Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Spiral Out]

Lucylu,

I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Your Rainforest cat example is not analogous to the functional properties of gun control. The two are incompatible in at least one very important aspect.

Unlike your Rainforest cats, guns have no will or intent of their own and cannot injure people without the involvement of the Human owners. The Rainforest cats can make independent choices and act without the influence of their Human owners. As you had pointed out, the cats can be in a "wrong mood" where guns are simply objects.

The Rainforest cats on their own and independent of Human influence are inherently dangerous, guns on their own and independent of Human influence are not inherently dangerous.

Your Rainforest cats are aggressive; guns are not aggressive. Guns are inanimate objects that require the conscious input of an entity.

Which would you rather stumble across out somewhere on your own, one of your Rainforest cats or a fully-loaded assault rifle? The cat can hurt you, the assault rifle cannot. But I'd bet my life that you'd be very glad to stumble across that fully-loaded assault rifle especially if you had also stumbled across one of your escaped Rainforest cats!

I understand what you're trying to illustrate here but like I said before, it is entirely unjustifiable to enact laws that treat law-abiding responsible citizens as being equal to criminals and also that are simply based on "what-if" scenarios.

I think it's important to address this point: If the right to engage in an activity must be earned (by the actor) through a requisite of responsible behaviors (by the actor) then the restriction of an activity also must be required to be earned (by the restrictor) through a requisite of irresponsible behaviors (by the actor) as well.

Wouldn't that in fact be a much fairer method of "gun control"?

[Lucylu]

I think it's important to address this point: If the right to engage in an activity must be earned (by the actor) through a requisite of responsible behaviors (by the actor) then the restriction of an activity also must be required to be earned (by the restrictor) through a requisite of irresponsible behaviors (by the actor) as well.

Wouldn't that in fact be a much fairer method of "gun control"?

Yes. If you are a responsible person you would be more than happy to submit to a long process of training and testing before being given a single handgun. The gun owner would then be able to prove their continued responsible behaviour, over time being permitted to own other weapons and would agree at all times to be completely transparent about his/her weapons, undergoing any checks necessary on a regular basis (be they of his property, his physical condition, his known associations, or his mentally capacity). My concern is that, at the moment, there doesn't seem to be the opportunity to prove responsibility by degrees, as it is either a case of not having a gun or having a gun/ guns. When someone is given one, and then shows that they are not responsible it is already too late. Please feel free to correct me on this.

Don't be mad, but I do personally feel that it is a reasonable line to draw that civilians should not have automatic weapons or more than 2 handguns guns each. Would you agree to keep these more 'excessive' guns at a registered, secure site, eg a shooting range? Where would you draw the line yourself?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't assault rifles specifically designed to be able to kill as many people as possible with the greatest degree of accuracy? It is a piece of machinery that is used in battle and kept in military bases with very high levels of security. The security of such an object (in my opinion) is better left to professionals who work in teams, around the clock so that the margin for error or potential hazards are as small as humanly possible. The responsibility is too great for one person, in a residential setting. Owning an assault rifle isn't really necessary in order for you to protect yourself and your family, or in order to fulfill your right to bear arms.

There is a real distinction between an individual and a group of trained professionals on a military base, don't you agree? I know you would like to have what ever guns you like, but there is only so much one man can do. You wouldn't be able to provide the level of security required on your own and you never know when you may become vulnerable to illness or human error. It isn't a personal attack on you, I'm sure you would be as responsible as you could be. It's just that no one person could be expected to do it alone.

Being truly responsible is also recognizing and admitting that something is beyond your individual capabilities and that it would be unsafe to proceed.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Rederic]

I cannot own the FN P90 PDW Standard because it falls under the assault rifle ban on civilian ownership. Even though I have no criminal record of any sort, I am still prohibited from owning one. There is no rational reason, or legal grounds, to prevent my ownership of this weapon. This is what "gun control" does. It makes blanket judgments and creates rules that apply to everyone as if we are all equal to the criminals they are trying to exclude.

