Gun Advocates: What Would it Take?

[jimithyashford]

I know there has been a lot of lawyer talk the last few days in regards to Clinton's emails, but you really need to stop pretending I'm not answering the question. No point at all. Period. Understand it yet?

Ok, got it. No conceivable point, no matter how dire, or cost in human lives, no matter how extreme, that could ever override your personal right to own a particular type of weapon. Got it, thanks

 

[ajn678]

Ok, got it. No conceivable point, no matter how dire, or cost in human lives, no matter how extreme, that could ever override your personal right to own a particular type of weapon. Got it, thanks

If people are out on the streets blasting away everyone, the last thing I would want to do is be banned from owning guns.

 

[Casper]

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

There is no reason I would agree to give up my 2nd A Rights. If as you suggested that violence became outrageous then I would have even more reason to have my own. Thing is gun violence is not going up, so much for that suggestion.

 

[jimithyashford]

Look kid, I spent 3 decades as a prosecutor. I have spent 40+ years on this topic. NOTHING is going to cause me to support any kind of gun control other than laws that punish the MISUSE of firearms or laws that restrict certain people who have demonstrated they are a danger when armed -like violent felons or certified nut cases

If there is rampant violence on my street, I sure don't want laws that are going to disarm me long before those laws impact people who disobey laws in the first place.

Are 30 year olds kids now? I mean the average human lifespan is about 76, surely at a little under the half way point you are no longer a kid....or are you implying that I am a child simply because I disagree with you on this topic? That seems to actually be the childish thing, if you ask me.

Anyway, ok, you've answered. There is no conceivable circumstance, no matter how dire, or possible cost in lives, no matter how high, that could ever override the personal right to own a particular type of weapon. Thank you for your input?

 

[jimithyashford]

There is no reason I would agree to give up my 2nd A Rights. If as you suggested that violence became outrageous then I would have even more reason to have my own. Thing is gun violence is not going up, so much for that suggestion.

I feel you missed a key phrase in my OP: "Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?"

I am not necessarily describing a situation of say, outright war in which of course you would then want a gun for your own protection, but also, potentially, a situation in which guns slay a massive number of people and save few to none. Is there a point at which the cost in lives would be so high, and the preservation of life so low, that the trade off just stops being worth it?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I feel you missed a key phrase in my OP: "Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?"

I am not necessarily describing a situation of say, outright war in which of course you would then want a gun for your own protection, but also, potentially, a situation in which guns slay a massive number of people and save few to none. Is there a point at which the cost in lives would be so high, and the preservation of life so low, that the trade off just stops being worth it?

I fear you have a tendency to refuse any answer that does not meet the criteria imagined within your mind.

I read your post (quoted it too, didn't I?) and provided the answer appropriate to the question.

You'll note that this issue has come up many, many times in this Forum simply by glancing at the contents of the Sub-Forum.

Many of us have addressed this question ad nauseam. It all boils down to this. My right to self-defense trumps your desire to feel secure. That no examples of violence perpetrated by other actor(s) will ever suffice to convince me that depriving myself of access to the best tools available to insure my self-defense is a rational course of action.

 

[TurtleDude]

Are 30 year olds kids now? I mean the average human lifespan is about 76, surely at a little under the half way point you are no longer a kid....or are you implying that I am a child simply because I disagree with you on this topic? That seems to actually be the childish thing, if you ask me.

Anyway, ok, you've answered. There is no conceivable circumstance, no matter how dire, or possible cost in lives, no matter how high, that could ever override the personal right to own a particular type of weapon. Thank you for your input?

Yeah to me. you seem to operate under the delusion that gun control is crime control. That is like asking how much blood loss would a patient have to have before I advocated giving them an enema.

 

[TurtleDude]

I fear you have a tendency to refuse any answer that does not meet the criteria imagined within you mind.

I read your post (quoted it too, didn't I?) and provided the answer appropriate to the question.

You'll note that this issue has come up many, many times in this Forum simply by glancing at the contents of the Sub-Forum.

Many of us have addressed this question ad nauseam. It all boils down to this. My right to self-defense trumps your desire to feel secure, and no examples of violence perpetrated by other actor(s) will every suffice to depriving me of the best tools available to insure it.

