castewar
I don't.

As Eddie Izzard said, “They say guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the guns help things a bit.”

You're arguing a really bad position - you're essentially arguing “oh, why bother? You can work to remove guns, but there will always be crime and murder.” Well yeah, that's something everyone understands. The problem is that guns make murder very very easy. Too easy. So easy, that a lot of gun deaths in North America aren't crime related, but accidental, or a moment of rage that would otherwise end in bruising, ends in a bullet.

No, you can't remove all the guns from the equation, but like all equations, if you alter the values involved, the results change. If you reduce the number of guns, the level of acces to guns, or even just increase they number of trigger locks, you reduce the number of deaths. It's just that simple.

I agree completely. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Of course there would still be violence. Of course there would still be murder but far less. So many killings wouldn't be possible for criminals to carry out if the gun wasn't available, or at least far less available than it is now.

castewar
I don't.

As Eddie Izzard said, “They say guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the guns help things a bit.”

You're arguing a really bad position - you're essentially arguing “oh, why bother? You can work to remove guns, but there will always be crime and murder.” Well yeah, that's something everyone understands. The problem is that guns make murder very very easy. Too easy. So easy, that a lot of gun deaths in North America aren't crime related, but accidental, or a moment of rage that would otherwise end in bruising, ends in a bullet.

I've seen that Eddie Izzard special. Funny stuff… But anyway, I'm not arguing the “why bother?” perspective. I DO think changes can and should be made to gun ownership, but BANNING them is totally extremist in my opinion. I definitely agree that a lot of gun deaths are accidental ((i.e. little kids snooping around daddy's bedroom, or friendly fire in police shootouts, etc.))–BUT! are these sort of deaths a result of "guns being legal!" or is it moreso a lack (or complete disregard) of proper safety, and/or trigger-happy mentality??…

castewar
No, you can't remove all the guns from the equation, but like all equations, if you alter the values involved, the results change. If you reduce the number of guns, the level of acces to guns, or even just increase they number of trigger locks, you reduce the number of deaths. It's just that simple.

I TOTALLY agree with the first sentence. But I hardly think changing the gun value to ‘0’ is going to improve upon things. If you go and do that, then the number of lives saved by gun ownership is going to drastically decline as well. We're never gonna be able to change the values such that ‘deaths’ equal ‘zero’. So I think what we should do is balance these numbers by implementing stricter laws, ownership criteria, and safety protocols as YOU seem to agree with. It is very much possible to do these things without enforcing a totalitarian BAN on guns. No matter what happens, gun deaths and gun crime will ALWAYS occur, and in high numbers I'm sure. So instead of arguing simple black and white viewpoints on this subject, like making guns 100% illegal or 100% legal, we need to think rationally, and determine what the best solution is. Not the perfect solution, or the no-more-gun-related-violence solution… the best solution…

Excellent - I never said “zero” though. Being anti-gun doesn't mean “zero-gun” automatically. If you want to heal the human condition as a way to reduce violence, that's excellent - I think you'd have to agree though that approach works even better in a world with as few guns as possible. I can't see a balance between the two where they'll somehow co-exist well.

castewar
Excellent - I never said “zero” though. Being anti-gun doesn't mean “zero-gun” automatically. If you want to heal the human condition as a way to reduce violence, that's excellent - I think you'd have to agree though that approach works even better in a world with as few guns as possible. I can't see a balance between the two where they'll somehow co-exist well.

Well Castewar, it would seem we're more or less on common grounds then. Although I think balance is the only way to settle this gun issue. Having guns for almost every civilian is far too extreme. Having guns for almost zero civilians is far too extreme. And I don't think any solution to this will find the two co-existing “well,” because again, gun violence will ALWAYS be a prevalent, sad fact of life. But, by allowing certain changes to be made, we can at least “weed out” a (hopefully sizeable) number of bad guys without depriving our citizens of basic, century-old technology for protection and hunting if they can prove themselves competant. …Also, I agree with opting for “as few guns as possible,” but maybe “as few guns as necessary” is more appropriate.

What measures do you think could be put into place which would or may reduce gun crime?

I'm not exactly sure what the rules and regulations on gun sales and ownership are at the moment, but how about some of these ideas?

No gun licences for people who have a criminal record

No one person can own more than one gun

No single address can have more than one gun stored inside

Every gun must have an identity chip inside it (like dogs have) which tells the authorities all the owners details quickly and easily.