Would you agree that a blanket ban on driving a vehicle whilst drunk is done for the good of the community? Does it infringe on the drunks freedom?

I don't understand why you think your right to own whatever gun you want, without controls, is above the right of children to come home safely from school. Surely you can see what the benefits stricter gun controls would bring.

The argument that you need guns to protect yourself from your government, is just absurd & I think you know it.

The land of the free, so frightened of your next door neighbour & your government that you have to arm yourselves to the teeth. Doesn't sound very free to me & certainly not free of fear.

[Wilson]

In general, those who oppose restrictions on gun ownership do so for selfish reasons.

Now, selfishness is not necessarily always a bad thing, and my statement is not pure criticism. Ayn Rand believed that selfishness was good and honest self-interest perhaps one of the best traits to have. And selfishness does lead some of us to innovate, to work hard, and to be of benefit to our countries. Someone who is less selfish may also be a less productive citizen because the motivation isn't there.

But I think what underlies this debate, and in particular Spiral Out's attitude, is that he is concerned only about his own self-interest. He likes guns and he feels that he is safe with them and he poses no danger to anyone else, and that's probably true. And for him that personal right is more important than a safer country for the citizens. We can go back and forth about statistics that supposedly show that substitutes would be found for guns if they were harder to obtain so that the death rate wouldn't change - but honest to God, that's ridiculous. Domestic violence in a household where there are guns vs one in which there are none is the difference between a black eye and a dead significant other. Eliminating guns wouldn't eliminate murder or injuries, of course, but it flies in the face of common sense to say that that the country wouldn't be at least somewhat safer with a more restrictive gun policy, especially after those restrictions had been in place for a while.

My guess is that those who want more restrictions on gun ownership are more empathetic, more community-minded, more concerned about the welfare of others. And those who vehemently oppose restrictions tend to be more selfish, less willing to give up their own pleasures for the benefit of their neighbors. I say that not in order to put down those who disagree with me but just as a general observation, to which there are probably many exceptions. Thoughts?

[Spiral Out]

Would you agree that a blanket ban on driving a vehicle whilst drunk is done for the good of the community? Does it infringe on the drunks freedom?

Interesting analogy, but equating gun owners to drunk drivers is not even remotely accurate. Gun owners are not actively endangering the public through irresponsible actions like drunk drivers are. You'll not find any statistics anywhere that claim any lives were lost (as in drunk driving fatalities) simply due to the responsible and lawful ownership of guns.

So far we have attempts to equate gun owners to pedophiles and now to drunk drivers. What might be next, gun owners are all terrorists?? Let's keep the analogies realistic for more productive discussions.

I don't understand why you think your right to own whatever gun you want, without controls, is above the right of children to come home safely from school.

My ownership of an assault rifle would not harm a single child, ever. The guns I have owned for years upon years have never harmed anyone. There is no logic or precedent to support your statement.

The argument that you need guns to protect yourself from your government, is just absurd & I think you know it.

I've never made that argument. You must be confusing me with someone else?

The land of the free, so frightened of your next door neighbour & your government that you have to arm yourselves to the teeth. Doesn't sound very free to me & certainly not free of fear.

I can't speak for others, but I personally don't fear my neighbor or the government, and I'm certainly not "armed to the teeth". That's not why I own the handful of guns I have.

>>>

If you are a responsible person you would be more than happy to submit to a long process of training and testing before being given a single handgun.

Why does responsibility necessarily mean that the person must capitulate to arbitrary (and unproven) regulations? There are innumerable instances of people who have never taken a single safety or testing course having owned guns responsibly and safely.

The gun owner would then be able to prove their continued responsible behaviour, over time being permitted to own other weapons and would agree at all times to be completely transparent about his/her weapons, undergoing any checks necessary on a regular basis (be they of his property, his physical condition, his known associations, or his mentally capacity).

That's an egregious invasion of privacy. Also, it has been proven that the knowledge of the presence of the type of weapons and the particular location of those weapons by people who have no particular personal interest or investment in the weapon, property or owner greatly increases the likelihood of criminal theft and potential homicide in the committing of that theft.

