Gun sales surge after Obama's election (link)

[Richard]

Can civilians buy rubber bullets for guns? So you are only likely to get a kill if you hit them in the head or chest? It'd be safer, but still effective for stopping people. I've seen people get shot with rubber bullets, they are out for the count.

[Duncan_Idaho]

Really boys and girls, do you honestly think the gangs and the mobs are shooting themselves with legally purchased guns?

[CollegeB]

"But as I said earlier, the amount of poeple using them aggresively & the people using them in self defense are bound to be roughly equal - ie RELATIVE."

 

Actually this is completely off. There are a little more than 30,000 deaths a year due to guns (the FBI indicates that about 16-20% of these are suicides) yet there are at least 1 million cases of guns used in a defensive manner annually. And all of this with-in the context of roughly 60 million americans possessing firearms or having owned them. If firearms cause crime and death all of mine must be broken. Of course bad things could happen with my guns, but its more likely that something bad will happen with my automobile, as those cause over 40k fatalities a year. Interestingly drunk driving causes fewer fatalities than firearms according to the numbers i've seen. It seems education would help and I imagine drunk driving does not include deaths caused by police but deaths related to firearms probably include some police shootings. Of course the primary factor involved in deaths in the US is tobacco coming in the lead with over 400,00 fatalities.

[VeganEssentials]

Not only are there plenty of illegal weapons floating around that are used in the bulk of gun crimes, but as I posted once before, there are MANY weapons that come into the USA from other countries as well that are the ones that go into circulation outside of legal boundaries. Due to this, it doesn't matter if they closed every weapons manufacturer in the USA - the criminals would just get theirs from European sources, Middle Eastern countries, Asian nations, South America or somewhere else. There's no shortage of weapons being flooded into the USA every year that come from other countries, so thinking in black-and-white terms of only worrying about internal gun control for those purchasing legally actually skirts the bulk of the real problem and is not a good way to go about instigating change. Really, I think that too many people put their time into concern over legally obtained weapons when they never seem to want to consider how absolutely few people who commit crimes have bought their weapons through legal channels. How does legislation against legal gun ownership affect those that are getting them through straw buyers/back alley deals/etc? Not in any way, shape or form, that's how. I think time would be MUCH better spent positioning our country to make it so that you'd have to be insane to use a firearm in a crime, and double the penalties if you purchased the gun illegally. When we make it so that people NEED to be afraid of using a gun in a crime due to the reprecussions, THEN we'll see a reduction in gun violence. Simply taking away options for people who purchase them legally doesn't stop crime, rather, it just stops more non-criminals from buying guns. Which, that may be fine in the quest to end ALL gun ownership, if that's your thing. BUT, if you think that making it illegal to obtain a firearm in the USA for the average law-abiding citizen while ignoring the fact that criminals have plenty of other ways to get them is going to solve the problem, then I have to strongly disagree. I've always contended that without proper deterrent of being caught in a criminal act, there's not going to be much change, so in my opinion, reform needs to start with the prison and legal systems and work backword to instigate maximum change rather than the other way around.

 

It's unfortunately a complete daydream to believe that any nation could truthfully go gun-free unless it was enforced worldwide. While a noble thought in many ways (if all guns vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it despite having had past interest in target shooting), if there's a lone holdout nation that is capable of manufacturing weapons, those will ALWAYS be flooded to whoever is willing to buy them, legal or not. We need to focus on keeping illegally-obtained guns out of the hands of criminals FIRST, because I don't think that anyone here would have much of a problem with firearms in any way if everyone simultaneously decided to never shoot another person or animal again. It comes down to the act committed that draws anger, the convenience of one person being able to kill another without ever having to be near them that scares people, moreso than the "scariness" of a gun that's never used to shoot anything living.

