[Gun talk] Had a debate with my brother over this image, your opinion?

The debate went as follows. Did I handle this well? Do you think I stated my interpretation and the point of the picture accurately?

Please share what you think. I'm open to hear BOTH sides Anti-gun, pro gun or otherwise.


A. Shimizu "I'm not against our second amendment right. However, this common comparison never makes sense. Pencils weren't designed to misspell words, cars weren't engineered to make people drive drunk and spoons weren't invented to make people fat. Guns however, WERE invented to kill people, especially the one in the photo. I say, instead of attempting to be clever in justification, people should spend more time on EDUCATION"


M. Shimizu "The point is, it is a tool, be it a tool to write or a tool to kill. That TOOL will NEVER harm someone unless there is a force behind it to direct it. I agree people need to spend more time on education, people need to look at the cause of the problem, society and the people themselves who use these tools to inflict harm on others.

Question why it is that johnny maniac that shot up that theater resorted to violence, he could have used anything, from a knife to a pipe bomb. Guns don't point themselves nor do they pull the trigger on their own, it takes an element the human element in order for that "tool" to cause harm to someone" The average civilian cannot or has an extremely hard time finding and owning a REAL military grade firearm (Thousands upon thousands of dollars to own on top of numerous legal hoops to jump through) what you see above could very well be defined as a "Modern sporting rifle" a semi auto ONLY rifle that only LOOKS like the real thing. Why are we punishing those who have no intention of doing anything wrong for the things that criminals do? They have no respect for the law in the first place, so they're more than likely not going to listen and find other means to get their hands on firearms anyway (Which is most likely their current method of acquiring them right now anyway)

I respect your opinion A., and I do hope people spend more time on getting a proper education, hopefully with said education people will be able to draw the distinction between the tool and the real killers some day. You have a valid point but the picture has a point, people need to stop blaming the tool and have those using the tool take responsibility."

A. Shimizu "I'm not arguing the fact that people are the issue. I'm saying that the image doesn't pose a valid argument based on the comparison. The concept is correct, the example is not. Get what I'm saying?"


M. Shimizu "I see where you're coming from, stating that you cannot relate tools that do not share the same function to each other. I am not saying that guns were not intended to kill, quite the contrary, that is their express purpose and I can see how you can interpret the image differently from me and I respect that.

The way I see it, they are all tools and they were designed for a specific purpose as you've implied/stated. The problem is that when it comes to firearms, people delve into murky waters and use an entirely different means of interpreting what constitutes a "tool" due to the reputation they have both in pop culture and in society. The image is there to provoke a thought, that though a pencil's function is to allow the user to write, it is still a tool and it is the user who is at fault if he or she misspells a word. The same applies for firearms, if the civilian wields it in a lawful manner, it is simply a sporting rifle that replicates the aesthetics of a military firearm, otherwise it is the same as any other hunting rifle you can buy at Walmart with the exception it can hold more rounds and may be gas operated as opposed to being bolt or lever operated.

The correlation between the two is there IMO, in that a car is a tool with the express purpose of taking you from point A to point B, however, blaming the car for killing something/someone is ridiculous if the driver was negligent and runs someone/something over. Lets take a sword for example, decorative or otherwise, what purpose does it have? Its express purpose was to kill, yet we don't blame the sword for killing someone, we blame the wielder. This applies to a knife as well, it was designed to cut a tool to make it easier for man to perform daily tasks, it was also designed to kill, a knife isn't blamed for the brutal stabbings that occur at the hands of a deranged criminal.

I can go on and on, but I feel that our opinions differ enough that it would be futile. I respect your opinions and interpretations, but I respectfully agree to disagree with you "

Round III


A. Shimizu "The difference is that guns are used in more crimes than any other weapon. You can't blame legislators for attempting to limit the use of them. You can compare gun control to to speed limits, drug control, immigration and I can go on and on. No person should be allowed to posses something so dangerous without any type of regulation. Why can't I posses a nuclear weapon? Who says I'll use it for harm? It bothers me when gun owners say they would never use a firearm to hurt someone, they neglect to remember that firearms are used in more crimes than any other weapon. America will keep their guns, but with regulation. And everyone will just have to deal with it.

Gun Violence
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm"

To be honest, I think you made a decent argument here. My only problem with it is, the gun's purpose is to kill, where the pencil's purpose is to eat. If guns kill people, then pencils spell. Success in one degree (the killing) cannot be compared to the failure of the other (the misspelling)

Ultimately it comes down to principle I think. The failure to spell correctly as I stated is the burden of the operator.

Whether it is done knowingly or not, you have choices in how you implement a tool. The human element must be present for something to occur, for ill or not.

It's an effort to state that humans, people who utilize a tool must take responsibility for their actions and don't blame the instrument that they used in the process of carrying out their actions, be it pre-meditated or by accident. Negligence does not excuse the fact that an inanimate object is completely inert and is of no harm to a person without the proper motivation and will driving it be it a pencil, spoon, or a firearm.

So even if there is little correlation between the two, the correlation is still present to drive a point.

that of course being, the tool is not to blame regardless of its pre-defined purpose, be it to kill or to assist in writing words on parchment.

Oh I'm not arguing that. the human operation is the determining factor, not the determined factor

I however can see how people can interpret the image differently, and my brother does have some valid points as do you.

I only ask those of the opposite or neutral party to hear me out and pay me the same respect of being open minded enough to see my side as well, just as much as I would try to remain open minded to hear their side as well.

