I'm confused to where everyone is standing on Gun Control. Quick poll.

So, if we did away with "gun free zones" does that mean that every postal worker gets to carry a gun? Does that mean when I meet with irate citizens to tell them they have to evacuate their town or that their homes have burned, they all have guns? Does it mean that nurses in psych wards need to carry guns? Does it mean that if I divorce my wife and we meet at her lawyer's office that we all have guns? Does it mean the eccentric uncle brings a gun to the family Christmas dinner? What about town hall meetings offered by your Congressman? City council meetings? Meetings with college admissions officers? IRS audits? During high school football games, are both groups of fans, including the cheerleaders, carrying?

The argument for guns everywhere is absurd and shows a disrespect for that which Conservatives pride themselves on: a complete and rational view of human nature.

If everyone is carrying, nobody has freedom of speech for the gun overwhelms all because it is the ultimate argument ender.

If everyone is carrying, the right of free assembly is violated.

If everyone is packing, the domestic tranquility of all Americans will be shattered.

If everyone is carrying, there is no equality. Our society will not be based on merit or hard work or intelligence, but rather on who happens to have the biggest gun with the most rounds coupled with the best kevlar clothes.

We have made a societal bargain that is abrogated when everyone carries. I and my kids have a right to expect to go somewhere without a gun and without encountering someone with a gun. I don't trust the accountant who lives next to me to act like a cop should a situation arise. I trust the cops to act like cops.

 

They may or may not have guns. Just like they may or may not have guns if it's a gun-free zone.

it's illegal to pull a gun on someone unless for self-defense.

see above

How so?

Guns are the great equalizer. That's what makes them so popular for security.

rights don't come at the expense of others usually. In this case you believe you are entitled to everyone else leaving their security measure at home when you go out. Very unreasonable.

 

The ludicrousness of Talanver's argument, regurgitating NRA talking points, is that if a business deems itself as a "gun free zone" then any crime committed there proves gun laws are useless. That same argument... cars drive faster than posted speed limits, so all speed limit laws are useless and should be abolished. Just as ridiculous as the point Lott, Talanver, NRA and gun nuts are taking.

If that is the case, then *everywhere* needs to be deemed a "gun free zone." And Talanver's argument has convinced me... total ban on assault weapons, removable magazines, and any weapon that has more than ten rounds.

 

People don't speed in their car to protect their right to life.......

 

[tallanvor] So you're saying I absolutely must own a gun to protect my basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have a problem with that. [/tallanvor]

 

I am saying his metaphor is inaccurate since speeding really has no meaningful application.

I question for NewRoxFan might be:

are you for a bill that allows a person to speed in a life saving scenario? such as rushing to the hospital?

If yes, then his argument is invalid.

In his metaphor he would be arguing for allowing no cars to be capable of going past 40 mph. Thus destroying any application for speeding even when it might be needed.

 

Sure, I can create a construct where speeding could save my life (getting past the possible location where an accident *could* happen, speeding way from someone that *could* be carrying a weapon.

In the same way... I *could* be trapped in a car that *could* catch on fire, so I think all seat belt laws should be ended.

 

Unless I'm being chased by a nutter with a gun.

 

... and, people do not need assault weapons to save their life.

 

Having a gun EMBOLDENS people.
They get into situations . . . that if they did not have the gun
They would not
It emboldens cowards.
Look at George Zimmerman and Joe Horn.
If they did not have the guns . .they would have called and waited on the police
Since they had it . . .they felt like they could play hero
and kill someone

The psychological part of gun ownership . . it escalates situations further than they should be in some cases

Rocket River

 

Recreational hunting and shooting are allowed only in designated places with rental guns. There's no problem as long as the guns are not taken out.

Many countries have already managed took the guns out of the hand of people. Not 100% guns, but legislation will make the leaking guns illegal and will find them out eventually.

If the politics of upstairs is settled down, people will follow, for sure.

 

When someone calls you to conduct a survey, it's easy to say you've had enough of whatever atrocity du jour. You don't know what people are really willing to pay until the time comes to take action. There's an opportunity now, and people at most want to nibble around the edges.

It's okay; you don't need to list the half-measures we can take. I have a passing familiarity and remain completely unconvinced they will do anything measurable to curb avoidable deaths. It's not easy to look at what other countries do and predict how it'd fare here. There are many variables, with an important one in our case being cultural. And what I'm advocating is essentially a culture change -- to one that doesn't love the gun.

But, we're hogtied. Culture is hard to change, and this one is propped up by the Constitution. All that's left is nibbling around the edges. If the politicians want to nibble at it, fine. Maybe they can save a couple of lives. But most of these deaths will keep on rolling in until the culture changes, and as it is, the culture seems to be becoming more enamored with guns, not less.

 

Would we be ok with raising taxes for a Gun Buy Back Program?
After new regulations are in place. Do you think it would be effective?

Rocket River

 

This simply isn't a realistic expectation of the way the legislative & regulatroy process goes or the way policy is made, unless you want to be perpetually disappointed.

It took the NRA roughly 50 years to change "culture" - it won't be changed back in a day or with one bill or one law. (I love the absolute immutability of the limited ruling in Heller now - a 5-4 decision that's been around for 4 years that now is read so expansively by the internets that it's virtually impregnable. We're one Nino Scalia clogged 78-year old artery away from it being irrelevant)

The war on smoking is probably the best parallel - decades of litigation, regulation, taxation and shaming to make smoking less popular, and the answer is that it has largely worked. Even hardcore smokers smoke less these days.

For the 60+% of the country that doesn't own a firearm, the cost of these measures is negligible, which is why it has a chance to succeed. These things tend to snowball depending otn the way the trends are going as it's largely collective action based. As fewer firearms are put into circulation, fewer people will want to own them, etc.

 

No, it's not realistic, as I said in the beginning. The thread was asking where do I stand on the issue, and that's where I stand -- I want to take away everybody's right to have a gun. If you want a debate about what public policy should be so we can whittle down firearm deaths over the next century, I don't want to participate. There is a role legislatively to be played by politicians, but if it's going to be a long play they need to do their thing without me.

 

Well why then did you ask for this?

When an example had already been provided? In other words the very article you were citing was flawed to begin with.

First off the very article you site says the that the law wasn't enacted until 1995. Also while the previous laws banned guns on school grounds but Purdy actually shot the students from off of school grounds and if there were any armed citizens around they could have also shot him off of school grounds.

Once again the CA law wasn't implemented until 1995.

As far as Fort Hood if you think that was a gun free zone how do you explain the fact that Hasan actually exchanged fire with base personnel?

 

Great post, actually.

 

I've thought about this a lot, and I have a question- and please, no ridicule, I'm sincere. What about stun guns? You know, guns that allow someone to immobilize another person for 60 seconds? Ones that have a fairly decent reach? I plead ignorance on what types of these are already out there, but wouldn't it make sense? Say, for example, this kid comes into the building. Principal or AP has a stun gun. They run out and shoot the kid with said gun. Yes, perhaps one might be shot, but then the kid is immobilized, the other adults have 60 seconds to disarm the kid, and the shooter himself is not killed, which can be valuable in terms of finding out causation when they conduct interviews on him as he's serving his 20-year or life sentence.

Do they make stun guns or tasers that can shoot a fairly significant distance? What about this as a solution?

 

Pretty easy to not get killed by lightning. How many stupid comparisons can you possibly make? Please continue, I'm counting.

 

How many people have you killed while speeding? Now how many people would you kill by shooting at them? More stupid examples please.. Mkaythanxbai.