Also, who determines the specific criteria for these checks and what are the objective parameters for determining whether the owner passes these checks? Who is to be the "neutral third party" who monitors these checks to make sure there is no unfair practices?

When someone is given one, and then shows that they are not responsible it is already too late.

Yes indeed, I knew this argument would come sooner or later. This logic would preclude anyone and everyone from owning any type of weapon. The personnel of the police, military, FBI, secret service, CIA, etc., who are allowed ownership and/or possession of these weapons, are all made up of people who are just as susceptible to psychotic breaks as anyone else. If one of these people decides to go on a killing spree, then they are even more capable of inflicting even more damage to more people than the average citizen.

Don't be mad, but I do personally feel that it is a reasonable line to draw that civilians should not have automatic weapons or more than 2 handguns guns each.

Why 2? Why not 1 or 3? It's an arbitrary subjective judgment with no logical or justifiable basis. What makes your particular judgment objectively the best standard?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't assault rifles specifically designed to be able to kill as many people as possible with the greatest degree of accuracy?

That's correct, but why does that matter? They aren't required to be used in that capacity and they don't only function in that capacity. If someone owns a gun that can fire off 1,000 rounds a minute, that doesn't mean that the gun is any more inherently dangerous that a single-shot muzzle loader.

The security of such an object (in my opinion) is better left to professionals who work in teams, around the clock so that the margin for error or potential hazards are as small as humanly possible. The responsibility is too great for one person, in a residential setting.

Are you aware of gun safes? It's basically a heavy-duty security vault for your firearms. That would satisfy your security requirement.

Owning an assault rifle isn't really necessary in order for you to protect yourself and your family, or in order to fulfill your right to bear arms.

That also doesn't make any difference. There are also a lot of other things that aren't necessary for people to own. Is it necessary for someone to own a Hummer H2 as a daily driver to work? A Prius would do just as well.

There is a real distinction between an individual and a group of trained professionals on a military base, don't you agree?

Not necessarily. What do you think the key differences are?

I know you would like to have what ever guns you like, but there is only so much one man can do. You wouldn't be able to provide the level of security required on your own

Yes I most certainly can. Gun safes! There are about as secure as it gets.

and you never know when you may become vulnerable to illness or human error.

That goes for everyone everywhere. Even trained professionals on military bases.

It's just that no one person could be expected to do it alone.

I'm not sure why you're saying that. Do you have any specific examples of real life occurrences that you are basing that statement on?

Being truly responsible is also recognizing and admitting that something is beyond your individual capabilities and that it would be unsafe to proceed.

You'll have to provide some examples of how my ownership of assault rifles is "beyond my individual capabilities and unsafe".

>>>

But I think what underlies this debate, and in particular Spiral Out's attitude, is that he is concerned only about his own self-interest.

Not entirely. One of the primary reasons I own guns is for home protection and thus the safety of myself and my family in the event of a home invasion, that while being unlikely, is not impossible.

And for him that personal right is more important than a safer country for the citizens.

The unjustified implication here is that the simple ownership and/or possession of guns inherently causes an unsafe condition for the country as a whole. This is patently and provably false.

We can go back and forth about statistics that supposedly show that substitutes would be found for guns if they were harder to obtain so that the death rate wouldn't change - but honest to God, that's ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. You're still stuck thinking entirely within the framework of only one particular type of violence.

Domestic violence in a household where there are guns vs one in which there are none is the difference between a black eye and a dead significant other.

That's a blatant oversimplification. Are you at all aware of what domestic violence really is? Do you honestly think it's the difference between death and a black eye? That is extremely offensive to victims of domestic violence. It shows a lack of empathy for victims of domestic violence to belittle their plight like that. Maybe you could speak with some of those victims so you can understand what really happens?

Eliminating guns wouldn't eliminate murder or injuries, of course, but it flies in the face of common sense to say that that the country wouldn't be at least somewhat safer with a more restrictive gun policy, especially after those restrictions had been in place for a while.

