal accidents. Higher levels of gun ownership are linked to higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.
      This seems valid. Higher levels of car ownership are also associated with higher rates of traffic collisions. It's the driver that causes the crash in most cases. Rarely is the cause the vehicle.
    A study done in 2014 even showed that for every self-defence gun homicide in the United States, guns were used in 34 criminal homicides.

    I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. If you want to bring that number down from 34 you need to increase the number of "self-defense guns". Is that the solution you are seeking? Double the amount of self-defense guns and we're now down to 17 criminal homicides per self-defense gun. And that's if the increase in self-defense guns doesn't work to dissuade perps from carrying out their attacks. As I mentioned in my first post, guns used by good actors can deescalate violent threats. So, the effect might not be linear. Instead of 17, let's presume the number would be 15.

    Guns do not make people safer! They create the illusion of safety.

    I can't draw this conclusion from any of your statements except perhaps the first bullet point. But that statement is very vague. Back to cars. Yes, increased car ownership increases the risk of car-related deaths as well. But a driver has the right to own and drive a car, and it is his/her responsibility to respect life and drive safely.

    While I'm on the topic of cars, here is another thought. I have seen what seems to be an uptick in the number of police pursuits on TV since I was young. When I see one, I often wonder what will happen when the perp approaches a red light with many stopped cars, or when they approach a slow spot on the freeway. Will the cops move in? Sometimes the chase takes place in residential areas at very high speeds. I often hope that something will slow the perp down. Perhaps a slow moving vehicle will be up ahead. There are a lot of cars on the road compared to when I was young. Do I think the uptick in police pursuits is due to the increase in available cars to steal? I don't. I think a potential car thief might actually prefer to steal a car in a neighborhood where they see little congestion and a chance for a clean getaway. Perhaps a conclusion can be drawn that there might be a negative correlation between car density and police pursuits in this respect. How about suspects who haven't stolen the car, but they choose to try to outrun the flashing lights in their rear view? Should they have been given access to a vehicle they're driving, even though they might someday try to outrun the cops? Interesting thought. Should my right to own a vehicle be revoked because this other person might try to outrun the cops someday? Nope. It's my vehicle. And, the more vehicles on the road, the more likely the cops will have a chance to catch the perp at a congested intersection or similar. Get a V12 on an open highway and watch the police try to catch it. Get a V12 in downtown traffic where there are lots of other vehicles you have a different story. This is true, of course, so long as the rest of the vehicles are also not criminals trying to escape the police. Imagine if all non-criminal drivers had their cars revoked and all that remained were criminals who had stolen a vehicle with no resistance from a good actor? I'm drawing this out a bit. I'll end it here. Good actors with guns are necessary to a functioning society when there are bad actors with guns.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
  5. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    I don't see any clear points being made other than guns exist. They do.

    I'm not an expert in game theory but I can say with 100% certainty that this will never happen.


    I will reiterate that when faced with a threat of violence by an individual possessing a firearm, just about the only physical object that can make you safer in that moment is possessing a firearm.

    I don't know who would equate possessing a gun with courage. But to use a gun to protect oneself or others from unjust threats is indeed an act of courage. Regarding power. Possessing a firearm definitely results in an increase in one's individual power. Not even remotely debatable.

    Pretty courageous to charge a shooter. If faced with such a predicament the optimal scenario would be to seek refuge or engage with the shooter. It seems that the individual named in the article possessed great courage. Had he a gun at his side, he probably would have saved many lives. I'm not advocating for students to carry guns, but facts are facts. This is a brave individual who had no choice but to sacrifice himself. A more rational and optimal solution, when possible, is to take out the shooter. There's only one viable way to do that.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
  6. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    Actually you're the one not making any clear points. I have presented data. You've presented personal opinion and unsupported ideas. Do you have anything to back them up? Show us some studies that prove everyone would be safer if everyone owned a gun.

    This is a false claim. A 2015 study showed that the likelihood of sustaining an injury during a robbery was nearly identical between people who attempted to defend themselves with a gun and those who did not.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
  7. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    Indeed I am not citing studies. I am using logic. You are refuting my logic with studies that do not support your claim, and you are yet to make a clear distinction as to what you purport the studies to conclude.

    My stance is clear. So long as guns exist, bad actors will possess them. Without guns also in the hands of good actors, a grave shift in the balance of power will ensue. Good actors with guns is the only countermeasure to a society in which bad actors possess guns. My statements provide sound logical reasoning on which to draw this conclusion.

    Regarding the 2015 claim, I'd be happy to read it if you'd provide a link. Here are my immediate thoughts on the details you provide:
    • "nearly identical" suggests that there was a slight decrease in rates of injury among those who possessed a firearm. If one can be given any advantage during a situation in which they are threatened with violence and death, no matter how small the advantage, this advantage is a good thing.

