Guns or not Guns

[HeyYou]

You guys are missing the point. The presence of guns, and the pervasive attitude that a multitude of guns are what is best for safety, is where the issue reaches a wall for liberal-minded individuals. When a gun is right there, it is far too easy to use it for all the wrong reasons. The assumption that a population without guns is somehow at the mercy of criminals or dissenters, or can be easily subjugated by its own government, isn't entirely off-base, but the reality of having guns around every corner is that they are far more likely to be used improperly.

 

No one is trying to take your guns away, but those who oppose rampant gun ownership would likely enjoy gun owners coming to realize the pitfalls of the situation, and beginning to understand that the problem isn't responsible gun owners, but irresponsible gun owners who can get their hands on firearms all too easily because... guns are freakin' everywhere.

 

The police shooting incident was brought up to highlight the problem even with responsible gun owners. Jose did what any of you would have done - he heard his house being broken into and grabbed his gun. He is dead now because of it, and not just because the police opened fire, but because he was armed when they did so.

 

And how many UNARMED people have police shot? At this point, banning ALL guns in the US would have little or no impact on gun deaths. They are indeed everywhere, and it would be physically impossible for the government to collect even a significant percentage of them. (not to mention the folks that would NOT give them up willingly........)

 

In Jose's case, how likely would you judge it, that he would have been shot anyway, whether he had a gun, or not? There was a swat team, EXPECTING trouble, from a drug dealer....... They were trigger happy to begin with.

[Ritherdon]

And how many UNARMED people have police shot? At this point, banning ALL guns in the US would have little or no impact on gun deaths. They are indeed everywhere, and it would be physically impossible for the government to collect even a significant percentage of them. (not to mention the folks that would NOT give them up willingly........)

 

In Jose's case, how likely would you judge it, that he would have been shot anyway, whether he had a gun, or not? There was a swat team, EXPECTING trouble, from a drug dealer....... They were trigger happy to begin with.

Yes, those SWAT members were trigger happy... trigger happy because they operate within a society that is heavily armed, and they expect violent confrontation. There is no way of knowing if the police would have shot him if he was unarmed, but as we can clearly see, being armed didn't help him in this situation. That being said, Jose had to be armed to protect himself from the same sort of people the police were after.

 

See how messed up this situation is?

 

Again, no one is implying that guns should be abolished by tossing them all in a massive furnace or something ridiculous like that, but when guns are so simple to obtain and require no certification whatsoever to operate (apart from holding periods, which means nothing when a guy in a van down the street will sell you one without making you wait), a population is far more apt to reach for a gun than consider alternatives. I own and operate guns, and when I lived in the US I never kept them in my home, nor did I walk around with them. I could walk around armed because I don't trust others, but I choose not to because I don't trust myself.

 

Not everyone has that kind of foresight, and fewer still have the control to avoid using guns as a first resort. I advocate stricter controls on development, distribution and importation, because although guns are pervasive now, we can make them less so over time.

[HeyYou]

That being said, Jose had to be armed to protect himself from the same sort of people the police were after.

 

Did he now? And just why would that be? Because he smoked pot? (apparently...) No one was ever arrested due to those search warrants being executed. The only thing illegal they found, was a bit of pot, and some ledgers the COPS (you know, the ones that killed him, and have every motivation in the world to CYA) say were 'drug related'. So, no arrests? Why not? Could it be because mr. informant was sending the cops on a wild goose chase to throw them off of someone else? A personal vendetta? Random Chance? We will never have answers to those questions either.

[Ritherdon]

That being said, Jose had to be armed to protect himself from the same sort of people the police were after.

 

Did he now? And just why would that be? Because he smoked pot? (apparently...) No one was ever arrested due to those search warrants being executed. The only thing illegal they found, was a bit of pot, and some ledgers the COPS (you know, the ones that killed him, and have every motivation in the world to CYA) say were 'drug related'. So, no arrests? Why not? Could it be because mr. informant was sending the cops on a wild goose chase to throw them off of someone else? A personal vendetta? Random Chance? We will never have answers to those questions either.

I hear what you're saying, but what I meant to impart was that the reason Jose had a weapon in his home was to protect his family. From who? Well, from criminals who would want to break in and harm his family or steal from them of course. Those are the people the police are supposed to be protecting honest Americans from - the criminal element. In this case, a man's desire to protect his family (using a gun) and the police desire to enforce their authority (with guns) lead to a gruesome and pointless death. The presence of so many guns was not the trigger for the event, but it played the greatest role in determining the outcome.