Nobody is saying that all guns should be available to all people at all times and in all circumstances. What is being said is this: If the right to engage in an activity must be earned (by the actor) through a requisite of responsible behaviors (by the actor) then the restriction of an activity also must be required to be earned (by the restrictor) through a requisite of irresponsible behaviors (by the actor) as well. This would be a fair gun control policy.

Blanket laws that group lawful and responsible citizens in with criminals is simply not justifiable.

My guess is that those who want more restrictions on gun ownership are more empathetic, more community-minded, more concerned about the welfare of others.

That's a presumptive view and is insulting to gun-owners. Can you show any logic or precedents to support your statement that gun owners are any less empathetic than non-gun-owners?

And those who vehemently oppose restrictions tend to be more selfish, less willing to give up their own pleasures for the benefit of their neighbors.

Equally presumptive and offensive.

I say that not in order to put down those who disagree with me but just as a general observation, to which there are probably many exceptions. Thoughts?

I think your position is just as biased as everyone else's who is involved in this discussion, mine included. You seem to imply that your position is somehow more "objective" than others. All views here are invariably an exercise in subjective and arbitrary line-drawing. We draw those lines to suit our comfort level; simply to satisfy our desires and allay our fears.

I also wonder how you have "observed" this selfish tendency and lack of empathy (other than your own biased perception) in those who oppose unfair, unjustified, unproven, ineffective and arbitrarily contrived restrictions on gun ownership.

Thank you all for your thoughtful input.

[UniversalAlien]

Wilson wrote:

.......Eliminating guns wouldn't eliminate murder or injuries, of course, but it flies in the face of common sense to say that that the country wouldn't be at least somewhat safer with a more restrictive gun policy, especially after those restrictions had been in place for a while.

My guess is that those who want more restrictions on gun ownership are more empathetic, more community-minded, more concerned about the welfare of others. And those who vehemently oppose restrictions tend to be more selfish, less willing to give up their own pleasures for the benefit of their neighbors. I say that not in order to put down those who disagree with me but just as a general observation, to which there are probably many exceptions. Thoughts?

FALSE. In fact, and based upon the results of gun control and its negative results in stopping crime and violence, the one being selfish here is you - who in spite of the evidence showing otherwise keep advocating gun control over and over again as though if you tell the 'big lie' often enough people will begin to believe it {I'm not trying to equate you with them but that was one of the propaganda tactics of the Nazis - tell the big lie often enough so people will eventually believe it}.

What has surprised even me, who began this post with a preconceived attitude and an obvious personal prejudice favoring the Second Amendment, is the evidence that keeps showing up in my research showing that, as the world stands today, not as we may like it to be, gun control advocates are far more of a threat to the personal safety of of the people than are those who advocate Second Amendment rights to own guns and defend one self from harm. Excepting for reasonable gun control which no one can seriously be against and which every country and every state in the Union already has, the attempt to restrict firearm ownership for self protection {and sport}, has been shown to be a clear and present danger to human life and liberty. That said, I don't believe anyone, anywhere in the world, should ever need a gun for protection - the sad truth is this is not the world we live in and there are dangerous and opportunistic criminals alway stalking human prey - and an unarmed civilian population is a wonderland of splendid opportunity for the psychopathic criminal mind.

What even surprised me, and this was the last link I gave, was how bad things got in England after the disarming of the civilian population. England which was already much more restrictive of gun ownership than the US suddenly saw.......I'll give the beginning of the article again and a link to it - I find this to be quite shocking:

Defenseless British citizens are attacked in their own homes by violent burglars every 30 Minutes

February 3, 2010 Recent statistics from Britain indicate that a citizen is attacked in their own home by a violent burglar once every 30 minutes. Those statistics, along with my thoughts on British gun control, the British ban on self defense, and what all this means for law-abiding British citizens, can be seen below:

A householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes. . . According to the BCS, householders came face-to-face with burglars in 20 per cent of domestic burglaries last year. . . Of the burglaries in which the victim came face-to-face with the intruder, violence was either used or threatened in 59 per cent of crimes. . . It was actually used in 40 per cent of cases. . . Tories estimated that householders came face-to-face with burglars in 57,000 – 20 per cent – of burglaries. . . Of these, 23,000 resulted in the burglar using violence against the householder. The folly of British gun control......