    • It is difficult to defend oneself during a robbery. Robbers tend to move hastily, act in close proximity, and approach in a sneaky fashion. If someone getting money at an ATM is approached from behind by a robber brandishing a firearm, it's probably best to comply even if that victim is carrying. However, if someone is getting money from the ATM and there are good actors nearby with firearms, trained in their use, who can deescalate the robbery, and engage the robber if necessary, this is more likely to result in a favorable outcome for the victim than a scenario where only bad actors have firearms in society. I don't have a study, but I have seen video in Brazil of such a case. The robber didn't survive. Again, I don't need a study. A bad actor with a weapon possesses power that can only be met with equivalent force. Sometimes it is a bystander who fulfills that role.

    • Furthermore, robbery is not the only concern. Acts of violence exist whereby robbery is not the objective. You cited a domestic violence study. I'll reiterate that logic tells me that a woman who possesses a firearm in a household where she is in fear of being murdered by a family member is much more empowered. I don't need a study. And further yet, I know a woman who shot an unknown assailant who entered her home a few years ago. Domestic violence is not the only concern women have.
    You are citing studies that don't refute any of my claims. And you are not making any of your assertions clear. My stance is clear. Gun laws protect the rights of individuals to defend themselves and others from bad actors who possess firearms, or other bad actors who would do harm if not stopped.
     
  8. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    My stance: Gun laws protect gun manufacturers and distributers who care more about making money than about people's safety. There is no evidence to suggest that gun ownership makes people safer.

    Your "logic" is incomplete, and your arguments fail to factor in social, economic, and cultural issues. In a perfect world where everyone can responsibly own and use a firearm, there would be no issues. We don't live in that world.

    Analysis of the study I mentioned: https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-myth/ (a link to the study itself is in there as well).
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  9. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    Thank you for the link to the informative article. I'm too tired to think at the moment. Just wanted to read it before calling it a day.
     
  10. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    Thank you again for the article. I did learn from it. I won't elaborate much as to why it won't affect my stance on gun rights but I'll keep this post brief. In short, the article pertains mostly to two things:

    1. studies in which robbery victims were carrying guns
    2. "defensive" use of a firearm, when in actuality the defender is likely to have provoked the aggressor in the first place

    Regarding #1, as I mentioned in the post above, robbers move quickly and in close proximity. A victim usually won't even have time or enough personal space to draw a weapon even if they have one. So robberies aren't really relevant.

    Regarding #2, again, my rights to be protected by a weapon that I possess or that a bystander possesses should not be affected by the social graces of others. If anything, such "provocateurs" who deem themselves defensive gun owners would fall under my category of "bad actors". Which takes me back to the root of the problem: There are many bad actors and would-be bad actors with guns. What do we do about it?

    I'll pose the question to you. I think you will agree to two presumptions: evil exists, and guns exist. Those two realities converge, creating evil actions by people with guns. The main question is, what does society do about it? And a second question is, what does the individual, who is an acting participant of that society, do when faced with a person who would do evil to them with a gun?
     
  11. JB Lions

    JB Lions Top Member VIP

    Posts:
    13,785
    Likes Received:
    18,674
    What even is the point of this thread?

    You do.
     
  12. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    Indeed we all do, in the US. The purpose for the thread is to expose people to the reasons why this right should be respected and preserved.

    Edit: but I’m honestly quite open to learning from this thread and I encourage friendly discourse and factual evidence, such as the article above. That was an informative read.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  13. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    Don't you find it odd that no other population in any other developed country requires this right in order to feel safe?
     
  14. mr-x

    mr-x Acme Domains Gold Account VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    10,241
    Likes Received:
    10,169
    Ask people in Cuba or Venezuela if gun rights are important.
     
  15. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    I said developed. Are you equating the U.S. to Venezuela?
     
  16. xdomainer

    xdomainer Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    441
    Historians have recently uncovered evidence that some very enlightened people during the late bronze age understood that weapons are bad. Because of all the violence during the early and middle bronze age a movement in Europe arose around 1300 BC to restrict the use of swords (and daggers, of course). But they were up against the BSA (Blacksmith's Sword Association) and those blacksmiths cared more about money than helping people stay safe.

    It's amazing how even ancient peoples understood things. Scrolls with studies were also uncovered with facts such as:
    • Sword ownership increases the risk of sword-related homicides and suicides.
    • Swords are almost twice as likely to be stolen than to be used for self-defence.
    • A Sword in a home with a history of domestic violence dramatically increases the risk that a woman will be killed.
    • Swords intended for self-defence are commonly involved in fatal accidents. Higher levels of sword ownership are linked to higher rates of unintentional stabbing deaths.
    Makes you think you know?
     
  17. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    Guns are an easy weapon. A lazy weapon. Swords are not.

    Blades force you to take a very intimate role in killing another person. Guns let you dissociate and kill from a distance with little more difficulty than flicking a light switch.

    Guns inflict maximum damage with minimal effort, and millions upon millions of Americans can stroll over to their local Wal-mart to buy one with absolutely no requirement to prove that they know how to use it, or are capable of owning it responsibly.

    As hilarious as all of this is, possibly the most hilarious thing is that half the country thinks it's a good thing! I have to hand it to the gun lobbyists... They earn their pay cheques and then some. Meanwhile every other country not dealing with dictators or civil war stares wide-eyed and gawk-mouthed at this situation and wonders how so many intelligent people were so badly duped.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  18. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    Again Joe, what do you propose we do?
     
