News Peter King (R-NY) to introduce gun control law

[DanP]

But by your own admission We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.

I don't know that I won't snap, but I don't carry weapons.

We can't ban the right to bear weapons, just for the case someone decides to shoot another person.

We can't ban ppl from driving cars, just because some drivers are irresponsible and sooner or later will cause a deadly accident.

We need weapons. Everyone of us should be legally allowed to carry. It is a personal option if you decide to carry or not, but you must have this option.

 

[mugaliens]

We can't ban ppl from driving cars...

Given the fact unintentional motor vehicle accidents are about 28 times more likely to result in death than unintentional deaths due to firearms, I'm inclined to believe we need to do a far better job training our drivers!

Getting back to the OP, which involves Peter King, sigh, ok. What a tool. Years ago I would NEVER have spoken of a Congressman in this manner. However, that was the day I met Tip. You know what he told me? He said, "Go your own way." Seems simple, doesn't it? It is, in so many ways. :)

RIP, TIP. I'm damned glad to have known you.

 

[CAC1001]

Given the fact unintentional motor vehicle accidents are about 28 times more likely to result in death than unintentional deaths due to firearms, I'm inclined to believe we need to do a far better job training our drivers!

Just to make sure I read your post right, you mean unintentional motor vehicle accidents are 28 times more likely to result in death than unintentional accidents with firearms?

Also, if society was structured where the politicians could get away with it, I would not be shocked if many politicians would want to restrict auto ownership. The only reason they don't is because society simply cannot function without people being allowed to drive.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, I was going to stay out of this and avoid the gun issue all together. But some of the arguments being thrown around are just plain ridiculous, and in some cases, hypocritical.

I don't want to debate this (this is my last post here) and I was going to let someone else respond, but as no one else has, here goes.

Yes, Evo, many of us can honestly say we won't snap. I'm sorry if you can't trust that, but there it is. I won't snap. If you can't trust this then I suggest you file this with your local law enforcement officer.

I have to disagree, purely because someone snapping can be down to circumstances. Until you have experienced situation X, it's hard to know how you will react when it occurs. It could be just what you need to go over the edge.

Crap, child. Our government entrusted us with nuclear weapons. We didn't fold then, why in the world would we fold now? (rolls eyes)

Let's not make things up, they don't trust us with nuclear weapons at all. Heck, they don't trust people around nuclear power plants let alone missile silos. They trust the military with a whole host of security, checks and procedures in place - which all lead back to the government.

What happens if you're in your home and a criminal breaks in intent on killing you and your family?

What happens if a natural disaster occurs and the infrastructure and services break down completely, and you have to deal with roving bands of thieves and criminals?

What happens if you are walking on the street and see a group of thugs coming towards you?

Evo was attacked because of her 'what if' earlier and yet here we are with more, but from your side.
These 'what if' questions are even less likely than evo's. So let's just drop it.

Also, based on the above (1 & 3) Britain must be a hell hole. Oh wait, it isn't.

Part of the reason for civilians having the right to bear arms is also to prevent a police state from ever forming as well.

So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.

If you think that couldn't happen, what if a major natural disaster occurs that sets the whole country into complete chaos? What if you then end up with a potential would-be dictator trying to take over? And let's say this dictator wannabe has a lot of potential followers and backers, because a lot of people are scared. The people being armed serves as a counter to these types of things.

As above.

1) Acquire a gun illegally, so that then when they go on a shooting spree, everyone else is un-armed

Well that isn't so easy. It isn't that easy to get a gun in Britain.

2) Use something different for a weapon.

That changes things. Killing with a gun is not the same as killing with, let's say a steel bar.

We can't ban the right to bear weapons, just for the case someone decides to shoot another person.

We can't ban ppl from driving cars, just because some drivers are irresponsible and sooner or later will cause a deadly accident.

Capability to kill is not the same thing as designed to. A car is designed to transport people / things. A gun is designed to kill. If you carry a gun, with the intention of using it (whether in defence or otherwise) you are willing to kill. When driving a car, that isn't the intention at all. The argument doesn't hold up. Apples and oranges.

Mugs, I'd like to know how they judge an unintentional death with a firearm. Is it, simply a gun goes off by accident and kills someone? That wouldn't be a fair metric, unintentional car deaths and unintentional firearm deaths. Flip this around and look at intentional firearm deaths and intentional car deaths, oh look it's inverted and shows the exact opposite. These numbers don't mean anything because you aren't comparing relevant scenarios. They aren't a reliable indication of anything.

I know, you'll all come down on me for invoking "it doesn't happen in Britain" etc. But, it's for a reason. You can argue how much you need a gun all you like, but at the end of the day, the biggest problem you have is that they have been a part of your culture for so long and embedded in society for hundreds of years, so you can't just ban them or get rid of them. They are everywhere and despite my views on it, I agree that under your circumstance you need them to counter the fact they are so prevalent.