Thread winner-nothing else can really surpass that in terms of accuracy

 

[Casper]

I feel you missed a key phrase in my OP: "Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?"

I am not necessarily describing a situation of say, outright war in which of course you would then want a gun for your own protection, but also, potentially, a situation in which guns slay a massive number of people and save few to none. Is there a point at which the cost in lives would be so high, and the preservation of life so low, that the trade off just stops being worth it?

No, I did not miss it, the worse violence becomes the More reason I need my guns, what about that is difficult for you to grasp? Let me ask this; if gun violence became that extreme, meaning the police cannot handle it, and those criminals came for you and yours, would you want a gun or at least want to have a neighbor or friend with one that could save you and yours by using a gun? Honestly?

 

[Henrin]

No conceivable cost of life that is more important than your personal right to bear arms. Check.

Yes, it doesn't matter if a billion people die by guns I will still stand by the peoples right to defend themselves, their friends, their family, and their community with the best equipment available. I will also stand by the people right to own whatever the **** they please until the day I die.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

Nerve stapling. Nerve stapling is what it would take for me to support strict gun control measures.

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

You are begging the question. I do not agree with your unspoken assertion that strict gun control would reduce the level of violence in our society. No amount of violence justifies giving up the right to carry weapons, because taking away the right to carry weapons does not help.

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Let us assume that I agree with you, that strict gun control would reduce the incidence of violence.

There is still no point at which I would surrender my gun rights, just like there is no point at which sedition would induce me to give up my speech rights, or cult activity would induce me to give up my freedom of religion. There is no point at which national security justifies the suppression of the freedom of the press or the right to due process. There is no point at which drug abuse justifies unreasonable searches and seizures. There is no point at which the unemployment rate or the size of the welfare rolls justifies involuntary servitude.

I will not give up liberty for security under any circumstances, because security is an illusion peddled by politicians who only want control.

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

What is it about the right to vote that is worth dying for?

 

[Black Dog]

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

I love how you completely ignored my question in post #2.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

another bleeding heart anti-2nd amendment thread. if you don't like the constitution, move.

 

[jimithyashford]

I love how you completely ignored my question in post #2.

I ignored your question because that is not the purpose of this thread. That is an interesting question and all, but I purposefully do not want this to get derailed into a general all-purpose gun control debate.

 

[Casper]

I ignored your question because that is not the purpose of this thread. That is an interesting question and all, but I purposefully do not want this to get derailed into a general all-purpose gun control debate.

But what You have not addressed is the many comments that state that if violence gets a bad as you suggested why would that be a good time to give up our ability to defend ourselves? Explain why it is you would feel safer removing the rights of non-criminals in a time of violence the Logic escapes me.

 

[TurtleDude]

I ignored your question because that is not the purpose of this thread. That is an interesting question and all, but I purposefully do not want this to get derailed into a general all-purpose gun control debate.

your initial question was stupid because you assume that rational people think gun control is an answer to increasing violent crime. as I noted, that is equivalent to thinking an enema is the proper response to someone bleeding out of a severe wound

 

[TurtleDude]

But what You have not addressed is the many comments that state that if violence gets a bad as you suggested why would that be a good time to give up our ability to defend ourselves? Explain why it is you would feel safer removing the rights of non-criminals in a time of violence the Logic escapes me.

How bad does an epidemic have to become before you are willing to get rid of your stocks of medicines and your access to doctors?

same thing

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

another bleeding heart anti-2nd amendment thread. if you don't like the constitution, move.

American citizens have the prerogative of proposing changes to the Constitution. It's been amended 27 times already.

I will never support an Amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and I would rebel if it passed, but he has the right to lobby for it.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Sure, I'll play.

There are about 30 people murdered with a gun every day. I am leaving out suicides because I believe in a person's right to end their own life as much as I believe in their right to defend their own life.

30 gun murders a day. Once you get all the non-gun related violent crime below that number I will consider stricter gun control. What do I mean? Let's take just one example of such a violent crime. 30 gun murders a day isn't anything to sneeze at but the Justice Department estimates there are about 800 women raped every day. The vast majority of the time that is only possible due to the man being able to overpower the woman or by using the threat of further violence. A gun is a great equalizer. Frankly, given the 30 vs 800 numbers, I would prefer every woman in the country was armed rather than every bad guy in the country being disarmed.

