• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are firearms the problem? [W:874]

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's be honest about what a firearm is.

I would define a firearm, in the context that it is most often used, as the most efficient way for an individual to project force. We hear firearms compared to cars, hammers and knives, but at the end of the day, all of those devices have legitimate other primary uses and when it comes to projecting force are much less efficient. Cars, while powerful and capable of causing tremendous damage are pretty hard to use to attack or defend ("Quick honey, someone is trying to break in and climb through the window,get the car!"). Hammers and knives, while fantastic weapons in their own right, usually require that the user place themselves in the vicinity of their victim, thereby being open to retaliation with the same or different weapon.

When you think about society we are surrounded by other people, some of which share our interests, other who do not.

When trying to convince people to do what you want, you have two ways to do it, through influence or force.

Removal of the firearm from society, (if it were possible), removes only the efficiency with which a person can project force, not the desire to do so. Since (I assert) it is impossible to remove firearms in our culture, even to a significant degree, their removal only denies those that would abide by a law to surrender their firearms their most efficient means of defending yourself from another who is using force in an attempt to persuade you.

The conversation, imo, shouldn't be about the right to own a firearm, but the conditions under which we should do so. We should keep in mind that laws are often a first step in shaping culture which, in most cases has a much larger effect on society.

I think responsible owners should step up and persuade their fellow firearm owners to be accountable for their weapons. I think that owners should be responsible for any and ALL weapons in their custody (within reasonable limitations of course). Any weapon that falls into the hands of a child or burglar, where little effort was required to take possession of it, the owner of that weapon should be severely reprimanded.

Now I'm sure this last paragraph will get many a firearms owner up in arms, but before you you go on the offensive, I didn't lay out everything I think, nor do I have all the solutions. At the end of the day I'm saying we should be open to a conversation about the best way to balance out rights to own a firearm against the right to be reasonably sure that your firearms won't end up in the hands of criminals or family members who intend to use them to cause harm to the innocent.

I have a home defense shotgun, mounted on the wall in a locked restraining device. It requires a 4 digit button combination to remove. It takes about 3-5 sec for me to get to it if my wife or I need it. I also have a pistol safe that requires about 4-6 sec to open and allows my choice of 5 fully loaded and ready to rock pistols.

To that anti-firearm crowd....

The failure of many a lawful gun owner to engage in a meaningful conversation about creating laws that prevent the purchasing of firearms without background checks and close loopholes or penalize those that fail to maintain custody of their weapons is a legitimate fear that any concession, no matter how much sense it makes may result in other concessions that make less sense.

Both sides should be working toward concessions that make living with firearms, something that is deeply ingrained in our culture and unlikely to go away, as safe as possible.

I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.

Thoughts?
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.

Thoughts?
Given the fact that governments are the number one cause of death (Hundreds of millions last century alone) tyranny and oppression it is not extreme to insist that the people be equally armed to protect their freedom. Freedom is more important than the small numbers of loss of life that we incur for it's assurance. Equally it is not extreme to insist that people have the right to defend themselves from those that simply will not follow any law that you wish to impose no matter how "Practical" you believe they are.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.

Thoughts?
Cannot ban guns. But I do not want the next psycho to have it as convenient neither. Hence we should single them out with fMRI solutions and deny license to a gun. Make it more probable that psycho's would be arrested while purchasing illegal guns would be both practical solution as well as theoretical (i.e., the government would have nothing to do with allowing easy access to psycho's).
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,520
Reaction score
16,304
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Are firearms the problem?

The conversation, imo, shouldn't be about the right to own a firearm, but the conditions under which we should do so.
We already have a **** load of conditions to own a firearm.We do not need anymore.If anything the criminal element is statistically insignificant.

I think responsible owners should step up and persuade their fellow firearm owners to be accountable for their weapons. I think that owners should be responsible for any and ALL weapons in their custody (within reasonable limitations of course). Any weapon that falls into the hands of a child or burglar, where little effort was required to take possession of it, the owner of that weapon should be severely reprimanded.
There are around 70-80 million gun owners as of 2010 and at least 310 million firearms as of 2009 in their hands and only 10-12 thousand homicides a year a good portion involve scumbag on scumbag shooting(so their deaths are a favor to society). and 600 fatal firearm accidents. I would have to say that 99.0% of gun owners are accountable for their firearms.


Gun control offers no cure-all in America - NBC Politics
The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the United States, not including weapons owned by the military.