 

That being said, should people who want to own guns for the right reasons be disallowed from doing so? No. Is there any way to ensure that those guns will not be used for the wrong reasons? Also no. If you are going to extend the right to bear arms to everyone, you must be prepared for 20,000+ deaths a year from the use of those guns. You must also reconcile the fact that for every person who knows how to use a firearm and operates it properly, there are at least a handful of people out there who don't, and the vicious cycle concerning the need for guns is set in motion.

[hoofhearted4]

there is a point you guys are missing as well. the Cops shot that guy 70 times (well fired 70 shots) when is there ever a situation where 70 shots need to be fired to bring down one guy, that is messed up. very similar to the Bruce Springstein song 41 shots. a guy on a stoop reaching for his wallet for the cops got shot 41 times, to death. whether the cops wer ein danger or not, 41 shots seems a little excessive.

 

as ive been saying, people use guns for the wrong reasons because they can get away with it. they rob stores or hurt ppl. what are the chances they continue doing so when everyone else has a gun? someone goes into a store pulls out a gun and tries to rob it. the 3 ppl in that store have guns and subdue the convict until cops come.

 

giving everyone guns would be a challange at first. im sure killing rates and everything would go up at first. this isnt something that would work over night. btu once it was a natural in society. once everyone was used to guns. once everyone had grown up with guns. there wouldnt be those bad ppl doing bad things....as much.

[HeyYou]

Either that, or you would start an individual arms race...... He who has the highest rate of fire, and the largest magazine, wins.

[hoofhearted4]

Either that, or you would start an individual arms race...... He who has the highest rate of fire, and the largest magazine, wins.

 

its already like that. but being allowed to have guns doesn mean you can carry an assault rifle on the streets.

 

 

plus contrary to popular belief, you cant have an automatic weapon. a gun cannot fire more then one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. even if its an accident or misfire (and its happened) they will confiscate it and bring you to jail for possession of an illegal weapons

[HeyYou]

Either that, or you would start an individual arms race...... He who has the highest rate of fire, and the largest magazine, wins.

 

its already like that. but being allowed to have guns doesn mean you can carry an assault rifle on the streets.

 

 

plus contrary to popular belief, you cant have an automatic weapon. a gun cannot fire more then one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. even if its an accident or misfire (and its happened) they will confiscate it and bring you to jail for possession of an illegal weapons

 

Not true. It is possible (but difficult) to get a permit for a full auto weapon. There are clubs around here that regularly do auto-weapons shoots. (and it sounds like a war movie on steroids.....) Also, if guns were 'deregulated', so to speak, I am thinking the cops wouldn't be checking everyone for what kind of weapon they were carrying, nor would the penalties be all that stiff for carrying something you shouldn't be. (full auto) Keep in mind, it just isn't possible to conceal carry an M-16......... (I have seen people try it... its actually rather amusing...... until it came to me that I was in the middle of the apartment complex grounds....... in the middle of a large city....... joy.....) Not to mention the various selective fire pistols out there in the world.

 

And what about the cops? There will still be gun crime.... granted, I would bet real money that it would taper off fairly quickly..... especially after there were a bunch of news stories on would-be robbers getting shot and killed by 'bystanders'..... Crime may actually go down significantly..... Murder rates would go up though. Wanna rob someone? Best way to do is wait until they are alone, then kill 'em. Even the most powerful weapon is useless if you are dead. Anyway..... with everyone armed, and guns even more prevalent than they are today, the cops are going to be even MORE outgunned than they already are...... what do we do for them?

[hoofhearted4]

honestly if everyone was armed, cops would be rather useless, but then that would means we would have to bring justice into our own hands, and that is an entirely different topic in itself, and one i really have nothing to say about. cops are rather useless as is. i feel so safe everytime i drive past one with him sitting there trying to catch that maniac going 5 over the Speed Limit. waste of my tax money lol but again, Off Topic aha

 

 

you have to go through a lot to get a permit to own an automatic weapon. and its very expensive. if your permit doesnt allow you to have an auto weapon though, and you do. its some hefty consqences. many ppl have weapons like AKs and AR-15s and such, but they are single shot semi auto weapons. ppl sometimes convert them into full auto or burst, but its illigal.

 

but like i said i looked it up a little and it is possible, but very hard....also the gun has to have been made before 1986...and it also depends on the state. some states of banned them regardless.

Edited September 26, 2011 by hoofhearted4

[McclaudEagle]

For a nation that already has possibly hundreds of thousands of armed civilians, banning ownership would actually cause more harm than good. The reason for this is pretty simple; law abider's will turn over their firearms and in doing so, become a much easier target for criminals who aren't likely to part with their gun.

 

There will be a very large gap between law abiding citizens and criminals. Because the criminals have little to no extremely dangerous opposition, they'll be able to commit crimes like burglary much easier and unopposed. Allowing citizens to keep their guns means criminals will still have to face the potentially dangerous opposition they face now.