| Author |
|
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 9:55pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
"The government is at fault because it gives mentally unstable people access to guns?"
Where did I make this claim Mr. Byrne?
As for your claim about cars, you keep missing my main point. A car is an effective method of transportation - however, it does NOT NEED to go at high speeds in order to accomplish this and one of the biggest factors in traffic fatalities *is* high speeds.
I lost my brother to gun violence, and I spent 5 years teaching in a high school in one of the most violent neighborhoods in Dallas. I am keenly aware of the danger of gun violence. Every morning I walked through a metal detector.
I just don't agree that taking away weapons from people who haven't done anything wrong and have demonstrated their commitment to the safe use of those weapons by going to training is the required curative for fixing the problem of violence by those who don't fit that criteria. Any more than making everyone drive at 45 mph is a curative for those that can't responsibly operate their motor vehicle.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 10:53pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Tony Smith wrote:
| "Power and coolness" has nothing to do with it. A 110lb young woman - even armed with a bat - is NOT going to stop an intruder. Does access to a gun and proper training in its safe use guarantee that she will be safe - no, but her chances are a lot better than if she had nothing but the baseball bat. |
|
|
Once again, pure nonsense. Any person can use a taser to take down someone many times their size, with no risk of fatally shooting anyone. Same with mace. In fact, if you follow safe gun storage procedures, a loaded gun is far less accessible during say a night home invasion, than a taser, can of mace, or a bat.
Tony Smith wrote:
| Again, I don't need a gun. I don't begrudge someone the right to legally own one if they have been properly trained in its responsible use and they have no history that suggests that they are a danger to themselves and others. |
|
|
That's where you and I differ. I begrudge anyone a weapon that is designed to cause serious harm, just because they feel insecure.
Once again, there is NO WAY to screen for things like moments of temporary insanity, anger, drunkenness, drug use, and plain old stupidity. The vast majority of the population suffers from one or more of the above from time to time. Even the best of us can come under severe life pressures. A "responsible gun owner" can easily turn into an irresponsible one given the right circumstances, the difference being that unlike a hammer, or a knife, or even a car, they now have access to a tool that can cause far greater harm, far more quickly and easily.
And again, that's not even taking into account the entirely accidental harm that guns do on a daily basis to large numbers of people.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 10:58pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
"It stands to reason that the more regulations we have on guns, the safer we will all be. I can't really think of anything that has proven more dangerous after regulation."
Well it's a good thing I said, "I believe that we should have tougher laws on who can and who can't have access to firearms,..." isn't it?
As for the claim about automobile safety, you are absolutely correct in that cars are safer now than they have ever been. However, deaths as a result of excessive speed have been fairly consistent for the last twenty or so years (about 30%) - even with the safer cars.Research from the American Journal of Public Health also points that raising the speed limits in 1995 resulted in an additional 12,000 deaths and another 35,000 injuries between 1995 and 2005. Similar data can be found on the NHTSA website. Is that extra 10 mph worth the lives of all those people?
Should we conclude that people who do speed (which is quite a lot of drivers) have a callous disregard for those lives or that they have some kind of delusional refusal to believe that they are increasing the risk to themselves and the other drivers around them? Surely operating a motor vehicle outside the safe speed range posted no longer qualifies as using it it to provide a "safe form of transportation".
Again, to address Mr. Byrne's strawman of my position, I do not fault government for preventing crazy people they don't know about from getting guns - I fault government for failing to take reasonably adequate steps to take guns away from crazy people they do know about. The last three mass shootings (and Columbine before them) *could* have been prevented if officials had simply acted on what they already knew. Much like a bartender or party host has a duty to take away the keys of someone they know is too drunk to drive.
Edited by Tony Smith on 26 April 2014 at 12:20am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 25 April 2014 at 11:52pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
"Once again, pure nonsense. Any person can use a taser to take down someone many times their size, with no risk of fatally shooting anyone."