See whole article here:

http://www.examiner.com/article/defense ... 30-minutes











.

[Wooden shoe]

Spiral Out.

Injuries from firearms send an estimated 7,000 kids to the ER every year, and an additional 3,000 children die from gunshot wounds before they can get to a hospital, according to a new study published in the journal Pediatrics. Doctors are pointing to the new data as further evidence of the serious public health toll that gun violence takes on America’s youth. The new study drilled down some of the data from a 2009 survey of kids’ pediatric stays. That year, the majority of kids’ gunshot injuries — 4,559 — resulted from intentional assaults with a firearm. An additional 2,149 were accidents, and 270 were suicide attempts. About six percent of the children who made it to the ER ended up dying in the hospital from their injuries, which are typically open wounds, fractures, or brain or spinal injuries. “This study reinforces what we know from the mortality data,” Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told NBC News. “We have an extraordinary health burden in our youth associated with firearms injuries.” Webster pointed out that the United States’ rate of mortality from firearms is about ten times higher than the rates in other wealthy nations. “This is a very unique and abnormal problem that such a wealthy nation should have such high mortality and morbidity in youth related to firearms,” he noted. The number of kids being killed by guns in the U.S. has been steadily rising over the past several decades, and the issue has captured headlines as the number of school shootings has intensified. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) estimates that firearms are one of the top three causes of death among children, killing twice as many kids as cancer does. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, which killed 20 young children, the AAP has stepped up its efforts to lobby for gun violence prevention. “America’s pediatricians remain undeterred and united in our desire to see significant policy change to address this public health crisis,” the AAP wrote in a statement released on the one-year anniversary of Sandy Hook. There are some concrete policy solutions that could help address this issue. Webster suggests raising the legal age to purchase a handgun to 21, since research has demonstrated that there’s a peak in gun violence among youth between the ages of 18 and 20. The AAP has also pushed for expanded background checks and safe storage to ensure that guns aren’t falling into the wrong hands. And more states could move to make adults criminally liable for allowing kids to have access to guns.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01 ... -injuries/

You keep on talking about responsible Gun Owners, but what about the irresponsible ones? Rules and laws are normally written because of the latter group, and like it or not that is how society works, in order to protect the innocent.

Those gun owners who try to find reasons and excuses why these well intentioned laws should not be written on gun safety should really ask themselves if it is worth people dying needlessly, just so they can have their jollies?

Regards, John.

[Stormcloud]

A very sensitive post from Wilson and a shocking one from John. Unfortunately, we all have to suffer legislation enacted because of irresponsible idiots. Having to surrender your weapons for the common good of all will eventually happen - the sooner the better. I have a beautiful daughter but I cant even begin to imagine the deep sorrow and raw grieving these innocent families who lose members of their family, go through - it is so very sad, so preventable.

[Spiral Out]

Wooden shoe,

Without knowing what your criteria is for defining a person as a "child" or "kid" (I'm assuming you're referencing "children" and "kids" in regard to this topic in an attempt to appeal to emotion), and in response to your first paragraph, I'll offer the following link to the CDC's information that shows your claims are somewhat incorrect:

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html

You keep on talking about responsible Gun Owners, but what about the irresponsible ones?

What about them? If someone has shown that they are not responsible enough to own guns then the appropriate step should be taken to remove the guns from their possession. I've made it perfectly clear when I stated the following:

Nobody is saying that all guns should be available to all people at all times and in all circumstances. What is being said is this: If the right to engage in an activity must be earned (by the actor) through a requisite of responsible behaviors (by the actor) then the restriction of an activity also must be required to be earned (by the restrictor) through a requisite of irresponsible behaviors (by the actor) as well. This would be a fair gun control policy.

Rules and laws are normally written because of the latter group, and like it or not that is how society works, in order to protect the innocent.

