BF2S Forums Arizona Congresswoman Shot

presidentsheep wrote:

The same can be said of my beliefs and opinions, I live in a society where guns aren't used or needed in self defence. Yet somehow that makes me the ignorant one? Try to get that your country is not the only one on the planet.

Are other things besides guns used in self defence in your country?

Pug wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

The same can be said of my beliefs and opinions, I live in a society where guns aren't used or needed in self defence. Yet somehow that makes me the ignorant one? Try to get that your country is not the only one on the planet.

Are other things besides guns used in self defence in your country?

I'm sure they are, however it's not legal to carry them around on the street.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

you just need to lighten up and stop being an uptight old man. go post in the other fourms like ee/tech/music.

Where the rest of the trolls are at.

presidentsheep wrote:

Pug wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

I'm sure they are, however it's not legal to carry them around on the street.

And do you think some people carry them around illegally?

undoubtedly, not your average law abiding citizen though.

And does the average law abiding citizen shoot a congresswoman?

lowing wrote:

west-phoenix-az wrote:

One major problem I have with classes, registration and permits is the costs and time involved. It's a right in this country, you shouldn't have to pay to exercise your right. Some people don't have the time or money to jump through the hoops. Just because they can't put aside the time or money doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate need for a firearm. The gun and ammo costs enough as it is. Lets say your sister had a bad break up with her boyfriend and suddenly feels the need for a firearm. You should be able to give or loan one of yours. Under the law in many places you'd both be breaking the law...... and that ain't right. Plus the government has no business knowing what guns I own, it only makes it easier for them to take them away if they feel the need.

Well even though I agree owning a firearm for  a "good reason" like self defense is a right of a law abiding citizen, that right is steeped in responsibility.  Unfortunately just because you might not have ever broken the law, does not necessarily prove you are responsible. You can be an idiot and not be a criminal. I do not want idiots running around with weapons any more than I want a criminal running around with weapons. So I can tolerate gun control in the sense that idiots and criminals are weeded out and education on safety and gun laws are mandatory. If nothing else, it might further protect a citizen, if only from himself, or an unlawful shooting.

If you haven't proven yourself to be dangerous or a threat to society I don't think the government has a right to tell you that you can't have a firearm because they think you're too dangerous, stupid or irresponsible. You shouldn't have to prove to the government that you are capable of safely handling and operating a firearm. I guess most people are taught by someone they know, it may not be a trained expert, but it has worked for a very long time. I don't see the need to change it by letting government set the requirements. The government seems to fuck up a lot more than they fix and any requirements they set on the ownership and possession of firearms is an infringement on the Second Amendment. I do think that if the government was really concerned about people with firearms they would offer a free course to educate the public on proper firearm safety. Or better yet some sort of credit or reimbursement for taking a course from a private (including non-government approved) instructor.

JohnG@lt wrote:

More to the point, if you can't afford a class on how to properly use a weapon, what are you doing buying a weapon in the first place?

As I mentioned above you probably have parents, friends or family that can teach you. You don't have to pay an expert to be taught something.

lowing wrote:

I don't have a problem with a private company or the boy scouts offering a certified firearms class. I didn't say the govt. had to offer it.

No you didn't, but it does sound like you're talking about a government approved program.

Don't get me wrong, I think people should get firearm training and education. I just don't think it should be approved or required by the government.

Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2011-01-13 07:39:07)

west-phoenix-az wrote:

lowing wrote:

I don't have a problem with a private company or the boy scouts offering a certified firearms class. I didn't say the govt. had to offer it.

No you didn't, but it does sound like you're talking about a government approved program.

Don't get me wrong, I think people should get firearm training and education. I just don't think it should be approved or required by the government.

Don't driving licences require at least proficiency tests is the US? Why shouldn't there be legislation similar for owning weapons? And shouldn't it include psych evaluations? The crazy should not be allowed to have guns.

EVieira wrote:

west-phoenix-az wrote:

lowing wrote:

I don't have a problem with a private company or the boy scouts offering a certified firearms class. I didn't say the govt. had to offer it.

No you didn't, but it does sound like you're talking about a government approved program.

Don't get me wrong, I think people should get firearm training and education. I just don't think it should be approved or required by the government.

Don't driving licences require at least proficiency tests is the US? Why shouldn't there be legislation similar for owning weapons? And shouldn't it include psych evaluations? The crazy should not be allowed to have guns.

Constitutional Rights don't require tests.

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

stereotyping? you might wanna read up and those that champion gun control. here is a hint. It ain't conservatives

And in countries with strict gun control, things like this simply don't happen....

Well, that depends on the country.  In the U.K., yes, gun crime is rare.  Then again, knife crime isn't.

Statistically speaking it's still rarer than in the US. (based on national per capita rates)

Turquoise wrote:

There are other countries with strict gun control that still have a lot of gun crime.  Take Brazil, for example.

Interesting you should mention Brazil (which is hardly a country of a comparable level of development). They are quite an interesting case. A few years back they tried to impose strict anti-gun legislation, but the referendum for this failed.

There has been a lot of research done into the situation in Brazil and a lot of polls regarding this. The opinion on the street doesn't fit in very neatly with your analysis:

The research showed that 91 percent of people in Brazil thought that obtaining a gun was too easy and the same number that gun proliferation was a main reason for fear in the country.