Gun Control - Just Facts
Adults Owning a Gun
70-80 million

FASTSTATS - Homicide
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,078

FIREARMS TUTORIAL
Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Now I'm sure this last paragraph will get many a firearms owner up in arms, but before you you go on the offensive, I didn't lay out everything I think, nor do I have all the solutions. At the end of the day I'm saying we should be open to a conversation about the best way to balance out rights to own a firearm against the right to be reasonably sure that your firearms won't end up in the hands of criminals or family members who intend to use them to cause harm to the innocent.

I have a home defense shotgun, mounted on the wall in a locked restraining device. It requires a 4 digit button combination to remove. It takes about 3-5 sec for me to get to it if my wife or I need it. I also have a pistol safe that requires about 4-6 sec to open and allows my choice of 5 fully loaded and ready to rock pistols.
I seen this line before- I has guns too,me like to shoot, me have gun at home for self defense, now let me see that second amendment you got there and wipe my ass and sweaty testicles with it while me pretend to be a moderate or in the middle gun owner. You are not the first to pull this nonsense.

To that anti-firearm crowd....

The failure of many a lawful gun owner to engage in a meaningful conversation about creating laws that prevent the purchasing of firearms without background checks and close loopholes or penalize those that fail to maintain custody of their weapons is a legitimate fear that any concession, no matter how much sense it makes may result in other concessions that make less sense.

Seeing how we have the right to keep and bear arms in this country without any infringements we should not concede to ****.If anything we made enough concessions.

Both sides should be working toward concessions that make living with firearms, something that is deeply ingrained in our culture and unlikely to go away, as safe as possible.

A compromise implies that both sides are giving up something in exchange for something. What is the anti-2nd amendment side going to give up in exchange for me conceding to universal background checks?
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Cannot ban guns. But I do not want the next psycho to have it as convenient neither. Hence we should single them out with fMRI solutions and deny license to a gun. Make it more probable that psycho's would be arrested while purchasing illegal guns would be both practical solution as well as theoretical (i.e., the government would have nothing to do with allowing easy access to psycho's).
Except the stats and the facts clearly prove that mental issues do not increase a persons likelihood to commit gun crimes.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Except the stats and the facts clearly prove that mental issues do not increase a persons likelihood to commit gun crimes.
We went through this. It is not the mental disorders it is the character and personality disorders.

Or perhaps I was not clear. When I type "psycho" I mean "psycho-path" not "psycho-tic" which then would mean what you are referring about.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

We went through this. It is not the mental disorders it is the character and personality disorders.

Or perhaps I was not clear. When I type "psycho" I mean "psycho-path" not "psycho-tic" which then would mean what you are referring about.
Ok, but what I am wondering is how you believe that you can determine one from the other with an MRI?
From what I have seen so far the MRI does not indicate a distinction, do you have evidence to the contrary?

I don't believe in ANY case that we should be removing people's rights based on what they may or may not do.
I think it is more obvious that you are simply scapegoating low hanging fruit
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Let's be honest
Whenever a thread on any forum, anywhere on the internet starts out with those words, you know it's going to be nothing but lies and propaganda from that point on.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Whenever a thread on any forum, anywhere on the internet starts out with those words, you know it's going to be nothing but lies and propaganda from that point on.
Likewise what Obama says it :lamo
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,882
Reaction score
27,947
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Let's be honest about what a firearm is.

I would define a firearm, in the context that it is most often used, as the most efficient way for an individual to project force. We hear firearms compared to cars, hammers and knives, but at the end of the day, all of those devices have legitimate other primary uses and when it comes to projecting force are much less efficient. Cars, while powerful and capable of causing tremendous damage are pretty hard to use to attack or defend ("Quick honey, someone is trying to break in and climb through the window,get the car!"). Hammers and knives, while fantastic weapons in their own right, usually require that the user place themselves in the vicinity of their victim, thereby being open to retaliation with the same or different weapon.

When you think about society we are surrounded by other people, some of which share our interests, other who do not.

When trying to convince people to do what you want, you have two ways to do it, through influence or force.

Removal of the firearm from society, (if it were possible), removes only the efficiency with which a person can project force, not the desire to do so. Since (I assert) it is impossible to remove firearms in our culture, even to a significant degree, their removal only denies those that would abide by a law to surrender their firearms their most efficient means of defending yourself from another who is using force in an attempt to persuade you.

The conversation, imo, shouldn't be about the right to own a firearm, but the conditions under which we should do so. We should keep in mind that laws are often a first step in shaping culture which, in most cases has a much larger effect on society.

