People shoot people not guns?

[KubotaSteve]

I was at work the other day and heard two co-workers talking about banning all guns. I asked them Why and they said because they kill people. I then asked them to go ahead and start making their list of other things to ban such as cars, trucks, baseball bats, pool sticks, etc. They looked at each other like they were just completely confused.

If I'm not mistaken Washington DC bans pistol ownership in its limits.

 

[RoyJackson]

I was at work the other day and heard two co-workers talking about banning all guns. I asked them Why and they said because they kill people. I then asked them to go ahead and start making their list of other things to ban such as cars, trucks, baseball bats, pool sticks, etc. They looked at each other like they were just completely confused.

If I'm not mistaken Washington DC bans pistol ownership in its limits.

No, you're not mistaken...it's been like that for about 25 -30 years.
However, that ban has just been overturned by a Federal Court...the decision is under appeal now.

 

[Kendall69]

...go ahead and start making their list of other things to ban such as cars,

My point exactly. If a nut want ti kill he/she will kill period.
Anyone remeber what diesel fuel and fertilizer did in Oklahome - do we ban diesel and fertalizer.

I think we should ban all hands with fingers on them, afterall they can strangle someone.

Humans have been killing humans since the cave man, with sticks and stones, we alwys have and we alwys will kill eachother - that's what we do.

If all guns were gone we would just get more creative, but it will never stop.

 

[Tom_H]

Yep.. inanimate objects don't have any 'will'. It takes a person's 'hand' on an object to cause something to happen.

So doesn't the same logic apply to nuclear bombs then? If we followed this logic fully, we would say that allowing North Korea and Iran to have nukes is a non-issue. If they blow up a country, it isn't the fault of those who allowed them to get the bomb, it's only the fault of the radical who dropped the bomb.

Here's what I'm getting at. As time has gone by and technology has proogressed, humans have made for ourselves, more and more potent weapons. One agressive person in a large group could kill maybe one person with a rock in his hand. The knife comes along, maybe he can kill 3 before being overpowered by bystanders. With a gun in hand on the V.T. campus, thirty something. So if this person had a bag of grenades, how many, what about a bag of R.P.G.s? What if the govt. allowed Chrysler to sell the Abrams tanks to anyone who wanted to buy one? My thought is this, on the scale of weapons lethality, there should be some point of demarcation where the majority of us agree that, beyond this point, regular citizens should not be allowed to buy the weapon. Where is that line? Do we allow the M1A2 tank, but not beyond that line-something like an attack aircraft with cluster bombs? Small fission nukes, but not mega-thermonuclear devices?

I personally have mixed feelings about guns. I live in the country, where I see neighbors for the most part use guns judiciously. But I also teach school in the suburbs near the city and see gang related kids get their hands on guns easily and kill others. I see both sides of the issue. Though I am among a group here who has strong feelings and opinions, I make no apology for my stance. These are the questions I'd like to ask: 1. On a scale of lethality, starting with a rock in the hand and going up to a thermonuclear weapon, do most of you agree that there is some point on that continuum, below which weapons sales to the average Joe are sensible and above which they are not sensible? 2. At what point on this scale does it make sense to investigate a person's background and make sure he isn't going to destroy a building full of people with his new purchase? 3. At what point on this line should the weapon be off limits to all but the military?

 

[3RRL]

I love this thread.
I have been preaching the core of this thread on almost every one where the subject comes up. Problem is, when are the public and law makers going to wise up? It seems that blame can be pushed over to something ... someone else at any time, and the problem with the individual becomes a "disease" that they make a new word for to describe the symptoms, so now it's OK and not your fault.
The other thing that happens is they try to make another law when they can't enforce the ones we have already. Instead of dealing severely with the criminals and eliminating them, they try to pass some dumb law that handcuffs the lawful citizen. What's up with that? We already have enough laws that tell us what is right and wrong. If offenders of those basic laws were dealt with appropriately, we'd have no problems.
There are some great comments on how stupid the logic is behind blaming guns. It is mind boggling at times to hear it. One of the best I ever heard was when the law suits against gun manufactures were happening. I don't know the exact quote, but it was from an NRA magazine many years ago. It went something like this:
"Suing the gun manufacturer for what YOU did with your gun is like suing General Electric for taking a bath with your toaster."

 

[Soundguy]

Here's the problem. it's not 'what' weapons should be legal.. it is 'who' should have them.

A law abiding citizen is no more of a threat if he owns a rock, knife, gun, grenade or tank. IE.. if it's a good law abiding person who owns it.. then that is that.

We can't legislate everything. All we can do is make sure that at the time of licensure.. that the person buying the (insert item here) is eligible to have it.

Do you realize the concealed weapon permit holders are among the MOST law abiding citizens in america, looking at crimes per capita.

By your definition.. larg busses or airplanes that carry 30-300 people should be illegal because they can be used to kill more than 1-2 people.. right?

The more rights we give up.. the less we have.

look at history and see what happens every time a nation bans firearms.. in the somewhat far past... genocide occur's. inthe near past.. other types of violent crime goes up. The criminals won't be turning in their guns. And the police have no duty to protect each and every one of us.. it's our duty to protect ourselves.


You wanna save lives enmasse? ban cigarettes/smoking/tobacco.... ( see what I mean )

Soundguy

So doesn't the same logic apply to nuclear bombs then? If we followed this logic fully, we would say that allowing North Korea and Iran to have nukes is a non-issue. If they blow up a country, it isn't the fault of those who allowed them to get the bomb, it's only the fault of the radical who dropped the bomb.

