Forums - Politics Discussion - Gun control debate issues that bother me. Will Libertarians and Republicans please address these?

I will say that I am troubled by recent trends with these shootings and the call for a ban on assault weapons.  I have seen people say the Bill of Rights is now an ancient document, and implying it should be done away with.  The reaction is horrible to me. I was wondering if Libertarians and Republicans can address what I see are problems with some responses and arguments, and please provide others that would end up not causing the second amendment, and the rights of the citizentry to arm and protect themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic, that seems to be going on now.  And note, I am not saying both are one and the same, just their views overlap, but also I have a mix of views that can belong to one group or another.  Also, after this, I am curious what the solution should be to reduce these shootings, or is the idea to just live with more innocent people getting gunned down, because that is the price of freedom.

Ok, onto the responses and arguments, and flaws I see with them:

* Ignore the issue:  These shootings will go away and we don't need to worry about it.  The idea is to bury one's head in the sand and not believe they would continue.  Anyone here believe that that this is the case?  Do you see these shootings as a quirk and they will stop?

* Arm the police, get tough on crime, make life harder for criminals and pass capital punishment:  The usually Republican line is that we need to arm the state more and have the government crack down more on bad people.  Make the government the biggest bully, but in the hands of right people and deter criminals from doing things.  You want to put the fear of righteousness in the minds of criminals, so they don't do that are are deterred.  You also want to preemptively shoot them down  before they do anything more.  The NRA called for arming all police.   The issue I have is you are getting a number of shooters, after they do their shootings, end up turning their guns on themselves.  Exactly how does deterance work when the person doing the crime will practice capital punishment on themselves?

* We must win the war on terror: This is advocating more government monitoring for our safety.   This means more watching everywhere, and less privacy.

* We must stop the corrupting of our youth: This is a call for censorship and reducing certain literature.  So, I am curious if preventing me from playing Black Ops 2 is the answer.

* Arm everyone: We had shootings in schools. Are we to arm all the students with guns?  Would giving students their own handguns make for things that are safer, or are you more likely to have an angry student in an a heated argument, go off on their kids.

* Implement checkpoints everywhere and keep guns out of places they are at: Does Ft. Hood allow people to freely go about with guns?  And heck, where does the money come from to turn schools 

* Home school the kids.  Keep them out of school and that way noth clustered together: Apparently the shooter in Connecticut was home schooled.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_lanza#Perpetrator

 

Ok, so those are a number of concerns I have.  I was wondering if they could be addressed, and what a possible solution would reduce these, or if it is just something to live with.   And there is also calls to slash spending by Washington.  Is the problems solvable by reducing funding?



Around the Network
Gun control is basically the same as DRM in that it only hurts the legitimate people and not the criminals/pirates.

richardhutnik said:

I will say that I am troubled by recent trends with these shootings and the call for a ban on assault weapons.  I have seen people say the Bill of Rights is now an ancient document, and implying it should be done away with.  The reaction is horrible to me. I was wondering if Libertarians and Republicans can address what I see are problems with some responses and arguments, and please provide others that would end up not causing the second amendment, and the rights of the citizentry to arm and protect themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic, that seems to be going on now.  And note, I am not saying both are one and the same, just their views overlap, but also I have a mix of views that can belong to one group or another.  Also, after this, I am curious what the solution should be to reduce these shootings, or is the idea to just live with more innocent people getting gunned down, because that is the price of freedom.

Ok, onto the responses and arguments, and flaws I see with them:

* Ignore the issue:  These shootings will go away and we don't need to worry about it.  The idea is to bury one's head in the sand and not believe they would continue.  Anyone here believe that that this is the case?  Do you see these shootings as a quirk and they will stop?

* Arm the police, get tough on crime, make life harder for criminals and pass capital punishment:  The usually Republican line is that we need to arm the state more and have the government crack down more on bad people.  Make the government the biggest bully, but in the hands of right people and deter criminals from doing things.  You want to put the fear of righteousness in the minds of criminals, so they don't do that are are deterred.  You also want to preemptively shoot them down  before they do anything more.  The NRA called for arming all police.   The issue I have is you are getting a number of shooters, after they do their shootings, end up turning their guns on themselves.  Exactly how does deterance work when the person doing the crime will practice capital punishment on themselves?

* We must win the war on terror: This is advocating more government monitoring for our safety.   This means more watching everywhere, and less privacy.

* We must stop the corrupting of our youth: This is a call for censorship and reducing certain literature.  So, I am curious if preventing me from playing Black Ops 2 is the answer.

* Arm everyone: We had shootings in schools. Are we to arm all the students with guns?  Would giving students their own handguns make for things that are safer, or are you more likely to have an angry student in an a heated argument, go off on their kids.

* Implement checkpoints everywhere and keep guns out of places they are at: Does Ft. Hood allow people to freely go about with guns?  And heck, where does the money come from to turn schools 

* Home school the kids.  Keep them out of school and that way noth clustered together: Apparently the shooter in Connecticut was home schooled.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_lanza#Perpetrator

 

Ok, so those are a number of concerns I have.  I was wondering if they could be addressed, and what a possible solution would reduce these, or if it is just something to live with.   And there is also calls to slash spending by Washington.  Is the problems solvable by reducing funding?