I think responsible owners should step up and persuade their fellow firearm owners to be accountable for their weapons. I think that owners should be responsible for any and ALL weapons in their custody (within reasonable limitations of course). Any weapon that falls into the hands of a child or burglar, where little effort was required to take possession of it, the owner of that weapon should be severely reprimanded.

Now I'm sure this last paragraph will get many a firearms owner up in arms, but before you you go on the offensive, I didn't lay out everything I think, nor do I have all the solutions. At the end of the day I'm saying we should be open to a conversation about the best way to balance out rights to own a firearm against the right to be reasonably sure that your firearms won't end up in the hands of criminals or family members who intend to use them to cause harm to the innocent.

I have a home defense shotgun, mounted on the wall in a locked restraining device. It requires a 4 digit button combination to remove. It takes about 3-5 sec for me to get to it if my wife or I need it. I also have a pistol safe that requires about 4-6 sec to open and allows my choice of 5 fully loaded and ready to rock pistols.

To that anti-firearm crowd....

The failure of many a lawful gun owner to engage in a meaningful conversation about creating laws that prevent the purchasing of firearms without background checks and close loopholes or penalize those that fail to maintain custody of their weapons is a legitimate fear that any concession, no matter how much sense it makes may result in other concessions that make less sense.

Both sides should be working toward concessions that make living with firearms, something that is deeply ingrained in our culture and unlikely to go away, as safe as possible.

I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.
Thoughts?
Here's where I disagree with your approach, you skipped right by the most important thing you said. "...the desire to do so." This is the key area where society needs to train its youths. Teaching children right from wrong, and making sure they are law-abiding gun owners versus criminals. I really thought that's where your post was headed, but instead you remained fixed on the weapon.....disappointing. The weapon is not where the problem lies, it's in the mind of each person. This holds not only true for the use of weapons, but anything else for that matter.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Here's where I disagree with your approach, you skipped right by the most important thing you said. "...the desire to do so." This is the key area where society needs to train its youths. Teaching children right from wrong, and making sure they are law-abiding gun owners versus criminals. I really thought that's where your post was headed, but instead you remained fixed on the weapon.....disappointing. The weapon is not where the problem lies, it's in the mind of each person. This holds not only true for the use of weapons, but anything else for that matter.
Agreed. The fact that our society protects the rights of criminals over their victims these days is not helping.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Here's where I disagree with your approach, you skipped right by the most important thing you said. "...the desire to do so." This is the key area where society needs to train its youths.
Totally 100% agree....Education, education, education. The question is, who teaches and who decides the curriculum?

Teaching children right from wrong, and making sure they are law-abiding gun owners versus criminals.
Not to be argumentative, but you make it sound like the problem can be solved so easily. To get to where you want to be requires a lot of work. In the meantime, I think the best way to incentivize people to be responsible for their weapons, period.

I really thought that's where your post was headed, but instead you remained fixed on the weapon.....disappointing. The weapon is not where the problem lies, it's in the mind of each person. This holds not only true for the use of weapons, but anything else for that matter.
I thought I touched on both and I agree. Since you can't identify the desires of every person, it's important to have a system in place that attempts to identify the minds that are clearly unfit to own a weapon and to create a culture of responsibility for everyone else.

If a firearm owner has never had his weapon taken, or accidently discharged it, does it mean that that person is "responsible"? Maybe maybe not. I think there are a lot of people that are very irresponsible who are just fortunate that nothing has ever happened to them or someone else around them.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Given the fact that governments are the number one cause of death (Hundreds of millions last century alone) tyranny and oppression it is not extreme to insist that the people be equally armed to protect their freedom. Freedom is more important than the small numbers of loss of life that we incur for it's assurance. Equally it is not extreme to insist that people have the right to defend themselves from those that simply will not follow any law that you wish to impose no matter how "Practical" you believe they are.

Governments don't kill people any more than guns do. In both cases it's the people that are doing the killing.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Cannot ban guns. But I do not want the next psycho to have it as convenient neither. Hence we should single them out with fMRI solutions and deny license to a gun. Make it more probable that psycho's would be arrested while purchasing illegal guns would be both practical solution as well as theoretical (i.e., the government would have nothing to do with allowing easy access to psycho's).
fMRI is a very interesting idea, but one that is still years away from practical use.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Governments don't kill people any more than guns do. In both cases it's the people that are doing the killing.
I know at least 4 million Jews that might disagree with you.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

We already have a **** load of conditions to own a firearm.We do not need anymore.If anything the criminal element is statistically insignificant.
The quantity of laws are irrelevant. It is the quality that matters, though I would tend to agree that there are too many laws, but none that I'm aware of, advocate my approch. I'd be happy to throw out many of the laws as they exist on the books today as unenforceable, ineffective, or just downright stupid.