We do not need to protect the innocent from law abiding responsible people, do we? The law treats law abiding responsible people unnecessarily as criminals. This is unjustifiable and arguably criminal in itself. This is what the US Constitution is designed to prevent.

Those gun owners who try to find reasons and excuses why these well intentioned laws should not be written on gun safety should really ask themselves if it is worth people dying needlessly, just so they can have their jollies?

There's a common saying: "(The road to) Hell is paved with good intentions."

Besides, lawful and responsible gun owners are not just looking to "have their jollies" whatever that means (I'm assuming you're using the term "jollies" in a sarcastically demeaning manner in regard to all gun owners and/or people who aren't irrationally afraid of them?).

>>>

Stormcloud,

I was wondering if you've had any specific personal experiences with firearms or with violence associated with firearms?

Unfortunately, we all have to suffer legislation enacted because of irresponsible idiots.

Yes, unfortunate indeed that we must suffer such legislation. So then based on your statement you would agree that gun control laws are irrational and unjustifiable.

Having to surrender your weapons for the common good of all will eventually happen - the sooner the better.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. They would have to completely rewrite or disregard the US Constitution. The only way that would happen is if the United States of America (USA) became the North American Union (NAU) with Canada & Mexico, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

I have a beautiful daughter but I cant even begin to imagine the deep sorrow and raw grieving these innocent families who lose members of their family, go through - it is so very sad, so preventable.

(Yet another appeal to emotion)

I have a beautiful daughter as well so I can relate. But it is immeasurably more likely that she would be killed in an automobile accident or any number of other causes than homicide/suicide by firearm.

[Newme]

Stormcloud,

SpiralOut actually is among the most fair moderators I've come across. Many moderators delete posts they don't agree with, or ban people just because they don't like something the poster wrote. He doesn't do that. He debates, but doesn't abuse his authority.

RE: topic... Although my cousin died because he & his friend were playing with his parents' gun, I still support the right to bare arms. Guns, knives, ropes & other weapons are not the problem, but the people who are irresponsible with them. My uncle committed suicide by hanging himself with a rope, as others have. Nobody is suggesting legally restricting rope. Heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the US... So if the concern is truly to save lives even over freedom, why aren't fast food, cigarettes, etc., legally banned? It is easier to jump to conclusions or engage in other cognitive distortions like polarized or filtered thinking, than to consider multiple possibilities, but that ignores the causes & prevents effective solutions.

IMO, many societal problems (like school shootings, addictions etc.) have multiple causes like lack of parental guidance & love, diet/harmful chemicals in foods, cognitive distortions, and many other possible contributing factors. The following article lists about 72 possible factors of juvenile delinquency. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwester ... ntext=jclc

[Rederic]

Gun owners are not actively endangering the public through irresponsible actions like drunk drivers are.

Gun possessing mass murderers are.

You'll not find any statistics anywhere that claim any lives were lost (as in drunk driving fatalities) simply due to the responsible and lawful ownership of guns.

Of course not. It's the irresponsible lawful & illegal ownership of guns that are the problem. Just like drunk drivers you can't know they're going to be a problem till it's too late.

My ownership of an assault rifle would not harm a single child, ever. The guns I have owned for years upon years have never harmed anyone. There is no logic or precedent to support your statement.

Same answer as above.

I can't speak for others, but I personally don't fear my neighbor or the government, and I'm certainly not "armed to the teeth". That's not why I own the handful of guns I have.

You feel so safe that you carry a knife at all times.

If someone owns a gun that can fire off 1,000 rounds a minute, that doesn't mean that the gun is any more inherently dangerous that a single-shot muzzle loader.

Ridiculous, of course it's more dangerous. If you want to kill as many people in as short a time as possible, which is the weapon of choice? Why would you want to own an assault rifle?

Is it necessary for someone to own a Hummer H2 as a daily driver to work? A Prius would do just as well.

A Hummer isn't specifically designed to kill people.

