Gun Control Roll Call

[John Dibble]

Well, it's no secret I am not a big fan of guns. I was raised without any guns in the house, and was raised to know that guns are bad.

Guns aren't bad - to think so is a logical fallacy. Guns are simply tools, nothing more than inanimate objects that do nothing unless acted upon by an outside force. A gun can be used for good or evil, just like any other tool - it's the user that decides the use, not the gun.

[John Dibble]

I am strongly opposed to mandatory trigger locks, assault weapon bans, concealed carry restrictions, mandatory waiting periods, and so forth. Frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers should be prohibited.

All federal gun laws whatsoever (including federal background check requirements) should be repealed.

^^^^^^^^^

This is a pretty good summation of my views as well.

[John Dibble]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them.

In other words, you'd like it if only criminals would have these kinds of guns, because that's exactly what will happen.

[John Dibble]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them.

In other words, you'd like it if only criminals would have these kinds of guns, because that's exactly what will happen.

Well, police would have guns.  And criminals would only have access to guns for a limited time; eventually, all the guns would be lost or broken or confiscated and no new ones would be manufactured.

When Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964, he argued against gun control by saying it would take fifty years to be effective.  Of course, if we instituted gun control in 1964, we'd now be more than 80% of the way there even if he was right.

Of course, criminals would never ever find a way to manufacture cheap guns on their own or even *gasp* smuggle them into the country. Or, there's no way that corrupt cops might provide them with them, that's never happened. No, those things couldn't possibly happen.

[John Dibble]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

The problem is, you cannot always read their intentions. As soon as you see the intruder, all you know is they are somewhere they are not legally allowed to be. So, the only reasonable assumption is that since this person intends some sort of harm upon you, and thusly self-defense by means of a gun is warranted. You don't know whether they intend to steal from you, rape your wife, kill you or another family member, ect. - the only safe thing to do is assume the worst, that they intend lethal harm to you and others and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

And quite frankly, I don't see how shooting someone who intends to rape you should be a felony or a crime of ANY sort - that's like saying you'd rather have a woman be raped than to have a rapist shot dead.

Under your definitions of what constitute a civilized society, I would want no part of one - I'll take a society founded on sound reason and logic instead.

[John Dibble]

The problem is, you cannot always read their intentions. As soon as you see the intruder, all you know is they are somewhere they are not legally allowed to be. So, the only reasonable assumption is that since this person intends some sort of harm upon you, and thusly self-defense by means of a gun is warranted. You don't know whether they intend to steal from you, rape your wife, kill you or another family member, ect. - the only safe thing to do is assume the worst, that they intend lethal harm to you and others and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

Boy, if there's one thing you really need to learn it's that it's seldom sensible - in deed, seldom safe - to assume the worst. Keep it in mind as a possibility, yes, but that's something entirely different. Anyways, as soon as you see the intruder, you usually have quite a good chance to grasp the situation too so this is a big strawman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's (usually, not always) lots of options to prevent both. Such as, threatening to shoot, shoot in the leg, etc. But yes, OF COURSE I'd rather have a person be raped than to have a person shot dead. That's why murder carries stiffer penalties than rape, you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but you didn't use any.

1. I used plenty of logic and reason, you just happen to dislike it - in a situation where there is an intruder in your house, you must react quickly, and you do not necessarily have time to analyze everything. You might see a burglar, knowing that he seems to want your possessions, but you do not know whether or not he will become violent now that he's been found out - it's better to be safe than sorry, and assume that he might get violent.

2. While you are threatening to shoot him in the leg, he shoots you in the head. Congratulations, you are now dead. In a life or death situation like this, you would be very likely to die.

3. I find it absolutely disgusting that you would rather that an innocent woman be raped than a criminal be killed before he manages to commit such a heinous act. Why do you value the life of someone lower than pond scum over the well-being of an innocent?

[John Dibble]

2. While you are threatening to shoot him in the leg, he shoots you in the head.

A second gun has mysteriously appeared out of thin air?

Didn't you know - criminals can carry guns too. Duh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, because I do value life - and that means every life - and you apparently don't. And don't go on dissing pond scum.
[/quote]

You value life over people's right to live their lives without such atrocities being commited against them. I value life as well, but when someone tries to violate someone's rights in such a gross manner their life becomes expendible in the defense of those rights.

[John Dibble]

And I dare you to argue that you wouldn't dramatically reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.

My understanding is that they don't happen all that much anyways. At most a couple thousand annually. I read that in 2004 it was around 700 in the U.S.

[John Dibble]

I haven't cited any source because everyone already knows the comparative statistics from other countries, and also the counter-arguments that gun advocates always make.  Citing them will just elicit those arguments, and its not a debate I really feel like getting into.  The cause-and-effect relationship seems self-evident me.  I realize it doesn't to other people...but my original post on this thread is not intended to convince gun advocates to reverse their position.  I know that is not going to happen, just as I'm not going to be convinced to reverse mine based on one study when do many verifiable statistics point in the other obvious direction.

Statistics are easily manipulated to imply things they do not. Correllation does not necessarily equal causation. Switzerland hands out machine guns to the general populace, yet they have the lowest crime in the world, which is quite contrary to what many people would think. I used to use this as an argument for more guns=less crimes, but I don't anymore because Switzerland is different from the U.S. in a number of other ways. When making comparisons between multiple countries, it is foolish to only use one or two statistics to reach conclusions.