 

A friend of mine from Nicaragua was talking about guns in his country. He said that the only reason there isn't more gun violence in Central American nations is simply because most people can't afford weapons (legal or otherwise), not because there's a lack of want for them. In his words, if someone would come to his country and get weapons into the hands of criminals for less than half the cost they'd pay right now, it'd become much like the days of the Wild West where it was every person for themselves and you had to be afraid every time you'd leave your home. Apparently there's no shortage of crime there now, but in nations where gun ownership is not as convenient due to costs, people just turn to other weapons, of which I was told that being whacked with a machete by someone trying to rob you would be the next most likely option with no gun available. That, and many criminals apparently run in groups so that, while people like to say "If someone came after me with a knife, I'd just run away", it isn't so easy when you have six people circling you from all sides to prevent escape. So, while we like to believe that removing guns is going to cure things, there will ALWAYS be a way for people to do the evils they want, regardless of what limitations you attempt to impose on their ability to get weapons.

[Im Your Man]

"But as I said earlier, the amount of poeple using them aggresively & the people using them in self defense are bound to be roughly equal - ie RELATIVE."

 

Actually this is completely off. There are a little more than 30,000 deaths a year due to guns (the FBI indicates that about 16-20% of these are suicides) yet there are at least 1 million cases of guns used in a defensive manner annually. And all of this with-in the context of roughly 60 million americans possessing firearms or having owned them. If firearms cause crime and death all of mine must be broken. Of course bad things could happen with my guns, but its more likely that something bad will happen with my automobile, as those cause over 40k fatalities a year. Interestingly drunk driving causes fewer fatalities than firearms according to the numbers i've seen. It seems education would help and I imagine drunk driving does not include deaths caused by police but deaths related to firearms probably include some police shootings. Of course the primary factor involved in deaths in the US is tobacco coming in the lead with over 400,00 fatalities.

That's great: guns are good because there are worst things. Even just one suicide by gun, one murder by gun and one kill by self-defense with gun is too much. Samething for the other weapons, tools, ect. The only cause of death we should not blame are natural disasters, because they are natural. Yet, man spend more money and energy fighting nature and trying to prevent/predict her chaos, instead of focusing on what he's responsible.

[VeganEssentials]

"But as I said earlier, the amount of poeple using them aggresively & the people using them in self defense are bound to be roughly equal - ie RELATIVE."

 

Actually this is completely off. There are a little more than 30,000 deaths a year due to guns (the FBI indicates that about 16-20% of these are suicides) yet there are at least 1 million cases of guns used in a defensive manner annually. And all of this with-in the context of roughly 60 million americans possessing firearms or having owned them. If firearms cause crime and death all of mine must be broken. Of course bad things could happen with my guns, but its more likely that something bad will happen with my automobile, as those cause over 40k fatalities a year. Interestingly drunk driving causes fewer fatalities than firearms according to the numbers i've seen. It seems education would help and I imagine drunk driving does not include deaths caused by police but deaths related to firearms probably include some police shootings. Of course the primary factor involved in deaths in the US is tobacco coming in the lead with over 400,00 fatalities.

 

That's great: guns are good because there are worst things. Even just one suicide by gun, one murder by gun and one kill by self-defense with gun is too much.

 

As has been said before, it's the act that truly is what's reprehensible, and none of these actions is guaranteed to stop because of a lack of legal gun ownership. If a person wants to kill themselves, there are a hundred ways to do it without a gun. If a person wants to murder, a lack of firearm does not mean that it can't still happen. And, regarding self-defense, if I'm given the option to kill or be killed, you can be sure I'll be the guy making the first move to stop the other person.

 

Samething for the other weapons, tools, ect.

 

Recognizing that the inherent evil lies in the person commiting the act and is not the fault of the item used in the act is a good step

 

The only cause of death we should not blame are natural disasters, because they are natural. Yet, man spend more money and energy fighting nature and trying to prevent/predict her chaos, instead of focusing on what he's responsible.

