Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Hi Michamus, hope you made it back well from Afghan.I haven't had the time to debate in this thread for a while but I'm following it.Just wanted to point out something about your question(s). Here's a good article that addresses that: Gun Control

quote:

---

Consider that since the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, not a single major gun control law has been passed by Congress. In fact, restrictions on certain weapons have actually been relaxed.

​

In 2003, Congress passed a measure that prevents local enforcement agencies from consulting police in other states regarding firearms traces.

​

Then in 2004, the assault weapons ban enacted by the Bill Clinton administration expired. That expiration included the ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, which allow as many as 33 cartridges to be loaded at a time to allow more rapid fire. The pistols used in Norris Hall had those high-capacity clips, which greatly increased Cho Seung-Hui's firepower.

---

But I usually think where there's a will there's a way, and people who have the will to cause harm will do so no matter what laws are implemented. However, reducing their fire power can help the overall casualty numbers. So while agree that the event probably wasn't avoidable, I think that the high number of casualties was made possible by the legal sales of assault weapons. Those weapons should be absolutely illegal IMO.Frankly, if one needs an assault rifle for home defense, they should really think about moving. You kinda shoot (no pun intended) yourself in the foot here. If it's a criminal buying a gun, as in: already determined to have a criminal background, then by not allowing people with prior criminal records to buy guns takes care of "criminals buying guns." Right?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

If only we had elected officials to do this job... shit! Maybe we should have elections and vote to have appointed government employees who's job it would be to write laws, debate laws, pass laws, approve laws, enforce laws, etc... Oh wait, WE ALREADY DO.And there's an entire budget for them to write laws, debate laws, pass laws, approve laws and enforce laws... And guess who pays for that? Such as military weapons and international wars? This is bullshit. Why do you consider this a party divided issue? Why is it up to one (media created) side to be responsible, as citizens mind you, for the cost effectiveness of gun control? Don't we have elected officials who are PAID to handle this? - Or are they too busy being lobbied by the pro-gun people and the NRA to do their fucking jobs? - Sad. So now it's pro-gun-banners? First it was anti-rightsists arguing for stricter gun control, now it's banning? Make up your mind. Which fake group do you have a problem with?In this entire thread, no one is arguing for a gun "ban," except for personal opinions perhaps, I expressed some, but I was also being realistic in saying that a ban won't happen.It's just gun control, not gun bans, that we are debating.- Oni

Wow, that's probably the most boring link ever! - OniBtw, sorry to not have answered your posts on the other threads. I've been quite busy these days and don't have time to follow an entire debate. I'll just chime in from time to time. I'll get to them hopefully soon if you want to continue where we were.

So let me ask, would you be against states that have lesser gun laws and demand from them that they raise to that basic standard that you list above?If you would... then guess what, you're on the wrong side of the debate, because that's what most gun control advocates in the US are arguing for. Many states in the US don't meet that basic standard that you mentioned. And the criminals know exactly which states those are and purchase their guns legally there. Then those guns get brought back to states that have a stricter gun law and gets sold illegally there.Example:
Now an armed person who is mental ill, buys a gun legally, or buys a gun illegally that was once purchased legally, and uses it to shoot up Virginia Tech. Had ALL the states carried certain laws, neither legally bought guns that are then sold illegally in other states occurs, nor mentally ill people (with a violent past and addiction) get their hands on a weapon.That's all that (at least IMO) is being advocated for. Like I originally stated: "a universal gun control standard for all of the US."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I agree. Great post.But it would also require the consesus of every state. As of now, certain states, like Texas, have very laxed gun laws. In Texas a 12 year old can legally purchase a hunting rifle or shotgun, no parent needed (I'll find you a link if you need it). Some states don't require a background check nor that the weapon be registered. The problem then, as I see it, is that individuals who would normally not be allowed to purchase a gun in certain states, can either by a gun from someone who purchased it for them or go to that state and buy it there.Overall, I think there should be a basic, universal standard for purchasing a gun that all states must meet, because we have no borders and can freely travel throughout the country. I don't think that's needed. We have many "rules" that apply to all states but that are still governed by the individual state, such as a license to drive a vehicle. The same can be applied to guns. There should be a minimum standard that applies to all states, then any stricter laws can be added and voted on by the people within the state as they see fit.But I think for the most part we agree.Hope all is well with you, dude. Btw, I have a friend that works for Customs here in Miami and also taught in Columbus, Georga, maybe you know her... first name Karla? (I won't give out her last name)- Oni