If obtaining a gun is too easy, then there is not strict gun control or it is not being properly implemented.

Which brings us back to the silly "criminals will have guns so everyone else has to as well" argument. In Brazil, more than 70% of guns used in crime were legally owned.

A commonly-held belief in Brazil, propagated by the gun lobby, is that guns used to commit crimes were either acquired on the illegal market or diverted from state security forces. In reality, the report finds that:

    * 72% of crime guns were once legally-owned
    * 65% of registered guns used in crime once belonged to civilians

The report also looks at how the guns were used in crime. Guns that had once been legally-owned were used in

    * 78% of armed theft
    * 67% of rapes at gunpoint
    * 58% of gun homicides
    * 32% of kidnappings at gunpoint

Those figures really don't support that argument at all.

Banning guns vastly reduces the number of guns on the streets and slashes gun crime. Although in some countries with strict gun laws, they have trouble enforcing them because guns can be illegally obtained from other countries with more outmoded views on gun control - like Mexico, where most of the guns used in crime have been legally purchased from the US.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-01-13 11:07:36)

yes

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

There are other countries with strict gun control that still have a lot of gun crime.  Take Brazil, for example.

Interesting you should mention Brazil (which is hardly a country of a comparable level of development). They are quite an interesting case. A few years back they tried to impose strict anti-gun legislation, but the referendum for this failed.

There has been a lot of research done into the situation in Brazil and a lot of polls regarding this. The opinion on the street doesn't fit in very neatly with your analysis:

The research showed that 91 percent of people in Brazil thought that obtaining a gun was too easy and the same number that gun proliferation was a main reason for fear in the country.

If obtaining a gun is too easy, then there is not strict gun control or it is not being properly implemented.

Which brings us back to the silly "criminals will have guns so everyone else has to as well" argument. In Brazil, more than 70% of guns used in crime were legally owned.

If that's true, then they either must not have effective gun registries, or they have law enforcement that isn't effectively enforcing registries.  That's not an argument against gun ownership -- that's an argument against corruption and ineffective laws.

Bertster7 wrote:

A commonly-held belief in Brazil, propagated by the gun lobby, is that guns used to commit crimes were either acquired on the illegal market or diverted from state security forces. In reality, the report finds that:

    * 72% of crime guns were once legally-owned
    * 65% of registered guns used in crime once belonged to civilians

The report also looks at how the guns were used in crime. Guns that had once been legally-owned were used in

    * 78% of armed theft
    * 67% of rapes at gunpoint
    * 58% of gun homicides
    * 32% of kidnappings at gunpoint

Those figures really don't support that argument at all.

Again, that's an argument against their system -- not against guns themselves.  I could just as easily point to Switzerland as a country with high gun ownership yet low crime.

Bertster7 wrote:

Banning guns vastly reduces the number of guns on the streets and slashes gun crime. Although in some countries with strict gun laws, they have trouble enforcing them because guns can be illegally obtained from other countries with more outmoded views on gun control - like Mexico, where most of the guns used in crime have been legally purchased from the US.

Not true.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 … xico-come/

It's Fox News, but it's been corroborated with other sources.

Bertster7 wrote:

Those figures really don't support that argument at all.

Banning guns vastly reduces the number of guns on the streets and slashes gun crime. Although in some countries with strict gun laws, they have trouble enforcing them because guns can be illegally obtained from other countries with more outmoded views on gun control - like Mexico, where most of the guns used in crime have been legally purchased from the US.

That's a misrepresentation. The majority of guns that are traceable can be traced back to the US. Why? Because we require serial numbers to be stamped on all weapons. The vast, vast majority of weapons found in Mexico are not traceable and did not originate in the US.

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Then why can't you take a proficiency/psych test too? If you can say who can or can't be eligible for a constitutional right based on a background check, then applying a couple of tests shouldn't be a problem.

I totally agree, and honestly, I don't understand the opposition to this.

Because psych tests are utterly ridiculous as a requirement. Approximately 1/3 of the population is classified as anti-social by shrinks but they're simply introverted by nature. Another segment of the population has been branded with depression. If you allow psych testing you open up the floodgates to deny people for all sorts of 'mental disorders' that make people 'abnormal'.

presidentsheep wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Pug wrote:

No, common logic.

What you are missing is that the primary reason for owning a gun is self defence to increase safety.  It's a tool for safety like a seat belt.  You are advocating that guns should be banned because there's no need for self defence.  Aka, there is no need to increase one's safety.  You've even stated that if you aren't in that situation it's not required.  Well, albeit that's true to some point, criminals aren't going to agree to not put you in that situation.  Aka, I'm not going to wear a seat belt, because there's no possible way someone else is going to cause an accident when I'm driving.

I've already stated the problem:
1) How did this guy get a gun
2) Lack of security at the event

It doesn't matter what was used in the assassination - it's about restricting the assassin's access and opportunities.

At this point we're just banging our head on the wall trying to convey our beliefs and opinions.  This kid is smugly ignorant and unwilling to accept the explanations of reality.

The same can be said of my beliefs and opinions, I live in a society where guns aren't used or needed in self defence. Yet somehow that makes me the ignorant one? Try to get that your country is not the only one on the planet.

We know guns are not used in self defense, you are not allowed to. but are guns used by criminals in England?