 

It isn't as if we're spending 99% of time and effort toward tracking hurricanes while ignoring the problem of guns and crime. There's a LOT of time and money spent on the issue, but as has been seen, whatever is being done now is NOT working. We've seen some cities tighten gun restrictions, and rarely does it pan out that it leads to a decrease in gun-related crime, just that if you want to buy gun X legally and is now illegal, you'll have to find someone criminal-minded to get it for you instead (things don't just disappear because they're made illegal, otherwise, there's wouldn't be a gram of coke or and ounce of weed left in the USA ) Yes, there is a lot of focus on natural disasters, but when you consider the overall damage done from something like Hurricane Katrina that kills hundreds, leaves thousands homeless, destroys and entire city and its infrastructure and turns a thriving area into a veritable ghost town overnight, you have to consider why people spend time and money focused on preventing disasters beyond their own control, you know Trust me, if you lived in an area that was practically wiped out in a matter of hours, you'd understand quickly why disaster tracking and prevention can mean a lot to people.

[Im Your Man]

I'm Your Man wrote:

Samething for the other weapons, tools, ect.

 

 

Recognizing that the inherent evil lies in the person commiting the act and is not the fault of the item used in the act is a good step

So now you agree with me that there's something in the mentality of people and that is the prime cause of the rate of kills by gun of a certain nation ? There's many guns per capita in Canada but less killed by guns per capita than in the US. In Japan and other countries it's even more obvious. I don't think the Tibetans think and act like other nations. Even if we would distribute them shotguns and grenades they wouln't use that against the Chinese oppressors.

 

you have to consider why people spend time and money focused on preventing disasters beyond their own control, you know Trust me, if you lived in an area that was practically wiped out in a matter of hours, you'd understand quickly why disaster tracking and prevention can mean a lot to people.

 

Sure I would be afflicted by a natural disaster happening where I live, I would help to repair and rebuild things. There's floods every year in my area. People who live near the lakes stay there and year after year they have to deal with the same problem.

 

Concerning huge disasters and tragedies, Nature is more and more in fury, the numbers and intensity of icestorms, floods and tropical storms are rising since the last decades. Putting bags of sands to try to block water or trying to predict when and where hurricanes will strike can save some lives but it will never stop Nature. Again, man chose the wrong ways to solve problems.

Societies now know that human activity has an impact on our environment, and increase the effects of climate change and global warming, some measures are taken, like recycling, biofuels etc, but they are either timid measures or wrong ones, making things worst. Things are not so out of control, but we prefer to think that they are, and we act as if we lost our minds.

 

To get back to topic, there are no excuses for guns. It's like meat-eaters trying to justify why we kill animals. If any objects, like a feather, a sword or even our fingers can kill and be used as weapons and tools to kill, then why do you need guns for ?

[VeganEssentials]

Recognizing that the inherent evil lies in the person commiting the act and is not the fault of the item used in the act is a good step

 

So now you agree with me that there's something in the mentality of people and that is the prime cause of the rate of kills by gun of a certain nation ? There's many guns per capita in Canada but less killed by guns per capita than in the US. In Japan and other countries it's even more obvious. I don't think the Tibetans think and act like other nations. Even if we would distribute them shotguns and grenades they wouln't use that against the Chinese oppressors.

 

Actually. I agree with you not making a distinction in the previous post regarding the tool used to commit the crime in that, the crime itself is the true problem, not so much the vehicle in which it was committed. And, like I posted earlier, there are other peoples who would LIKE to have firearms with which to commit crimes, however, lack of cheap and plentiful illegal availability such as we have in the USA is sometimes what prevents the problem from worsening. To which my response is, we need to get to the root of the problem and find proper deterrence for people to NOT consider using firearms in their crimes. Legislation against legal purchase WILL NOT affect those who purchase their weapons illegally, so to me, the problem is not guns in general, but how EASY it is to get them off the books if you're so inclined to get one. There will always be a way to get weapons here, so that's not going to change. What needs to be done change-wise is to make people afraid to sell illegally, purchase illegally, and use them illegally for fear of reprecussions that could never justify their use. If perhaps you could do an automatic 10 years in prison for owning an illegally obtained firearm, then people might think twice about buying a back-alley pistol to keep around. If we double sentences for crimes that use firearms for robberies, rapes, and murders, then pehaps SOME criminals might reconsider guns as a viable option for crime, and without a gun, they may reconsider the crime altogether. When you can rob someone with a gun and potentially be back on the street in a matter of a year or two in some instances, there are plenty of people who are willing to take that risk. Make it so that a decision to rob with a gun will net you one hell of a sentence, and suddenly doing reprehensible illegal actions might just be a little less appealing. But, I digress...