Not entirely. One of the primary reasons I own guns is for home protection and thus the safety of myself and my family in the event of a home invasion, that while being unlikely, is not impossible.

If a gang kicks your door or widow in & enters your house, would you have time to unlock your safe. They then say they're going to shoot one of your children if you don't give the keys to your gun safe. What do you do? Whereas if you had no guns in the house the problem doesn't arise.

That's a presumptive view and is insulting to gun-owners. Can you show any logic or precedents to support your statement that gun owners are any less empathetic than non-gun-owners?

Yes. You & your disregard for the welfare of your wider community.

[UniversalAlien]

I said legislation - meaning in general. You are very clever with words and picking out what suits you and this is why you shouldn't be a moderator because of your bias. Some of us are surely still waiting for you to adequately address Steve's post 262 about 'the disturbing development of posters like spiral out with the associated powers of censorship' which you seem to cunningly have ignored.

Because of his bias? And talking about adequately addressing posts - Not you or anyone else, with the possible exception of LucyLu, has addressed the numerous posts with data I have given showing how at the best little if any crime is limited, and often how crime has increased, and at the very worst gun control has led to genocide with literally millions of deaths in the 20th Century so recorded - why don't you gun control bleeding heart humanitarians address this issue? You see gun control is a humanitarian issue - But unfortunately and as a matter of fact and historical record, those advocating it are the ones who turn out to be inhumane - Paving the way to hell with their good intentions!

PS: I will agree with one point made by Wooden Shoe; Adults and responsible gun owners should be more responsible, and even held liable for allowing guns to get into the hands of children....As far as the age of legal ownership though thats a tough one as 18 is considered legal adult age in the US - Of course many states don't allow drinking in bars until you are 21 so I suppose some might agree with limiting full gun rights to 21 - then the problem when you start to limit rights where do you draw the line? - That is why any meaningful gun legislation is so hard to pass in the US - The country is very polarized on this issue and the anti-gun cartel who would like to see the US become like England have made the situation much worse - Yes they do make the pro-gun group paranoid; And why gun control and its negative consequences doesn't make the anti-gun group paranoid is beyond rational explanation.

Again:

Defenseless British citizens are attacked in their own homes by violent burglars every 30 Minutes

Isn't gun control great ?

[Lucylu]

Because of his bias? And talking about adequately addressing posts - Not you or anyone else, with the possible exception of LucyLu, has addressed the numerous posts with data I have given showing how at the best little if any crime is limited, and often how crime has increased, and at the very worst gun control has led to genocide with literally millions of deaths in the 20th Century so recorded - why don't you gun control bleeding heart humanitarians address this issue? You see gun control is a humanitarian issue - But unfortunately and as a matter of fact and historical record, those advocating it are the ones who turn out to be inhumane - Paving the way to hell with their good intentions!

Do you think that after all the revolutions and wars that it takes to create a free democratic society (that have already been pushed through by countries such as the US) that perhaps, now, we don't have the same need to fear those who would wish the general public not to have guns? There may be another, less malevolent reason for this request?

Why does responsibility necessarily mean that the person must capitulate to arbitrary (and unproven) regulations?

I mean in the same sense that we undergo tests to gain a driving licence and have to be proven to be competent to drive. Considering the added danger with guns that they must be kept properly, I think its reasonable that there could be checks made on the persons circumstances and ability to secure their weapons, away from children/ mentally disabled people etc. I dont mean to imply this as a punishment or an invasion of privacy but just that there should be increased education and checks made around gun ownership. Not everyone is going to be intelligent or capable enough, even if they think they are.

Who is to be the "neutral third party" who monitors these checks to make sure there is no unfair practices?

I don't know, is the short answer. Do you not trust the Government to set up an agency of some sort to do this? It would create jobs and potentially decrease irresponsible gun ownership (which would ultimately help your cause). To me, it seems as if your Government is taking a very measured response to gun control, despite the hysteria. As far as I know, the Obama administration is only asking for different States to be able to share information regarding existing mental health issues and to ban assault weapons.