A taser or stun gun requires close contact in order to use. If your attacker has a baseball bat, he has reach that you do not and your taser is not as effective as you think. And Tasers have doubled in power over the last 30 years. It can deliver as much as 50,000 volts. Some states require that the owner get a permit, or only keep the device at home, others have no such restriction. So while you have a problem with allowing gun ownership even when those who support would concede to requiring owners to register them and also provide evidence that they have been trained in its responsible use - you have NO problem with a device which has no restrictions on concealed carry and which would allow anyone (of any size) to completely incapacitate another person (we'll ignore the risk of cardiac arrest and the number of times cops have tasered kids) without requiring registration or similar training? Or would you require such training? And what happens when your legal taser owner tasers a cop and takes his gun and shoots up a mall? Or the legal taser owner who is involved in a domestic violence incident tasers the intervening officers?
"That's where you and I differ. I begrudge anyone a weapon that is designed to cause serious harm, just because they feel insecure."
But you're okay with allowing people to carry a concealed weapon that would allow a 110lb person to incapacitate and rob a 200 lb. man? Or a police officer? (His vest won't protect him it he gets tasered in the arm or the leg.)
"Same with mace. In fact, if you follow safe gun storage procedures, a loaded gun is far less accessible during say a night home invasion, than a taser, can of mace,"
... because nothing would ever happen to a child if he happen to play with Mommy or Daddy's much easier to access taser? Also the new biometric gun safes allow faster access without compromising security.
"or a bat."
Which is my preferred method of home defense, but I'm also 6' 200lbs and I can swing it pretty hard, what do you suggest a 4'9" tall 110 lb women do with it against someone bigger and stronger? Oh wait she'll swing it at him and if (or when) he takes it from her he now has a bat to beat her to death with.
"A "responsible gun owner" can easily turn into an irresponsible one given the right circumstances, the difference being that unlike a hammer, or a knife, or even a car, they now have access to a tool that can cause far greater harm, far more quickly and easily."
A guy with road rage during high traffic can kill a lot more people than just himself. And a person acting negligently with a car can kill a lot more people than a person acting negligently while he's cleaning his gun. There were about 12,000 firearm related homicides. In that same year there were about the same number of drunk driving deaths.
Why is one figure unacceptable and the other something we have to tolerate? That's why I advocate tighter gun control laws. If we can round up all the guns (as your side of the argument seems to suggest) we can also only round up all the illegal guns and place reasonable restrictions on gun owner (limit the number of weapons, requiring background checks and training certification). You can't eliminate risk - you can minimize it and not take anything away from someone who has not broken a single law.
Edited by Tony Smith on 26 April 2014 at 12:23am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 2:22am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I can see this is a debate where someone is playing loose and fast with the facts just to suit their purpose.
Faced with a choice between people carrying around guns, or tasers, I'll take tasers any day of the week. Tasers are non-lethal, and don't cause ghastly injuries in the vast majority of cases. You can't accidentally shoot your neighbor's son through the wall with a stray taser shot. You can't go on a killing spree with a taser.
The effective range of a taser is up to 10.6 meters (35 feet), meeting all of your home defense needs.
Again, it basically comes down to "guns are cool, I want guns, they're my right, I'll have them and screw everyone else."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 2:56am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
All rationalizations for guns is B.S. Every other first-world society is doing just fine without guns in the hands of civilians. The root of the national obsession with guns is cultural; a good chunk of America believes that rebellion is a birthright. The Founding Fathers were rebels. The South still views the Confederates as heroes. To be a rebel is part of a sacred, masculine self-image. And what is a rebel without a firearm? It has little to do with laws and the greater good of society.
I don't believe the solution would be to change American culture. That would do more harm than good. I just wish people would view things less literally. It's good to challenge authority, but please put an intelligent brain behind it. Personal firearms are useless as a check against governmental abuses and corruption. And next to useless as a deterrence against armed criminals, for the gun is the weapon of an assassin. An armed attacker is not going to give the victim the chance to use his or her own gun.