Nobody can handle, carry or use another persons gun, even with that persons persmission.

that's good but some people are just too nuts to follow peaceful rules…

Matthew
What measures do you think could be put into place which would or may reduce gun crime?

I'm not exactly sure what the rules and regulations on gun sales and ownership are at the moment, but how about some of these ideas?

No gun licences for people who have a criminal record

No one person can own more than one gun

No single address can have more than one gun stored inside

Every gun must have an identity chip inside it (like dogs have) which tells the authorities all the owners details quickly and easily.

Nobody can handle, carry or use another persons gun, even with that persons persmission.

Those are some nice rules and I agree with them but like fomeboy said people are too nuts to follow them. People just cant have things they want total freedom to do whatever they want no strings or rules attached, or its just the same as banning, that's why there will never be a medium

I had an entire rant about this post prepared in my head, but I'm not up to stirring the pot any more than it has been.

There are a few points I'd like to make:

A) There will never be world peace. In a perfect world, it would be great, but there will always be greed, hatred, and avarice in the world. Banning things, and forcing philosophies upon people, or God forbid, getting everyone to compromise (and I pray it never comes to that), will never change this.

B) The right to bear arms is a right of every honest American, and I support it fully. Granted, there are individuals who, by nature of their actions, give up said rights.

I've been held at gunpoint before, and a member of my family was killed by a firearm…I STILL support gun ownership.

C) Most people want rights for everything, but refuse to accept responsibility for said rights.

D) The first thing Hitler did before he became Germany's dictator was ban private ownership of firearms.

E) Murder is by far one of the oldest of man's sins (whether you are religious or not), and has been constantly excercised long before the advent of gunpowder and the firearm. There are MANY ways in which to take a life, and saying that gun banning will make it more difficult is a bit short sighted. A few terrorists with box cutters killed 2500+ people…not a single gun was involved, and as I recall it took nothing more than some careful planning.

F) States like Texas and Arizona have the lowest violent crime rates in the country…and EVERYONE owns a gun.

G) If the Christian church doesn't have the right to dictate morality, then neither do you.

H) When presenting an argument, lowering yourself to the level of tossing petty insults such as “you make me sick,” and “you're a/an (insert explative)” has invalidated your argument completely.

In short, if you have to start mocking someone to get your point across, your argument has no validity.



Has it ALWAYS been this bad since I've been gone?

Vincent Belmont
H) When presenting an argument, lowering yourself to the level of tossing petty insults such as “you make me sick,” and “you're a/an (insert explative)” has invalidated your argument completely.

In short, if you have to start mocking someone to get your point across, your argument has no validity.

who are you? do I know you? lowering yourself? as I told gbmasterman on another topic, some of my comments were all in a sarcastic way and not to make fun… even the luigi comment on Jesusfreak was like “luigi is not violent so get rid of your gun”… anyway just because they were that way doesn't mean my arguments had no validity… what the hell is that?

fomeboy

Vincent Belmont
H) When presenting an argument, lowering yourself to the level of tossing petty insults such as “you make me sick,” and “you're a/an (insert explative)” has invalidated your argument completely.

In short, if you have to start mocking someone to get your point across, your argument has no validity.

who are you? do I know you? lowering yourself? as I told gbmasterman on another topic, some of my comments were all in a sarcastic way and not to make fun… even the luigi comment on Jesusfreak was like “luigi is not violent so get rid of your gun”… anyway just because they were that way doesn't mean my arguments had no validity… what the hell is that?

Public outcry of the guilty conscience?

Fomeboy
guns are for idiots who can't live in harmony period… even if it's to defend yourself with crap like “I gotta shoot him before he shoots me” you are not better than the idiot that's gonna try to shoot you first… those with your “it's my right to own my gun” make me sick.. you are pathetic…

I'm not sure how humor runs in your own social circles, but that whole spiel sounded pretty one sided to me. Yeah, I was referring to that.


As for you not knowing me, I'm not surprised. I poke in here about once a month just to see what's going on this side of the tracks. I've been here since before the GBN 2.0 revamp, and I was the moderator of the fan projects board and administrator of fan fictions WAY back when, before I passed that torch to Fritz Baugh and Kingpin…

…God, how long has it been? At LEAST 3 or 4 years ago. I mostly spend my time at GBHQ, which is why you rarely see me here.

Most of the mods remember me, but I'm not surprised that the casual board goers do not.