Gun Control Roll Call

[CARLHAYDEN]

Naturally I favor the right to keep and bear arms.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Nick,

A few years ago a student made a slap shot shotgun in less than an hour in shop class at his high school from commonly available materials.

In Pakistan, gunsmiths make replicas of AK-47s (and other modern firearms) in small shops devoid of modern machinery.

Get real!

And just who is going to take those guns away from their owners?

While their are a small number of facists on police forces, they are a minority, and most cops will NOT follow any orders to seize privately owned firearms.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Nick,

A few years ago a student made a slap shot shotgun in less than an hour in shop class at his high school from commonly available materials.

In Pakistan, gunsmiths make replicas of AK-47s (and other modern firearms) in small shops devoid of modern machinery.

Get real!

And just who is going to take those guns away from their owners?

While their are a small number of facists on police forces, they are a minority, and most cops will NOT follow any orders to seize privately owned firearms.

Obviously no law is going to be perfectly enforceable.  But I would much rather have a few illegal guns on the street than millions of legal ones.   We will never be perfectly safe, but we will still be much safer, and I think that would be huge progress.  And I dare you to argue that you wouldn't dramatically reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.

Dare taken.

First, if you had bothered to look at the data?  If you had, you would see that there has been a dramatic reduction in the rate of accidental deaths where firearms were involved over the past fifty years in the United States.  This has nothing to do with laws, and everything to do with (a) firearms design and (b) safety classes.

Second, you argument is pathetically reminiscent of that of those who wanted to ban alcohol.  The truth was that alcohol related deaths INCREASED as a result of prohibition! 

Now, since banning private possession of firearms would mean that no one would be providing/attending safety classes, that would adversely impact the safety and accidental death rate.

As it costs money (and time) to include safety features on modern firearms, those likely to be made illegally would probably omit those features, thus adversely impacting the accidental death rate.

Yes Nick, you are a typical liberal.  Ignorant, thoughtless, and determined to impose a tyrannical government.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The comparison with doctors and cars is silly.  Both of those have huge positive benefits for society which far outweigh their dangers.  Doctors in particular save hundreds of lives for every person they kill due to negligence. 

I don't see any sort of positive social value for guns, except in the hands of police.  I understand that some people find guns interesting and entertaining, and for them they have real value.  But they don't to me.  And I think overall, that entertainment purpose can be mostly served by properly registered rifles, with a great benefit to public safety.

Nick,

There are many instances where frail people have protected their lives from muscular types assaulting them, using firearms as their method of defense.

Now, the law is clearly settled that the police have NO obligation to protect you.

While the muscular criminal would like to disarm nonmuscular noncriminals, that isn't going to happen (as much as you and the muscular criminals might like it).

[CARLHAYDEN]

The comparison with doctors and cars is silly.  Both of those have huge positive benefits for society which far outweigh their dangers.  Doctors in particular save hundreds of lives for every person they kill due to negligence. 

I don't see any sort of positive social value for guns, except in the hands of police.  I understand that some people find guns interesting and entertaining, and for them they have real value.  But they don't to me.  And I think overall, that entertainment purpose can be mostly served by properly registered rifles, with a great benefit to public safety.

Nick,

There are many instances where frail people have protected their lives from muscular types assaulting them, using firearms as their method of defense.

Now, the law is clearly settled that the police have NO obligation to protect you.

While the muscular criminal would like to disarm nonmuscular noncriminals, that isn't going to happen (as much as you and the muscular criminals might like it).

I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence that private handgun ownership prevents some crimes, but is causes way more crimes than it prevents.  I know people have all sorts of cultural counter-explanations, but they comparative stats with other countries are there.   Even if the differences are primarily cultural, banning handguns might go a long way to help change the culture.   And I would personally feel much safer if handguns were banned, even though I know there would still be some illegal ones on the street.

Nick,

Well, you have at least one thing in your favor, you're consistent (consistently wrong).

There is considerable evidence that private handgun ownership deters crime.

Let me cite one outstanding source:

More Guns, Less Crime

the author

Professor John R. Lott, Jr.

So far, you have NOT cited any sources!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nick,

There are many instances where frail people have protected their lives from muscular types assaulting them, using firearms as their method of defense.

Now, the law is clearly settled that the police have NO obligation to protect you.

While the muscular criminal would like to disarm nonmuscular noncriminals, that isn't going to happen (as much as you and the muscular criminals might like it).

I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence that private handgun ownership prevents some crimes, but is causes way more crimes than it prevents.  I know people have all sorts of cultural counter-explanations, but they comparative stats with other countries are there.   Even if the differences are primarily cultural, banning handguns might go a long way to help change the culture.   And I would personally feel much safer if handguns were banned, even though I know there would still be some illegal ones on the street.

Nick,

Well, you have at least one thing in your favor, you're consistent (consistently wrong).

There is considerable evidence that private handgun ownership deters crime.

Let me cite one outstanding source:

More Guns, Less Crime

the author

Professor John R. Lott, Jr.

So far, you have NOT cited any sources!

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.

Nick,

First, it is true you have yet to cite ANY source to support your ludicrous assertions.

Second, there are many forms of statistical analysis seperate from cross national comparisons (have you ever heard of 'time-series' analysis).

Third, I realize YOU are totally unwilling to deal with with facts or logic.

In conclusion, you are the archetype of the American liberal:  ignorant, thougtless,  bigoted, and determined to oppose freedom.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I support the Second Amendment.  Americans have the right to own guns, and that right cannot be abridged.  However, I simply do not see the need to legally sell assault weapons. 

Do you know the definition lf "assault weapons" used in the now defunct federal law?

Do you know that one of the firearms 'banned' was used for decades as the standard rifle in the Camp Perry matches?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nick,

As usual, you misrepresent (perhaps you really cann't understand) what I clearly posted.

You have ignored facts.

Your arguments are irrational.

You abuse the English language.

Please be so good as to cite where I 'threatened' you.  Or are you trying to argue that noting you are ignorant (you are), irrational (you are) or bigoted (you are) is not a 'treat" but merely an accurate description.

I do NOT propose to silence your appeals for tyranny, as much as you wish to tyrannize others. 

YOU are the one opposed to freedom.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Read my post again.  I never said your reply was a threat.  I said I received several ad hominem replies.  Yours was not the one that was a threat.   

Jake made a post that was a violent threat against me.  I asked the moderator to remove it, and he has apparently done so.  That may be what caused the confusion.

But your post was still an ad hominem attack, which I feel was completely unecessary, but for some reason still a common reaction among gun advocates.

I have repeatedly cited facts and sources to support my logical argument.

You statements have been false, misleading and irrational.

You central desire in the your postings onh this thread is to deprive others of their rights.

Yours is a common form of immoral irrationality known under the title, 'liberal' (not to be confused with 'classical liberal').