 

Back to the current debate, if all countries had the same influx of illegally obtainable, cheap (relative to territory) problems, there could easily be much more gun violence as gun-related violence is not exclusively a Western phenomenon. Wherever there are great numbers of the disenfranchised, impoverished, or those who are simply screwed in the head and would kill for $20, you'll find violence regardless of what is available for their use against others. In that regard, I do see that certain parts of the world do tend to be at a disadvantage. The USA is certainly no angel in all of this - there is a great disparity between "classes" and incomes, and unfortunately, as time goes on, more and more people are becoming desperate or are so unconcerned with consequences for their actions that they're willing to risk plenty of jail time just to get enough money to have fun for an afternoon. So, ultimately, the problems run far deeper than weapons and the true problems come into play long before the guns do, but too often we simply want to believe that the gun is responsible for the crime when it's solely the person commiting it who is responsible. But, again, this is not limited to the USA, but I do admit, there's a growing attitude of many people here who simply say "screw tomorrow, I'm living for the moment" and do not think beyond that. THOSE people, though, will likely not curtail their actions simply if it were not as easy to get a gun - their problems run far deeper, and a simple setback isn't likely to keep them from doing something bad.

 

you have to consider why people spend time and money focused on preventing disasters beyond their own control, you know Trust me, if you lived in an area that was practically wiped out in a matter of hours, you'd understand quickly why disaster tracking and prevention can mean a lot to people.

 

Sure I would be afflicted by a natural disaster happening where I live, I would help to repair and rebuild things. There's floods every year in my area. People who live near the lakes stay there and year after year they have to deal with the same problem.

 

But, comparing a lake that likely has a semi-predictible flood pattern to something such as Hurricane Katrina is a complete apples-to-oranges situation. It's like comparing a firecracker to a stick of dynamite. And, I sincerely doubt that a flooding lake that's slowly rising due to storms that have pounded an area for days will wipe out an entire city, kill thousands who were not prepared, and devastate the area for years to come (unless it's something bizarre like the one that Troy experienced up in the Wisconsin Dells, but death was not a factor in that one, just damage). Comparing flooded basements to entire city blocks being removed from the face of the earth is an unrealistic comparison. You have to understand, in areas where lack of proper preparation and evacuation could kill a whole lot of people in very little time, it is essential to track and monitor the weather and its behaviors. Big, big differece between a terrible winter storm and, say, a dam breaking due to a terrible storm and having potential to wipe out a good chunk of a heavily populated city in a very quick time.

 

Concerning huge disasters and tragedies, Nature is more and more in fury, the numbers and intensity of icestorms, floods and tropical storms are rising since the last decades. Putting bags of sands to try to block water or trying to predict when and where hurricanes will strike can save some lives but it will never stop Nature. Again, man chose the wrong ways to solve problems.

Societies now know that human activity has an impact on our environment, and increase the effects of climate change and global warming, some measures are taken, like recycling, biofuels etc, but they are either timid measures or wrong ones, making things worst. Things are not so out of control, but we prefer to think that they are, and we act as if we lost our minds.

 

Nothing will stop nature, and again, it's the preparedness that's key. If a few extra hours' warning can give someone time to evacuate and escape with their possessions vs. having to sit on the roof of their home that's completely destroyed, wondering if or when they'll be rescued, then knowing as much in advance can be a lifesaver. Nobody is arguing that when nature wants to tear stuff up, it will, but to make it sound like it's somehow wasteful to be knowledgable of weather conditions and keep tabs on them for the safety of the people, then you must certainly live where there is little concern for such things to happen.

 

To get back to topic, there are no excuses for guns. It's like meat-eaters trying to justify why we kill animals. If any objects, like a feather, a sword or even our fingers can kill and be used as weapons and tools to kill, then why do you need guns for ?