Jared James, Out!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.

Tell that to the has hash-smoking, tent-dwelling Afghans who have held the Soviets and the US at bay for decades.

The armed public constitutes an army of perhaps 50-million [households], with 200-million weapons. That is a formidable army by any standard. Note also that when we go into place like Iraq, we have to secure the country one house at a time. All of those big expensive weapons are useless.

You are also assuming that under such circustances, the army would not start changing sides. Also, the National Guard is populated by locals who would be hard-pressed to turn on their friends and familes.

Presently, we can't even defeat the gangs in Los Angeles, much less an organized revolt.

 

[JaredJames]

So much for last post here.

The armed public constitutes an army of perhaps 50-million, with 200-million weapons. That is a formidable army by any standard.

That assumes they are all trained, capable and willing (and agree the government are in the wrong).

Plus technology wise, the government wins. I'll take a marine team and a predator drone over civilians any day.

Take out any form of re-supply for the civilians (ammo etc) and see how long they can keep fighting.

The infrastructure of the US allows for much more control to be levied against the people than in Afghanistan.

(It would have made COD2 a lot more interesting if civilians had started fighting the Russians with you.)

I'm not saying it's a completely plausible situation, but it's certainly not as cut and dried as "government create police state, people fight back".

Ooh, another thing, what about those who agree with the government and own guns? They could fight to support what they are doing.

Army changing sides? Well that could happen any time. I don't think civilians would be any more effective in a Coup D'etat than any other scenario.

There's more to defeating gangs in LA than just shooting them. If you basically throw the legal system out the window, take a zero tolerance approach, things would be dealt with a lot more effectively.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.

Let's not forget, what you're describing has many parallels with the US revolutionary war against the British. The Second Amendment was written by people that had just gone through a war against an oppressive government, where the government specifically tried to take the People's guns away in order to quell the rebellion. At the risk of satisfying "[URL Law[/URL], similar actions also happened in Nazi Germany before the holocaust- guns were confiscated from the people to prevent revolt.

The Second Amendment's purpose is to keep the government scared of the people, hagning the threat of rebellion over their heads.

 

[DanP]

Capability to kill is not the same thing as designed to. A car is designed to transport people / things. A gun is designed to kill. If you carry a gun, with the intention of using it (whether in defence or otherwise) you are willing to kill. When driving a car, that isn't the intention at all. The argument doesn't hold up. Apples and oranges.

So what ? Driving a car doesn't means you are not willing to kill :P
The end result is the same, somebody dies. Now you are telling me that the numbers don't count. But they do. Because in the end, what counts is the lost human lives. Or maybe you think lifes do not count and they are just a meaningless statistic ?

Deaths from car accidents supersede by far death from armed assault. You want a safer society, address the areas where the most human lives are lost :P You don't want to do that, then please, go away and let ppl have guns.

SO yeah, its the human life which counts.
[/QUOTE]

I know, you'll all come down on me for invoking "it doesn't happen in Britain" etc. But, it's for a reason. You can argue how much you need a gun all you like, but at the end of the day, the biggest problem you have is that they have been a part of your culture for so long and embedded in society for hundreds of years, so you can't just ban them or get rid of them. They are everywhere and despite my views on it, I agree that under your circumstance you need them to counter the fact they are so prevalent.

Jared James, Out!

He doesn't have any problem. He is a man which carries, and he is willing to use it for god given right to defend his life, the life of the dear ones and his property. Like I said countless time, anyone who enters your house to steal from you or otherwise harm your family deserves a bullet into his head.

Guns should be allowed everywhere. I can understand that many humans are afraid from that, but they should not be. It's not guns which kill humans, it is other humans. If one is determined to kill, its fairly easy to get a gun on the black market, regardless of the laws of your country. But, no, the law abiding citizen shouldn't have any right to carry to defend :P

And tbh, states like Swiss and Israel are armed to the teeth, and I bet they have less issues then UK.

 

[DanP]

So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.

The worst thing a government can do is to drag itself into a civil war. With 230+ million guns on streets, this is what you get instantly. No sane government will risk it. Ever.

 

[JaredJames]

Ok, if we're going to accept all the numbers DanP, here's a few points for you:

Murder without a firearm, rape and violent crime rates between the US and UK are virtually equal (US is ever so slightly higher, but it's negligable). However, the US has a murder with firearm rate 27 times higher than the UK.

So what part of that tells you the firearms are making a difference and improving things?

They don't. But, it all comes down to interpretation. Like I said, compare deliberate firearm deaths with deliberate car deaths and suddenly mugs' point is flipped on it's head.

 

[Evo]

This has turned into another gun ownership thread and nothing to do with the OP. Closed.