On the news, it seems that the NRA is pushing for nation-wide legalization of concealed carry guns. It would seem that they are closer than ever to achieving their vision. But things are never that simple. At some point guns is going to become an existential threat to corporations, government, the ruling classes. Then things are going to get even uglier.
Edited by Joe Zhang on 26 April 2014 at 3:17am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Don Zomberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 November 2005
Posts: 2355
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 6:40am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
The gun nuts (and that's what they are) have entered the same sphere as evangelical Xians--wielding political power like a club and then claiming that their rights are constantly under siege.
"When is the white, gun-toting, Bible-believing male gonna catch a break in this country?"
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 8:09am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
"Faced with a choice between people carrying around guns, or tasers, I'll take tasers any day of the week."
Why is there a choice? How about nobody gets to carry a gun and nobody gets to carry a taser? Why do you believe you have a right to carry a concealed weapon that can effectively deliver 50,000 volts?
And just because something is advertised as non-lethal, doesn't mean that it is used responsibly (even by authorities). http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-intern ational-urges-stricter-limits-on-police-taser-use-as-us-deat h-toll-reaches-500
Key point: "Among the cases reviewed, 90 percent of those who died were unarmed. Many of the victims were subjected to multiple shocks."Is that in your opinion "responsible use"?
Oh and ranged tasers and stun guns are illegal to privately own in the UK. Should I conclude that your defense of them means that you subscribe to the "Again, it basically comes down to "Tasers and stun guns are cool, I want Tasers and stun guns, they're my right, I'll have them and screw everyone else."-mentality?
Edited by Tony Smith on 26 April 2014 at 8:39am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 8:15am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
"When is the white, gun-toting, Bible-believing male gonna catch a break in this country?"
Actually, I was born in Ohio. My family's from the North East (mostly Boston and my ancestors fought in the Civil War against the south or were abolitionists). I don't own a gun. Don't want to own a gun. Oh yeah, I'm also an atheist.But yeah keep telling me my belief in a non-existent fairy tale and reverence for a culture I don't actually share makes me want to have the gun that I don't actually own.
I just disagree with Mr. Byrne that the only effective gun control is to ban private ownership in its entirety, nor do I subscribe to his notion that someone using their guns responsibly (i.e. proper registration, training etc.) shares the blame for deaths caused by those who do NOT do those things.
People who use guns responsibly - and that includes most police officers - don't want to fire their weapons. They would prefer to live their lives without ever having the need to take that gun out of the gun safe (or in the case of an officer draw their weapon on a suspect) except at the range (see "training" part above). Labeling anyone that does not subscribe to a total ban, or believes that government could provide increased safety by tightening up existing laws as part of the "rabid gun culture". Demonstrates just how weak your position is.
Edited by Tony Smith on 26 April 2014 at 8:31am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 9:09am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I consider a gun a tool of law enforcement. It has the ability to take a
life quickly and efficiently. That's a power that should be strictly
regulated. Police officers receive training, psychological testing, and
are accountable for their actions. Yet, we give the same powers to
anyone who walks into a gun shop? With no required training and
psychological testing?
It's not just about mental illness. It's about making split second
decisions under pressure. I read something from a woman who owns
two or three guns who claimed she'd only fire "warning shots," which is
insane -- unless you're Annie Oakley, you can't shoot to just "wound"
like you're on TV. This is a gun owner who doesn't understand how her
weapon works and who might wind up killing an innocent bystander
under pressure.
Insane.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Don Zomberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 November 2005
Posts: 2355
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 9:33am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
The gun crowd in this country refuses to give any ground on restrictions/background checks/regulation, Tony. That makes them extremists--"nuts", in other words.
In one breath they demand that government do more to keep guns out of the hands of the "wrong" folks, then in the next they cry "Tyranny" when government tries to take those very steps.
But keep talking generalities about "most gun owners" and responsibility. Meanwhile the body counts will keep climbing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Josh Goldberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2080
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 10:08am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
"The cars/guns analogy will always fail."****
One point the pro-gunners often fail to consider is that cars (and their owners, their operators, their use) are heavily regulated.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
