Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 31, 2012, 10:33 AM   #26
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
My position is very simple.

Solve the problem.

The problem is not gun ownership.

I agree. The problem is way too easy access to gun ownership.
__________________
"Ignorance is not an excuse."- Goodell to Saints GM on Bountygate
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 12:35 PM   #27
guzhogi
macrumors 68020
 
guzhogi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wherever my feet take me…
Quote:
Originally Posted by katewes View Post
No one claims there is an easy solution, so at least one small step in the right is one step.

I draw the analogy that gun-enthusiasts use, namely, that cars can be used to kill people, but no one suggests banning cars.

Fine.

So, at the very minimum, there should be legislation equivalent to car use:

- people need take lessons to use the firearm;

- people need to take an exam with an instructor to assess whether the person meets the standard;

- the person needs a licence with photo;

- fines for misuse of the apparatus, analogous to speeding etc.

- the apparatus, the firearm or car, must be registered with the registration number stated on the firearm/car.

If the gun lobby uses the car analogy, then it has to be used consistently.

No one is saying, if the above are done, then the problem is solved, but it is a start.
I agree. Firearm owners need to show that not do they know how to use guns & can use them, but use them responsibly. If you're legally blind, why should you have a gun?

I've heard of studies where other countries that have higher gun ownership have lower murders/rapes/robberies, while other countries that have lower gun ownership has lower murders/rapes/robberies. So I don't think the problem is really how many guns we have. I think the real problem is how we resolve our problems & differences. Many people posted comments on other threads here where if someone tries to harm them, the only solution for them is deadly force. I understand shooting someone is one of the easiest & quickest ways to deter a threat, but not necessarily the best & only way. There are non-lethal ways to defend yourself. Karate, tasters, etc.

Plus, many people say the best way to prevent murders, robberies, etc. is to arm everyone. "The bad guy will think twice about attack you if you had a gun." That might work in some cases. But what's to stop the bad guy from having a bigger gun, better protection, etc.? Sounds like some this might cause an arms race.

I've heard that the shooter in Connecticut had mental issues. We really need to give these people the medical help they need.

I don't think necessarily banning guns is the solution, but deadly force should only be a last resort. I'll admit, I'm a pacifist. I'm a lover, not a fighter & believe in making love, not war. I just think it's awful that a guy in the military (before the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell") could get medals for killing a bunch of guys and thrown out for loving one. The US is one messed up country.
guzhogi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 07:27 PM   #28
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
My position is very simple.

Solve the problem.

The problem is not gun ownership.
I agree. The belief that restricting access is going to reduce crime boggles my mind. Clearly, there is other issues not related to firearms whatsoever that should be examined.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
I don't think anyone believes it is the only problem, but denying a problem exists is delusional.
No one is denying a problem. But many people have identified how the problem is often attributed to firearms where as firearms themselves are not the problem. I cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning that heavier restrictions on ownership (which undermine the Second Amendment) is going to reduce crime. Undermining the rights of legal gun owners is doing little more than forcing them to assume the role of 'the victim' IMO. A genuine effort to reduce accidents and gun violence can be made using existing laws and using education in place of bans. If nothing else, it would make sense to start there rather than jumping to ban this and that, which IMO is a slippery slope.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by guzhogi View Post
I think the real problem is how we resolve our problems & differences.
This is an issue IMO and one that education can take on better than bans. Most CCW classes will tell you before anything else to make every effort to avoid the use of a firearm, which can be assumed to be lethal force. The goal of concealed carry is not to use a firearm, but to not use a firearm. The concept of 'speak softly but carry a big stick' applies here. Mediation, diplomacy, avoidance, etc. are all ways to avoid violence. Any and all measures should be exhausted before pulling that trigger and the consequences of pulling that trigger need to be clearly understood. CCW classes could potentially add conflict and peer resolution to the course to prepare owners to make responsible decisions. Of course retreating is not always an option and that is why we have the Castle Doctrine of Defense and Stand Your Ground laws to protect the law-abiding owners from being sued for every penny they've ever had regardless of how justified they were in their actions.

My point is this is something that can become a priority focus without undermining ownership rights.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 07:29 PM   #29
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
The belief that restricting access is going to reduce crime boggles my mind.
A number of gun advocates (including you perhaps?) have stated a desire to see current laws enforced more thoroughly and more people denied access to guns for reasons of mental instability.

It seems to me that this qualifies as "restricting access".

Do you disagree? Are you against doing a better job enforcing the laws currently on the books or seeking ways to limit access to people with mental issues?
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 07:53 PM   #30
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
A number of gun advocates (including you perhaps?) have stated a desire to see current laws enforced more thoroughly and more people denied access to guns for reasons of mental instability.

It seems to me that this qualifies as "restricting access".

Do you disagree? Are you against doing a better job enforcing the laws currently on the books or seeking ways to limit access to people with mental issues?
No, I don't think that is restricting access because that means the person cannot legally buy a firearm. Where as a ban on certain firearms would mean no one can buy them. Likewise, I don't see how requiring mandated education courses restricts access. My point is we have enough laws already and that if we enforce the laws and possibly unify some, close loopholes, etc. make more sense than banning select firearms and are not invasive to ownership rights.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 10:30 PM   #31
StruckANerve
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
And what, praytell, do you think the problem is?

I don't think anyone believes it is the only problem, but denying a problem exists is delusional.

And ownership may not be the problem - it's the who, what, and the how that may be the problem.
Gun legality has almost no bearing on violent crime. The AWB is one of the most absurd pieces of legislation ever. Semi auto rifles account for less than 1% of gun deaths in America, yet they are demonized for some unknown reason.

StruckANerve is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 01:43 AM   #32
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckANerve View Post
Gun legality has almost no bearing on violent crime. The AWB is one of the most absurd pieces of legislation ever. Semi auto rifles account for less than 1% of gun deaths in America, yet they are demonized for some unknown reason.
In my state they accounted for two-to-four homicides in 2012...clearly, black guns are a major threat to the public and our gov has acted accordingly by wast..er...spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to try to ban (and confiscate) these dangerous weapons of mass destruction. This ban is far more important than the aging infrastructure in our state, including a few very unsafe bridges and dams.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Connecticut and New York Gun Control Laws in Effect bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 68 Feb 11, 2014 02:18 PM
A New Bill in Tennessee Could Nullify Federal Gun Control Laws jkcerda Politics, Religion, Social Issues 69 Jan 26, 2014 09:55 PM
Gun Laws (complete mess) dukebound85 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 160 May 30, 2013 08:32 AM
55 of 62 Colorado Sheriffs join lawsuit to block new gun laws classicaliberal Politics, Religion, Social Issues 67 May 25, 2013 07:29 AM
This is why we need national gun laws rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 100 Mar 22, 2013 06:09 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:54 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC