Gun Control - Here and There

[23]

In another thread, iamwhomiam wrote:

"China, except in rare situations, prohibits their citizens from owning guns. That's why we don't hear of people killing people with guns in China. Only through actions by the government or soldiers acting on its behalf, do we hear of gun deaths in China. If you would like to discuss this issue further, please pm me or start a new thread."

So here's the thread.

To begin, I will make a concession:

[norton ash]

LOVE the right-wing propaganda, dude.

Evidence that gun control works? My home defense system is an elegant tree limb stripped of bark by beavers that also happens to be a piece of found art not made by human hands.

And, sure, outlaws DO carry handguns in Canada, and are punished much more severely for it if they're caught.

[23]

No problemo. Glad it pleased your palate.

Here's some more juicy, right-wing stuff... from the nasty right-wing country of Switzerland.

Hope it's finger-lickin' good for you.

[norton ash]

Hey, I think Swiss-style mandatory military training and a draft would be terrific for the USA. Put some affluent white asses on the line, and Iraq and Afghanistan might get solved.

And you could ask Marvin Gaye and Phil Hartman and lots of others how they feel about handguns in the home, but they're all dead.

[23]

Yep, I agree. The Swiss are ahead of the curve on many fronts. Mandatory government service being one.

Their gun policy being another.

Re. Marvin Gaye and Phil Hartman, did they receive ongoing, mandatory training and practice with their weapons, as the Swiss require?

[operator kos]

There really is no rational argument for disarming the public. Reasonable people may disagree over the details of what type of guns or what type of training or qualifications should be legislated, but taking all guns away from the public is completely asinine. All such appeals are based on cheap emotional manipulation over this tragic accident or that one. But at the end of the day, my right to self defense is more important and fundamental than your right to feel (falsely) comforted by gun control laws.

I own several guns, and what do you know, I've never hurt myself or anyone else with them. I have been in two different bicycle accidents because of blonde bimbos in SUVs, so judging from those odds, I think we'd be much safer banning SUVs. And hey, there's actually a scientific basis for doing that.

[JackRiddler]

There really is no rational argument for disarming the public.

Whether or not there is, there is no rational reason to pretend there is any serious threat to do so.

There's more than one way to facilitate a totalitarian push. One means is to distract the public from actual problems, like the continuing growth of a police state that in no way is threatened by private gun ownership, while making them paranoid about irrelevancies, like the non-existent campaign to take away their precious firearms.

The supposed threat of expanded gun control feared by the yahoos may be more real than the "War on Christmas" but it's probably less real than even the wildly puffed-up terror threat.

[operator kos]

There really is no rational argument for disarming the public.

Whether or not there is, there is no rational reason to pretend there is any serious threat to do so.

There's more than one way to facilitate a totalitarian push. One means is to distract the public from actual problems, like the continuing growth of a police state that in no way is threatened by private gun ownership, while making them paranoid about irrelevancies, like the non-existent campaign to take away their precious firearms.

The supposed threat of expanded gun control feared by the yahoos may be more real than the "War on Christmas" but it's probably less real than even the wildly puffed-up terror threat.

That's not true, I'm afraid. Where I live it is illegal to carry openly and seriously next to impossible to get a CC permit. My city has one of the highest violent crime rates in the U.S., so I don't think wanting to carry makes me a yahoo.

[barracuda]

Operator, please explain your rationale on the purpose of open or concealed carry and why you might favor such a law.

[lightningBugout]

Daily Show bit on Open Carrier Discrimination

[operator kos]

Operator, please explain your rationale on the purpose of open or concealed carry and why you might favor such a law.

Most people are relatively sane, well-meaning, and law-abiding. When the average person is likely to be armed, it creates a serious deterrent to criminals. When carrying guns is illegal, criminals are emboldened because they know that the risk to themselves is greatly diminished.

If someone mugs me, I'm going to give them my money whether I'm armed or not.

But sometimes people are attacked without provocation, and for no reason. You can't reason with a violent sociopath who doesn't even want your money. This does actually happen on a semi-regular basis. Just last week, two completely innocent and random people were beaten to death very near where I work. The attackers didn't want their money, they were just drunk and high and mad at the world. Had that been me, and had I been armed, I would have tried to get away, but I also would have shot them if I had to.

[82_28]

I fucking hate guns, but what I think to be "sensibly", I support the private ownership of. As a personal aversion to them, I never want to see one, never want to hold one and never want to hear one. The times in the past I have used or handled guns, I was put off by their heaviness. It was a heaviness, that psychosomatically I guess represented a great and over all evil -- perhaps an ancient evil -- something up from the bowels of our shared ancestral memories. I don't know. I also hate knives. They're the bane of my existence. Ya, yep, an OCD thing. I don't like that they are sharp and that I can hold a sharp thing.

Just as an aside, according to a clerk at the nearest convenience store to me, I missed an armed robbery by about 3 minutes that included semi-automatic weapons, him on the floor, gun pointed at him etc just the other day. I am glad he is ok and I am extra glad, I didn't have to see any of it. It would have ruined me for months.

[operator kos]

FWIW, 82, I do understand how you feel. The first time I held a loaded gun, my hands shook a little. I was very conscious of the fact that I was holding a very powerful implement of death... something that could end another life with the slightest effort (or clumsy error!) on my part. It took me a while to get used to the sound and the recoil. Despite the occasional video you see of people acting incredibly stupid with guns, I think most gun owners appreciate the gravity of the weapons.

I never touch play guns or even water guns now, myself. There are certain safety principles that apply to handling a firearm, and I don't even want to remotely risk untraining my learned instincts by casually pointing a water pistol at another person.

[JackRiddler]

That's not true, I'm afraid. Where I live it is illegal to carry openly and seriously next to impossible to get a CC permit.

Presumably something that has been true for a long time? I wrote on the "supposed threat of expanded gun control," not on what's already there. I should have added, from the federal level. Couldn't tell you what's happening in every state, and I know there are places (like New York) where it's gotten stricter in recent years. But again, not federal and unrelated to Obama.

My city has one of the highest violent crime rates in the U.S., so I don't think wanting to carry makes me a yahoo.

You're not a yahoo. At least, far as I know. I was expressing my own prejudices, because it was fun, to the detriment of my argument, which I hope survives on facts and logic. Sorry.

You may have fine motives for wanting to carry, and perhaps a right to do so in many situations where you are currently barred from doing so. But your belief that carrying makes you personally safer is wrong. That's my belief.

Since you don't name your city, I have to guess that most people there probably support gun control (though this would not in itself make it right) and probably think gun control makes it a safer place, even if it's still got high crime.

You seem to think that if your city did not have gun control, then your example of the crazy violent attacker (the one whom you fear more than a mugger) would not be carrying a firearm, and you would. I see no basis for this belief. I think it's very wishful thinking, even if born of a reasonable fear.

In my own city, which has some crime but a lot less than on TV, it makes me feel far more secure (for myself and for my loved ones) to think that, due to the strict gun control here, random people on the subway are very unlikely to be carrying. If I could carry it would not make me feel in any way safer, especially since, even in that case, I would never want to carry.

So we differ.

[23]

I suspect that the family of the unarmed, white-shirted man would've been grateful if there was an armed and properly trained passenger in close proximity to the gunman, who could've intervened in a timely manner.

He could've put a round or two into the assailant, before the assailant gunned down the unarmed, white-shirted man for trying to stop him.

There was enough of an opportunity, time- and position-wise, to neutralize the assailant. The preferred angle would be from within the train, aiming towards the gunman with the wall behind him.

But I guess some folks might prefer to have a gunman like him have free reign, until more police arrive at the scene.

Not me.