I think large cartridges, for any weapon, is where I would draw the line. I don't necessarily consider automatic/semi automatic a defining line, it's more about the amount of bullets the weapon can hold. But I'm not well educated in weapons so this would be something that people with knowledge on the subject can debate amoungst themselves.However, in the article I linked for you, clearly one can see that had these weapons been baned the casualty numbers would have been significantly less. And that's the crux of the debate. Gun laws are for the LEGAL purchase of weapons. Also, it's important to note that, at least in the US, no weapon is made illegally, so somewhere between the manufacturer and the dealers there is a problem with the guns reaching the wrong hands. Thus I feel gun control laws should also apply to manufacturers and certain conditions should be applied to them as far as who they distribute the weapons to. Criminals will always find a way, unless guns don't exist, which is impossible. But if laws are applied to the manufacturers and dealers, and there is a good system of making sure they adhere to the law, plus law enforcment doing more in this area (not that I know what "more" would be), I think it can greatly reduce the ease by which these guns can be purchased illegally.- Oni

Then we agree for the most part.Here's a link to the Gun laws in the US, and you can see how it varies state to state.As an example, a state like Alabama, or Texas, or Kentucky does not require a state permit to purchase a weapon, firearm registration for handguns, rifles or assault weapons, or an owner license for any weapon. Gun control advocates are seeking a nation wide minimum standard that would require these states, as an example, to meet these basic requirements. Which you can agree is needed.That's all that gun control advocates in the US are pushing for, and by your previous post, you would be on board with that. However, through fear propaganda, groups like the NRA (not exclusively), spread lies to people claiming that pro-gun control advocates seek to abolish guns, when this is far from being the truth. All we seek is a minimum standard that would require the most basic of laws to be adhered to nation wide. If you use the link that I provided, and go state by state, you'll find that many/most do not, especially for rifles or shotguns - (fun fact: one can easily become a sniper in the US, buying any long range rifle he/she may want, without any need for permits, background check, or license to purchase).This, you'll have to agree, is fucked up. If that's our only disagreement then I'm cool with that. The law would not prevent the situation, but as an example, say assault weapons of high cartridge capability were banned, even to manufacture for citizen use, this law would reduce the casualties of any act of violence where the attacker used a gun. However, if I can legal purchase an assault rifle, I can increase the potential victim count by a high percentage...as was the case in VT. Perhaps, and they can state their case as to why they feel that way, but more to the point, at least in my opinion, is the realistic outlook of gun control laws.A ban on guns is virtually impossible these days, due to fear propaganda, etc., but surely you can agree that, as the states that I spoke of above show, a nation wide minimum requirement for the legal purchase of guns should be put into effect, right? Those requirements being the one's you stated, and we both agreed on.- Oni

Wud up CS, They had guns in Waco, lots of them, semi auto/atutomatic in fact, that didn't stop the government.What you would need to do is form a significant enough sized group of people that could withstand an advancement from our military. As of right now, not even countries with a big enough size army can do this.There is no deterrant for the government. Iraq, Kosovo, Afgahn, Vietnam, etc. If they want you, their coming for you.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Sure you can. Rifles and shotguns require no background check or permit, or in fact anything other than the money to buy them, in most states in the US.That's the beauty of our laxed gun laws, anyone can buy one and kill whoever they want. It's a free-for-all. All you anti-gun control advocates should be happy that we live in a country where the "right to bear arms" is extended to every single person, no matter what they've ever done in the past.Any lunatic who wants to kill his wife or husband, any person who wants to go to the mall and pop off shots, any one willing to go into a school and open fire...here in the US, you're free to do that.You can buy the rifle or shotgun legally THEN become a criminal with it.Ah America... The Constitution claims that every citizen has the right to bear arms, period. It doesn't go into specifics about the type of weapon. Go buy a rifle or a shotgun, there, you have arms and your rights aren't infringed upon.Oh but that's not enough is it? We need 22 clip magazines on 9mm handguns. We need 50 cal. Desert Eagles. We need semi-automatic weapons with 100 clip mag. We need silencers. We need, we need, we need...This is an abuse of the right to bear arms Amendment. And takes them where specifically?Is it not enough that big brother has already herded the masses into cubicles and made them work just to pay off debts?Big Brother doesn't need to herd people who are already herded, but just don't know it. And what will you do with your single handgun? You're not Bruce Willis and this ain't Die Hard.If tanks and aircrafts come knocking at your door, like that's gonna happen, there isn't much you can do. Which branch of government will be coming for you?- Oni