And that is just one type of violent crime against one demographic. But for the sake of the hypothetical in this thread let's pretend the only types of violent crimes are gun murders and rapes. I will consider stricter gun control once the number of murders using a gun outnumber the number of rapes. At that point I can justify my decision to the women in my life by saying they are more likely to be killed by a gun than raped, so it isn't so important that they be able to defend themselves against he latter.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok, got it. No conceivable point, no matter how dire, or cost in human lives, no matter how extreme, that could ever override your personal right to own a particular type of weapon. Got it, thanks

again, you are coming at this position with the ASSumption that gun control is actually a valid response to violence.

it is not

 

[AGENT J]

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Your premise is all wrong, why would a person ever ban guns based on the action of a criminal?
would you ask that about cars?

anyway to answer your question, no criminal activity would make me support strict gun laws thats stupid and illogical.

But I'd probably support any gun law that actually punishes bad guys/criminals that doesnt punish and endanger law abiding citizens while empowering bad guys at the same time

its really simply, i read a proposal and think about A and B.

A.) Does the proposal punish criminals and prevent criminal activities?
B.) Does the proposal punish law abiding people, endanger them and empower criminals?

The vast majority or proposals people make are A.) no and B.) Yes so I don't support them. The ones that are A.) Yes and B.) no i do support.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Your premise is all wrong, why would a person ever ban guns based on the action of a criminal?
would you ask that about cars?

anyway to answer your question, no criminal activity would make me support strict gun laws thats stupid and illogical.

But I'd probably support any gun law that actually punishes bad guys/criminals that doesnt punish and endanger law abiding citizens while empowering bad guys at the same time

its really simply, i read a proposal and think about A and B.

A.) Does the proposal punish criminals and prevent criminal activities?
B.) Does the proposal punish law abiding people, endanger them and empower criminals?

The vast majority or proposals people make are A.) no and B.) Yes so I don't support them. The ones that are A.) Yes and B.) no i do support.

My test is pretty simple.
1) Does this law follow due process?
2) Does this law cross the border into prior restraint?

Due process based laws are fine, and could be argued as falling within necessary and proper requirements of law written beyond explicitly stated powers. Criminals by law forfeit their rights for the period of their sentence so anything that punishes the misuse of a right is perfectly fine.

Anything that starts with the premise of banning an item because of arbitrary characteristics, or because someone has or "might" misuse them is an automatic no-go.

 

[AGENT J]

My test is pretty simple.
1) Does this law follow due process?
2) Does this law cross the border into prior restraint?

Due process based laws are fine, and could be argued as falling within necessary and proper requirements of law written beyond explicitly stated powers. Criminals by law forfeit their rights for the period of their sentence so anything that punishes the misuse of a right is perfectly fine.

Anything that starts with the premise of banning an item because of arbitrary characteristics, or because someone has or "might" misuse them is an automatic no-go.

oh thats key . . .theres other factors for me personally and law, due process and rights infringement are the most important . . that system you quoted of mine is just for peoples propsals here to make them think

 

[LaMidRighter]

oh thats key . . .theres other factors for me personally and law, due process and rights infringement are the most important . . that system you quoted of mine is just for peoples propsals here to make them think

Admittedly, there are other factors involved. Those factors would be whether the law crosses into cruel and unusual territory, like lifetime punishments even after release. There are always secondary factors but the best way to lose my support on any given proposal is to extend past a constitutional basis. If one wants to punish misuse, reasonable, if someone wants prior restraint then there must be a compelling reason beyond emotion, something like banning MOABS and nukes or restricting/regulating explosives on the basis of their area effective blasts and unpredictable nature.

 

[AGENT J]

Admittedly, there are other factors involved. Those factors would be whether the law crosses into cruel and unusual territory, like lifetime punishments even after release. There are always secondary factors but the best way to lose my support on any given proposal is to extend past a constitutional basis. If one wants to punish misuse, reasonable, if someone wants prior restraint then there must be a compelling reason beyond emotion, something like banning MOABS and nukes or restricting/regulating explosives on the basis of their area effective blasts and unpredictable nature.

agreed!