 

Actually, this is pretty faulty logic. You don't have to be a proponent for guns to see them for what they are - inanimate objects that are as harmless as anything else UNTIL someone decides to use them, which can be something criminal, can be for hunting, can be defensive for self-preservation, or, just for targeting shooting. No gun has ever fired itself, and no gun has ever telepathically convinced someone law-abiding to go renegade and start holding up liquor stores simply because they could. I know, I know, some people such as yourself refuse to see them for that, but regardless of your personal viewpoint, it doesn't change the true nature of the item. You can hate guns all you want, love them all you want, but it doesn't change what they are, how they work, or what they're capable (and incapable) of. Like I said before, I wouldn't lose any sleep if every gun vanished tomorrow, however, I don't see any logic in saying that it is reasonable to now prevent everyone from legally obtaining one as that won't change criminals from being able to have them. That viewpoint doesn't do ANYTHING to change the problem, rather, it just places blame in the wrong area and again, villifies the tool insted of the person who used it.

 

The only way that your comparison would be accurate is if owning a gun meant you were under obligation to shoot a living creature with it. As that is not a requirement for owning a gun (you could easily purchase one, put it in a safe, and never touch it again for your entire life), your statement is not accurate. Just as well, many people who own guns WISH that they did not feel the need to do so. A combination of scaremongering combined with a lot of really bad people who will do anything for a dollar has caused many people to choose to own guns purely because they want to protect their homes. And, frankly, I don't see anything unreasonable about that. If someone feels the right to break into another's personal dwelling and take their items against their will (or worse...), then why does the person who lives there not have the right to defend their property and self/family if they feel the wish to do so? If someone does break into your home with a gun, then not having one does put the victim at a serious disadvantage, and words only go so far if you are facing someone intent on taking your property or your life. Many people purchase guns JUST IN CASE there is ever a need to defend their space, and all things willing, most all of them will never, ever have to fire that gun even once in their lifetimes. In such a case, does that make the person owning the gun for that purpose a bad person? Does it mean that they'll inevitably end up shooting someone simply because they own a weapon? Of course not, but right now, it is the choice of people in the USA to own a gun or not, and the people who are affected most by legislation against firearms are those who are NOT intending to ever shoot another person with one. You can certainly choose to never own a gun - if that's the case, more power to you, and I can only hope you never feel a moment of regret. However, you can't use your own feelings of safety to impose on everyone else who may not share your same situation or ideals, so therefore, I feel it's wrong to impose restrictions on those who feel otherwise.

 

But, we just keep going in circles here, neither convincing the other any more now than in the past. So, I'll just leave it at that.

[CollegeB]

We certainly will keep going in circles on this topic. This is like the 3rd one in the year.

[Im Your Man]

wow that's a long post, VeganEssentials, I don't have the courage to read this now

[Im Your Man]

We certainly will keep going in circles on this topic. This is like the 3rd one in the year.

I think it's ok to have a few topics where we don't find an answer; as long as it stays more philosophical or thoughts productive rather than insults and calling names.

[Im Your Man]

I think the political threads are more negative than this one; also, 3 in a year ain't that much, compared to the political ones.

 

VeganEssentials, I agree with many things you said, especially in the first part, that the problem lies more in the person that own a gun, more than the gun itself. BUT, a person owning a gun is already a potential problem because he becomes a killer in power (or at least, on a higher level than if he only has his fist or a pen), because of the gun, which is a killing machine.

 

You don't have to be a proponent for guns to see them for what they are - inanimate objects that are as harmless as anything else UNTIL someone decides to use them, which can be something criminal, can be for hunting, can be defensive for self-preservation, or, just for targeting shooting. No gun has ever fired itself, and no gun has ever telepathically convinced someone law-abiding to go renegade and start holding up liquor stores simply because they could. I know, I know, some people such as yourself refuse to see them for that,(...)

Well excuse me, but when a 3 year old child finds a gun at his grand-parents house, bring it to kindergarten and kills a 3 year old girl, I don't find guns so inoffensive and serving only for stick ups or self-defense, there's many accidents too, by people who may or may not have the faculty to understand what a gun is and what it can do.