How would they do this?When you say "the government," which branch of government do you feel would be able to gather the resources to be able to invade it's own country?Do you mean with our military? Or on their own some how?Would they pull all of the troups overseas for this or just do it with the troups at home?Do you think the men and women serving in the Armed Forces would be able to attack their own country, and family and friends?If it attacks it's own citizens, and destroys it's infrastructure, then how would they fund the war?Who exactly would "they" be that could pull this off?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

There isn't any that I disagree with. I agree that people have the right to bear arms, if that's the type of mental security that comforts you, enjoy.What I disagree with is the level of armament that "the people" feel they need, and the discreetness that they have towards their weapons.I have advocated for a universal standard in the US for gun control laws, that's all. Not for the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Like I said, buy a rifle or a shotgun, there, your rights to bear arms aren't infringed upon and you have a weapon to defend yourself and go hunting.But again, it's not enough, right? People aren't satisfied with that, are they? They still want that Desert Eagle and the semi-auto AR-15...for hunting...? Please. People don't care about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, they just use that as their argument because it makes them sound like good citizens that are concerned with peoples rights...BULLSHIT.They want bigger guns and bigger guns because of some testosterone driven need to be the guy with the biggest dick. Their not doing it to defend themseves or thwart a government uprising, they buy all that shit so they can show it off to people and whip it out like an extension of their less impressive male member. Sorry Hyro, I'm not following this.Exept for the IRA (and ignoring the Founding Fathers because I don't see how that fits, there were no aircrafts or tanks in those days), everyone of those people are fighting, or did fight, the US and couldn't do shit. Political reasons saved Vietnam from being the next Hiroshima, but had it not, it would have been leveled.My point is that governments like the US's aren't beaten with guns and weapons, you can't win, they have too much. The way to beat them is financially. I'm asking for the logistics of the situation. Which branch of government would pull this off? I'm still curous as to which one it could possibly be... That is an easy sentence to misinterpret. What do you mean by "successful" and "unsuccessful," at what exactly?The gun cotrol laws that don't exist in this country? How can they be anything but unsuccessful?- Oni

Agreed. It doesn't take a gun pointed at someones face to force them into labor, it just takes a morgage, car payment, credit card bill and the constant threat of being homeless to do this. - I thought I felt something. Well said. That's a great point. The same people who are stock pilling weapons to defend themselves against a government uprising, will be the same people on the side of the government uprising.Because it's easy to herd the like-minded masses... just tell them that the people they're fighting are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, want to take their guns and hate Jesus. Oh shit, wait a minute, I think this campaign already started. - Oni

Many states do not.When it comes to rifles and shotguns, most states don't require anything but the money to buy them. Here's a link to the gun laws in the USVery few require this, see link above.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Join the cause, dude. That's what gun control advocates are seeking in the US. Not the removal of guns or any Amendment rights. Just accountability for the weapons and a background check to avoid guns getting into the hands of those who shouldn't posses them.However, the biggest problem is that it has to be ALL states.- Oni

First, you can't make this statement without providing a link that states this. Each state has their own laws for purchasing firearms., there is no universal rule/law/standard for purchasing a weapon in the US.Some states only require the money to buy the gun, especially when it comes to rifles and shotguns.Remember Sports Authority here in Miami? - Back when I enjoyed rabbit hunting out in the cane fields up Okeechobee, I went there to buy a 12guage. I walked in, saw the one I wanted, payed and walked out. No background check, no registration, no nothing...just a 21 year old dude with 200 dollars.In Texas, Kentuckey, and Alabama (off the top of my head) you can do the same thing I did for handguns.Here, for the 3rd time on this thread, US gun laws state by state.- Oni