There are around 70-80 million gun owners as of 2010 and at least 310 million firearms as of 2009 in their hands and only 10-12 thousand homicides a year a good portion involve scumbag on scumbag shooting(so their deaths are a favor to society). and 600 fatal firearm accidents. I would have to say that 99.0% of gun owners are accountable for their firearms.
You don't know that.... Just because nothing ever happens with the firearms of 99% of firearm owners doesn't mean they are all responsible. Many could be irresponsible and you just don't know it.

By your logic a firearm owner is responsible, unless something happens that causes them to be irresponsible, then their label changes. I'm saying that there are a lot more irresponsible owners out there who are just fortunate that the world isn't aware of yet.

I seen this line before- I has guns too,me like to shoot, me have gun at home for self defense, now let me see that second amendment you got there and wipe my ass and sweaty testicles with it while me pretend to be a moderate or in the middle gun owner. You are not the first to pull this nonsense.
You can question my motives all you like, I support the second amendment and the right to own firearms. I have several. You want to see um just ask.


Seeing how we have the right to keep and bear arms in this country without any infringements we should not concede to ****.If anything we made enough concessions.
That's the beautiful thing about the Constitution, it was created, not as a set of unchanging laws that can never be violated, but as a document that can be changed. Now I'm aware that many have attempted to work around it, to achieve their political goals. I don't support that either, even if the changes are something I support. I support respect of the constitutional process. I think of more people were willing to adhere to the process, there would be fewer cynical people like you.

Having said that, I'm not offended at your childish rant...You are entitled. Your behavior is not surprising and is a reaction to the extreme anti-gun crowd, a group that I vehemently oppose.
I know its hard to imagine someone who advocates the right to own a gun, but is then willing to place reasonable expectations on that ownership.

A compromise implies that both sides are giving up something in exchange for something. What is the anti-2nd amendment side going to give up in exchange for me conceding to universal background checks?
How about agreeing never to tax or in any way impede ownership, through the taxation or banning of anything required to make legal firearms operate (the back door approach to banning firearms). Primers, brass, casings, reloading equipment....?
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

That's the beautiful thing about the Constitution, it was created, not as a set of unchanging laws that can never be violated, but as a document that can be changed.
Yes by the amendment process, not by subjective re-interpretation.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Ok, but what I am wondering is how you believe that you can determine one from the other with an MRI?
From what I have seen so far the MRI does not indicate a distinction, do you have evidence to the contrary?

I don't believe in ANY case that we should be removing people's rights based on what they may or may not do.
I think it is more obvious that you are simply scapegoating low hanging fruit
What he is talking about is fMRI that can locate where thoughts originate physically in the brian. Psychotics have thoughts that appear in different places in the brain than "normal" people and can be identified in this way. Is it enough to justify taking away their right to own a gun? I'm not convinced either way, but I think the idea holds promise.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

I know at least 4 million Jews that might disagree with you.
I think we're splitting hairs here. People make up a government. It is people acting as a group with the force to back up their ideas that in this case we are calling "Government". But no one in the history of civilization has been killed by "government", just policies put in place by the group that had power and the people that carried it out.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

It happens every once in awhile, but we agree....

The amendment process has been abandoned with the emergence of contemporary jurisprudence just as the budget has been abandoned with the idea of raising the debt limit. These liberal ideals will be the cornerstone of our collapse.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

I think we're splitting hairs here. People make up a government. It is people acting as a group with the force to back up their ideas that in this case we are calling "Government". But no one in the history of civilization has been killed by "government", just policies put in place by the group that had power and the people that carried it out.
Same thing you just don't want to call it government. Why is that?

That is the equivalent of saying the boy scouts have never gone camping just a group of people that went camping following policies put in place by the group.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Same thing you just don't want to call it government. Why is that?

That is the equivalent of saying the boy scouts have never gone camping just a group of people that went camping following policies put in place by the group.
Yes and if the "Boy Scouts" decided that jumping off a cliff to certain death, would the "Boy Scouts" jump or would certain individuals decide to and others decide not too?

At the end of the day if enough people oppose the direction of a government and work to enact changes, those individuals effectively become the government.

The question in my mind is, does the government represent the will of the people within the boundaries of the Constitution designed to restrain it (the Government).
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Are firearms the problem?

The question in my mind is, does the government represent the will of the people within the boundaries of the Constitution designed to restrain it (the Government).
There is no question, the answer is no.
 
Top Bottom