 

The only way that your comparison would be accurate is if owning a gun meant you were under obligation to shoot a living creature with it. As that is not a requirement for owning a gun (you could easily purchase one, put it in a safe, and never touch it again for your entire life), your statement is not accurate. Just as well, many people who own guns WISH that they did not feel the need to do so.

They WISH, but if they are confronted to a situation where they might use it (or might not use it if they wouldn't have any), they often regret it after, and they WISH they never bought that thing, because it caused the death of someone. I don't HATE guns, I had some air pistol, pellet gun, I also tried a few times a real shotgun, and a revolver - as I said, there's many guns in Canada; those were guns from friends, usually adults, using them to hunt or shooting at targets and different objects. I was young, and I guess guns exert a fascination on those who manipulate them. If I kept contact with guns perhaps I would LOVE them and maybe even possess one or many. There was a time I had many knives instead. But I'm glad I don't have any guns. If you don't have a gun, you don't need one. You don't need what you don't already have. The only things useful on Earth are things that are fondamentally good and that serve Life. Gun is not inherent to man and he doesn't need it.

 

If someone does break into your home with a gun, then not having one does put the victim at a serious disadvantage, and words only go so far if you are facing someone intent on taking your property or your life.

Not really. If it's objects that he wants, he may take them, I'm not gonna risk my life for that. If he wants to kill me, first of all I doubt this could happen since I don't do anything bad that could make someone want to revenge, but if it's someone really sick like a serial killer, well, I don't see how pointing a gun at someone already pointing one at me could turn to my advantage, unless I'm Clint Eastwood, and if for a moment he stops pointing the gun at me, there's other possibilities than using a gun, like : escaping, throwing an object, or hitting him with another weapon or my body (depending of the distance).

Many people purchase guns JUST IN CASE there is ever a need to defend their space,(...) In such a case, does that make the person owning the gun for that purpose a bad person?

Like I said earlier, that kind of person is not intrinsically and fondamentaly a good person.

Does it mean that they'll inevitably end up shooting someone simply because they own a weapon?

Not inevitably but there's chances yes.

the people who are affected most by legislation against firearms are those who are NOT intending to ever shoot another person with one.

That's strange because I thought people that don't intend to shoot at someone were the persons who don't buy guns. I don't feel I need any gun to protect me in Montreal' date=' which is a pretty big city, why does some people feel they need one ? Must be because the place they live is violent and if it scares them they should move, for their own happiness too. Having a gun won't solve any problem, it just makes more people with guns and more fear. Blood flows from violence, violence begets violence, which stems from fear.

However, you can't use your own feelings of safety to impose on everyone else who may not share your same situation or ideals, so therefore, I feel it's wrong to impose restrictions on those who feel otherwise.

I think that some decisions must be made, under very good moral and ethical values. Like the abolition of guns and meat. You say that total abolition of guns wouldn't be fair, are you saying also that it's ok to let people kill animals until the end of time just so they can satisfy their desire for meat and thirst for blood? You admit that it is wrong to use a gun to do harm or kill someone for other reasons than self-defense, so, that is enough to abolish guns totally, because a gun can be useful as a self-defense weapon only if it's against another gun; a sword is fine against a sword, etc. What's good is that you can't kill as many people or as easily with a sword and other weapons compared to fire weapons. When governments of USA and USSR decided to make a stop at their madness of nuclear arms race (or whatever it's called), they made the right decision. If they can do this, the individual and ordinary people can too. One atomic bomb calls for the enemy to have one too, to counter strike. 2 atomic bombs = 2 more, etc... Samething with guns, for the self-defense reason. A nation with guns think they're protected against their own citizens, while they're being scared at the sametime and they fear every neighbour. This is ridiculous, and a nation with 0 gun would feel more safe and wouldn't live in fear.

But' date=' we just keep going in circles here, neither convincing the other any more now than in the past. So, I'll just leave it at that.[/quote'] I agree.

[crackersnack]

This is a really long thread! Sorry, got in on it kind of late. Everything I would've discussed has already been brought to the table except for how intensely I disagree with the gun control advocates.

 

This is a must watch!!! Very funny....