Here's what I'm getting at. As time has gone by and technology has proogressed, humans have made for ourselves, more and more potent weapons. One agressive person in a large group could kill maybe one person with a rock in his hand. The knife comes along, maybe he can kill 3 before being overpowered by bystanders. With a gun in hand on the V.T. campus, thirty something. So if this person had a bag of grenades, how many, what about a bag of R.P.G.s? What if the govt. allowed Chrysler to sell the Abrams tanks to anyone who wanted to buy one? My thought is this, on the scale of weapons lethality, there should be some point of demarcation where the majority of us agree that, beyond this point, regular citizens should not be allowed to buy the weapon. Where is that line? Do we allow the M1A2 tank, but not beyond that line-something like an attack aircraft with cluster bombs? Small fission nukes, but not mega-thermonuclear devices?

I personally have mixed feelings about guns. I live in the country, where I see neighbors for the most part use guns judiciously. But I also teach school in the suburbs near the city and see gang related kids get their hands on guns easily and kill others. I see both sides of the issue. Though I am among a group here who has strong feelings and opinions, I make no apology for my stance. These are the questions I'd like to ask: 1. On a scale of lethality, starting with a rock in the hand and going up to a thermonuclear weapon, do most of you agree that there is some point on that continuum, below which weapons sales to the average Joe are sensible and above which they are not sensible? 2. At what point on this scale does it make sense to investigate a person's background and make sure he isn't going to destroy a building full of people with his new purchase? 3. At what point on this line should the weapon be off limits to all but the military?

 

[BTDT]

I guess since the waiting period for buying a gun and getting the gun didn't solve anything, now they will come up with a 3 day waiting period from the time the round is chambered before the trigger can be pulled.

 

[Soundguy]

Would it suprise you to find out that 'military' weapons have been available to most citizens ( depending on where you live ) for a loooong time. Lookup GCA / NFA. Basically since about 1934 citizens can own things like machineguns, short barrelleed shotguns , short barrelled rifles.. etc as long as they are registered. Most common registration is on a form 4 tax paid transfer./ class III weapons.

With this info, and circumstance, you'd think people would be flipping out now and then and running off to a mall and taking their legal machinegun out and mowing people down every few year.. right? Wrong... Since 1934 no legally registered class III weapon has been used in a crime. Startling huh?

Considering you have to go thru a BATF background check, and send a copy of your fingerprints to the FBI, and then get a local law enforcement chief ( sherif / local police ) Judge or DA to sign off on your paperwork, plus pay a tax to the govt... then wait about 90 days to see if you are approved.

So.. once you get approved then the transfer from the licensed dealer can be made to the purchaser. With recipt of the persons new 'toy'.. they do not automatically become a bad person.

I head out to the range quite often with friends who also have 'fast' toys. Some of them are teachers.. and other plain normal law abiding responsible citizens.

A friend of mine live in a small town in texas. that town had a curious town ordinance... every house in town had to have a gun on the premisis... Guess whatt the burglery rate in that town was.... -0- for the 4 years he lived there.... why? cause criminals knew if they broke in a house.. there may be a homeowner waiting there to send them off to meet their maker...

Soundguy

1. On a scale of lethality, starting with a rock in the hand and going up to a thermonuclear weapon, do most of you agree that there is some point on that continuum, below which weapons sales to the average Joe are sensible and above which they are not sensible? 2. At what point on this scale does it make sense to investigate a person's background and make sure he isn't going to destroy a building full of people with his new purchase? 3. At what point on this line should the weapon be off limits to all but the military?

 

[George2615]

NY State has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. I'm guessing that 99% of the gun crimes committed in this state are buy a person using a gun that is unregistered, stolen, or has been brought illegally into the state. I get so mad when I read the anti gun peoples opinions in the local paper to create more gun laws. Some seem to think there are no gun laws the way they rant in the paper about it. The solution is not to create more laws but to enforce the existing laws with harsher penalties. It is not the law abiding gun owners that cause the problems. It is the criminal with the illegal guns that were stolen or brought in from another state. Some states are very lax in only requiring a drivers license to purchase a gun. It read in my paper on average that more than one person a week gets shot in Syracuse and the ones that do the shooting are back out on the streets and have another gun before the week is up.

 

[N80]

Here's the problem. it's not 'what' weapons should be legal.. it is 'who' should have them.

Bingo. And the world community pretty much acknowledges this in regard to nucelar weapons. 'They' aren't doing a good job with it, but they do agree that certain countries should be able to have them, and others not have them based on the recent history of that countries behavior.

But you can take the analogy farther. Much like the gun issue, when everyone is packing, the average coward school room assassin isn't going to come in shooting. And its a scary thought but if Iran knew that all its equally unstable nutbag neighbors (like Iraq) had nukes, they wouldn't use theirs. MAD (mutually assured destruction) is an insane and pitiful concept, but it worked in the cold war and the concept is so visceral, intuitive and basically understood that it would likely work with unbridled nuclear proliferation as well. I'm not advocating this, just applying it to the already tortured gun/nuke analogy. (And if two clearly evil and despotic powers like Iran and Iraq had had nukes during the Iran/Iraq war, they could have obliterated themselves and the world might be a better place today.)

And lest we forget, we have a tendancy to idolize nuclear weapons beyond their actual implications. This is based largely on the concept of MAD gone wild resulting in a nuclear holocost, and yes, it would be all that. But single nukes, particularly primitive ones can destroy a city. In the annals of world history that aint really no big deal. Every major world power since the dawn of civilization have depopulated and destroyed entire cities. In WWII we killed far more Japanese with fire than with nuclear weapons. Which is just to say that comparing nukes and guns might not be as insane as it first appears.

Regardless, it is an international issue with far more complexities than comparably simple US gun control issues.