If those are your concerns, it's pretty obvious you actually haven't been listening to anything republicans or libretarians have said on the matter.

 

1) Ignoring the issue.  Nobody has suggested this.  Ignore gun control yes... because gun control is completely unrelated to the actual issue.  It's not like there was suddenly some change and gun crimes started happening.   The issue that needs to be looked at is why such shootings are happening.  Something that will only get attention once the media and politicians lay off guns.   No doubt there is real research being done on these issues but it's buried at some universites toiling without any press, funding or support.

 

2) Arm the police etc.   Nobody has suggested this in relation to the Newton shootings... the closest there has been is a suggestion to put police in schools, which is sensible for this and plenty of other reasons.    That and arm regular people.

 

3) Win the war on terror... again, where is this ANYWHERE in the Newton shootings statement?

 

4)  Censuring stuff... Did you just want to post a big gripe thread against republicans and base it around gun control to try and legitmize your point?  Again, nobody is supporting this...

 

5) Arm everyone, finally you know... something.   As for who to arm.  You know, there are people at the school NOT called students.  They're known as teachers.  Shootings like this do happen where there are no guns

 

6)  Again... haven't seen this.

 


So to sum up... 4 out of your 6 concerns aren't remotely related to this in the leas... the 5th is silly and didn't listen to what they were saying (arming students) and the 6th "Bury your head in the sand" also wasn't mentioned.  More like "Actually try and figure out why this is happening."

 

 

Edit: missed the fort hood thing.  Military Personal aren't allowed to have guns on base, even military police aren't allowed to have loaded weapons.  Your average military base is less prepaired to deal with a shooter then other areas.



dahuman said:
Gun control is basically the same as DRM in that it only hurts the legitimate people and not the criminals/pirates.

legitimate people become criminals when taking a gun to do something criminal. If they didn't have the gun they wouldn't have become criminals. Thus gun control can never hurt criminals.



non-gravity said:
dahuman said:
Gun control is basically the same as DRM in that it only hurts the legitimate people and not the criminals/pirates.

legitimate people become criminals when taking a gun to do something criminal. If they didn't have the gun they wouldn't have become criminals. Thus gun control can never hurt criminals.

So... your arguement is that people don't decide to comit crimes, but there guns mind control them to comit crimes, and if guns weren't there, and they say... wanted to murder somebody... nobody would be murdered.

I mean, I know that isn't your arguement, but that's what it sounds like from how you phrased it.

Guns are a tool.  Period.

The actions one takes with a tool should never be ascribed too the tool.

No more then a hammer is reponsible when someone murders someone else with a hammer.



Around the Network
Those who want to hurt others will find a way to do it. Pass all the laws you want, ban whatever you want, there will always be evil in the world, and school violence will never cease.

Let's pretend for a moment that, had there been some kind of new gun control, that the shooter's mother wouldn't have possession of those guns and ammunition... the kid could very well have strapped a home-made bomb to his chest and blown up part of the school. He could have brought tear gas... he could have brought a knife... any number of things. The point being, that boy was bound and determined to cause harm to innocent people at the school that day, and no number of useless gun laws could have changed that.

So let's not even entertain the idea of "if we ban these guns, then no one will get hurt by them". That is laughable in so many ways. The government banned alcohol, that didn't work. It banned harmful drugs...that has totally and completely backfired. There shouldn't be a debate on gun control after every single event that occurs related to guns. It has nothing to do with gun laws, it has to do with evil, disturbed people who want to hurt others. You will never stop that kind of thing.

 

I say should have food control regulations....or maybe even a food ban. That will cut down on America's weight problem. I mean, it was the food that made them fat, not the people and their overindulgence or anything. Right?

The rEVOLution is not being televised

non-gravity said:
dahuman said:
Gun control is basically the same as DRM in that it only hurts the legitimate people and not the criminals/pirates.

legitimate people become criminals when taking a gun to do something criminal. If they didn't have the gun they wouldn't have become criminals. Thus gun control can never hurt criminals.


I know right? I've seen plenty of people download pirated versions of games because they don't want to deal with DRM.

Anyways, criminals don't need guns to be criminals at all, you are really underestimating people's ability to kill others in cruel and creative ways without using firearms. Not to mention they'd just get guns illegally if they really want to, shit's everywhere even in countries that completely banned guns for civillian use. Taking them away from people also screws up the economy like a bitch, it's a business that generates a steady amount of revenue. The amount of money generated, no offense but I'm sure a lot will be taken, is prolly worth a lot more than the results of all the dumb shootings those retards did since I'm one of those that believe that the worth of lives can be calculated with money based on how fucked up the insurance business is.



Guns should be permanned and stricktly controlled
guns are for military and police

Around the Network
If you wanna get back to 18th buy Assasins creed 3