I know its not an easy pill to swallow but its the same in many walks of life. The criminals and the people with the lowest intellectual and emotional intelligence limit our freedoms by default. There are many people, like myself, who feel that their freedom is being curtailed by the legal system but I can also see the logic that this is just the way it needs to be at the moment.

I'm not disputing your rights to own a gun but isn't owning an assault rifle essentially a recreational pursuit? There are more important things. I don't know where you would draw the line, but a line must be drawn somewhere.

I knew this argument would come sooner or later. This logic would preclude anyone and everyone from owning any type of weapon. The personnel of the police, military, FBI, secret service, CIA, etc., who are allowed ownership and/or possession of these weapons, are all made up of people who are just as susceptible to psychotic breaks as anyone else. If one of these people decides to go on a killing spree, then they are even more capable of inflicting even more damage to more people than the average citizen.

Do you feel its appropriate for everyone to have the same weaponry, whether they are civilians or the Government? Would that not be a step backwards, in the sense that any idiot could declare themselves as a new power and a new country? I agree, it is a concern that these people in law enforcement are given guns (although this doesn't happen in England- we just have a specific firearm unit which are trained and sent in if the need arises) but still this is in a controlled environment, with a process of training and supervision. This is very different than being given a gun and sent on your way.

There are innumerable instances of people who have never taken a single safety or testing course having owned guns responsibly and safely.

And there are innumerable instances the other way too. A pot luck approach isn't appropriate in this instance.

-- Updated June 26th, 2014, 10:38 pm to add the following --

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't assault rifles specifically designed to be able to kill as many people as possible with the greatest degree of accuracy?

That's correct, but why does that matter? They aren't required to be used in that capacity and they don't only function in that capacity. If someone owns a gun that can fire off 1,000 rounds a minute, that doesn't mean that the gun is any more inherently dangerous that a single-shot muzzle loader.

I'm just not buying this. Sorry. We can all go around saying that everything is neutral until we give it meaning, but that is just a neat way of taking no responsibility for our actions.

What other function is there for a 1000 rounds per minute assault rifle? A back scratcher? Something to eat your dinner off?

I admit this could be for recreation, but I could say the same of drugs. There must be many people who would use drugs perfectly responsibly and for whom their life would be enhanced by this, but because the minority misuse them( often unfortunately the same people who misuse guns), they are illegal.

And, no I dont know about the safes? Enlighten me please

[Stormcloud]

Universal Alien wants data - geez, you people live on damn data! Is graphic details and pictures of all the horror and suffering to your fellow humans not "data" enough?? Obviously seeing dead children and their agonised mothers is not enough to move you from your self interest. Your pollies love data, too, it helps remove one from having to FEEL. So, we all shed a crocodile tear, promise more action, pray to some pie in the sky and then move on to the next tragedy - and a new page of data.

[UniversalAlien]

Universal Alien wants data - geez, you people live on damn data! Is graphic details and pictures of all the horror and suffering to your fellow humans not "data" enough?? Obviously seeing dead children and their agonised mothers is not enough to move you from your self interest. Your pollies love data, too, it helps remove one from having to FEEL. So, we all shed a crocodile tear, promise more action, pray to some pie in the sky and then move on to the next tragedy - and a new page of data.

Since it is futile to debate with someone who refuse to accept reality I will no longer respond to anything you say - But one more time I will quote some facts; skipping the many {170 million by some counts} MEN, WOMEN and CHILDREN killed indirectly or directly by gun control laws; I will again post the following:

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population). {italics added}

See whole article here: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_g ... roductive/

To emphasize: And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

Is there a problem with less murder and suicide? Or do you like more murder and suicide? Are you so selfish and so egocentric that you are willing to sacrifice many human lives to further your agenda - And in view of the facts your agenda can be summed up as Anti-Man, anti human life and a furtherance of the power of the state no matter how many lives have to sacrificed to achieve the ultimate goal of complete totalitarian rule by the guns of the state. And the 'supposed' children you saved, what kind of horrible world are you going to give them

Is that what you and some of the gun control advocates want:

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ― George Orwell, 1984