  19. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    Look at the gun laws in Sweden, France, Canada, Germany, or any other developed nation.

    Pick your favourite.

    Do that.
     
  20. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    Can you be more specific?
     
  21. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    You want me to write up the new legislation?

    Make handguns and assault weapons inaccessible. Make the rest more difficult to acquire and retain.

    Now you'll ask me how to do it. The answer is that it's going to take a long time, a lot of work, a courageous government, and a majority of the population that is brave enough to make the change.
     
  22. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    There are guns in the hands of people, some of them bad actors, and your solution is simply to "make them inaccessible". It will take a long time, a lot of work, a courageous government, and a lot of people ...to achieve this thing you have yet to explain how achieve.

    You think too many bad actors have guns. I agree with you. You say the remedy is to make guns inaccessible. And after your plan is carried out, none of the bad actors will have guns? Intriguing concept. Again Joe. More specifically, how do you propose we make hundreds of millions of guns inaccessible in the US?
     
  23. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols Common sense consultant VIP

    Posts:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    3,280
    Legislation and enforcement, Bernard. The same way you make any change in a democracy.

    You keep asking for more specifics. You need to ask more specific questions. You could keep up with this generic "how" line of questioning forever. How is decided by politicians, policy makers, and law enforcememt officials. Are you asking me what I would do if I were one of them? Are you actually asking me to write out legislation for you, and then a detailed national plan for execution and enforcement of said legislation? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

    All the general public needs to decide is if gun ownership is a good idea. I said it's not. I told you why. You tell me why it is. How is gun ownership benefitting today's America?
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  24. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    I don't mean to make this antagonistic or "ridiculous", but you're going to have to keep some realities in mind.
    • There are more guns than people in the US. Let that sink in a bit. That's a lot of guns.
    • The undeveloped countries you don't want to compare us to are not stable, and many of their citizens are finding their way into the US. With their illegal entry comes their culture, their attitudes, and a need to survive in an unfamiliar land where they probably are not equipped to excel in the US economy.
    • The people who are least likely to want to follow the legislation you propose fall into two camps.
    1. The very criminals you are concerned about, and would write the legislation for
    2. Those who are suspicious of their government's intentions in drafting such legislation
    Touching upon #1, you'll have to convince a lot of would-be robbers, would-be wife-murderers, would-be mass shooters (and I'll leave it at those three; those are the examples that have been provided in this thread) to hand over their guns because it's illegal to have them now. I don't know how one would convince someone who would ever consider committing a violet crime/robbery/etc with a firearm that they should willingly hand all of their guns to the authorities because "Guns are bad now. See? It says so on this document." Everyone who has ever committed, or would commit, a robbery with a firearm. Anyone who would consider committing a mass-shooting, etc. Just knock on their door and tell them to give you their guns instead. All of their guns. (I edited this paragraph)

    Regarding #2, similar challenges will arise with respect to many of those who would never commit a crime with a firearm. Many are very suspicious of the government. It might be reasonable to conclude that an attempt to seize privately-owned firearms might escalate to unprecedented levels of violence against the government, among those who distrust the government, and perhaps lead to a civil war. I don't think that scenario to be far-fetched in the least. And again, keep in mind that we're talking making all guns inaccessible. That's going to require a lot of snooping inside of closets, under beds, etc. I don't want the police doing that in my house.

    Or maybe you think collecting all the registered firearms is good enough. That's a shortsighted view to hold. Do you really think it's the law-abiding, firearm-registering gun owners that are most problematic? I'll answer that. It's not. It's the 34 you mentioned for every one "self-defense" gun. Take the self-defense guns away and watch the bad actors run amok.

    Your intentions are good. But you cannot resolve this issue by simply saying, there is a problem, so make it illegal and it will go away. And you can't say, just copy the laws of another country. Give 400 million guns to one of those countries you named in your post. Do you think the law is going to be effective?

    The only effective countermeasure to force is counter-force. Keeping guns in the hands of would-be good actors keeps the system in check. It lets the would-be bad actors know that their deeds might be met with counterforce, and it enables the chance of counterforce to exist when violence occurs. There's no better landscape for a would-be violent criminal than an unarmed populous on which to prey. It would be great if we could all hold hands and sing We Are The World, but there are people within a mile radius of you right now who would do harm to you for your possessions. There is evil in this world. That is not going to change. Gun rights ensure that your ability to defend yourself, your property, and the ones you love is maintained, should you choose to. (edited that last sentence to read Gun rights instead of Gun laws, as was written initially)
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  25. Bernard Wright

    Bernard Wright Established Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    341
    That was a long one, and I'm kicking myself for not keeping it concise and focusing on the most-obvious and pertinent fact: it's impossible to get 400 million guns out of the hands of the public. It's just not even remotely possible. Cops can look in closets and under beds all they want. Even if there were the manpower to do so, it wouldn't yield the intended result.

    Calling it another day over here.
     

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
Topics / Tags:

Share This Page

NameWorth
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...