Healthy debates and agreeing to disagree is good for any group IMO. It's when we let emotions and personal bias' get in the way of understanding the other party is when problems occur, which unfortunately is running rampant in modern day politics across the globe.

The reason I ask what you all think is that I am essentially practicing for the eventuality of someone confronting me on the topic of gun control and why I support the freedom of the 2A.

I'm not a political person, I follow as much as I wish to keep myself up to date, as well as to support the battles to keep parties that would see that a "right that shall not be infringed upon" is just that, not infringed on.

I don't want to come off as a blathering idiot who's only defense of the 2A and the natural given right of any man, woman or child is that "It's the 2A, we have a right to bare and carry arms" or some other weak rebuttal that isn't backed with factual or well thought out responses that are supported by both historical and legal documentations and court cases.

Art, I totally agree with you on this. My only qualm with your argument was that one small point. I'm a much bigger proponent of gun education than gun repossession.

Understood, and like I said, I can see how people could take issue with the relating between the two. This was more of an exercise for myself on being able to provide a concise and well thought out response for those who would draw the distinction and interpretation of the image differently than myself.

There are too many idiots out there that are ignorant, ill-informed or both that give law abiding firearms owners a bad reputation.

It is because of this that many of us get so much flak from the anti gun community and those sheeple (No offense to you sheep) who follow them blindly in droves without actually knowing the facts.

This brings me to another argument for those who consider a "compromise" in gun rights, that being allowing certain restrictions in exchange for other rights or the keeping of certain rights.

This is a quote taken from a forum I visit on a near daily basis and I think it sums up why Pro-gun/2A parties refuse to "compromise" with the anti-gun parties.


QUOTE

**Anti-gunner: Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

**LawDog: Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

criminals would never follow the laws anyway,and,then the normal people would just be defenseless.Nazi Germany,Stalin Russia,Mou China,Pol Pot,etc...

JrTapia1991 wrote:criminals would never follow the laws anyway,and,then the normal people would just be defenseless.Nazi Germany,Stalin Russia,Mou China,Pol Pot,etc...

precisely, New York, Chicago, LA and the list goes on I think clearly prove that based on their annual crime rates over the last decade or two easily.

Sadly, the steadfast activists (not as many as you think) will never admit it and will do everything in their power (Even trampling over the constitution if given the chance I bet) to eliminate the possession of firearms by any law abiding citizen.

So much for "Common sense" laws

I've updated with his response after the orange text.

Honestly, I don't think I even want to get into this debate any further. It's only going to cause animosity between the two of us and he is obviously never going to be dissuaded.

Should I continue?

I heard an ad for Raytheon on the radio today... strange right? well it got me thinking again, that under the 2nd amendment, I should be allowed to own anti-satellite missiles and nuclear submarines? Those are arms, and the handful of words in the 230 year old 2nd amendment say that that right shall not be infringed upon!!!

But for some reason I can not own these weapons. And it makes sense. Do I really need military grade weaponry to keep myself safe? no. Do I really need an Abrams to keep me safe? no. Do i really need a 50 caliber heavy machine gun to keep me safe? no. How about an assault rifle? An assault rifle with an extended magazine? I would say no, but right around this point is where everyone wants to argue. Right now, where the line is drawn between legal weapons and illegal weapons is somewhere around the heavy machine gun mark, depending upon what state you live in.

So that's really all it comes down to. Do you think the line should be drawn a little bit more conservatively or liberally? Its not about "I completely support the right to bear arms like the constitution states and am for 100% freedom" because you arent. The 2nd amendment could be interpreted as allowing virtually any sort of weapon, and not even the craziest gun nuts believe that.

This is what really annoys me. The 2nd amendment is just being used as a tool to make the types of weapons that happen to be very fun (and dangerous), legal. Its not about Constitutional purity and freedom like anyone you talk to at a gun range will say, its about wanting a fucking automatic assault rifle.

Btw, this is the grocery store I work at....

http://fox4kc.com/2012/11/09/gun-inside-purse-discharges-at-grocery-store/#ooid=JmcW9yNjoUBs54GsR1kzgvykyxAMmNDC

After this happened, it only confirmed my belief that if everyone's packing heat, we're not gonna be any safer.

(I wasnt working at the time, but i was there a few hours afterwards)

Both sides can take things to either extreme. I am not stating you need a machine gun, nor do I think everyone should have easy access to them. I am NOT for all out free for all gun ownership.

What I do believe in, in regards to firearms regulations is that everyone should be required to go to a gun safety course.

Training for self defense and stuff like that. Joe shmoe at the gas station may own a firearm, but may not know how to use it properly. which can make him a liability.

In regards to the article, that was negligence on the owner of the firearms behalf. The masses should not be punished for the mistakes (sometimes fatal) of a handful.

Zillah wrote:Btw, this is the grocery store I work at....

http://fox4kc.com/2012/11/09/gun-inside-purse-discharges-at-grocery-store/#ooid=JmcW9yNjoUBs54GsR1kzgvykyxAMmNDC

After this happened, it only confirmed my belief that if everyone's packing heat, we're not gonna be any safer.

(I wasnt working at the time, but i was there a few hours afterwards)

But if everyone was packing heat, no one would be crazy enough to be a criminal. Criminals are rational right??

I mean, they think things through right?

It's not like you have a lot of cases of on-the-fly robberies or gang violence in which the criminals are willing to shoot people regardless of them being armed or not right?

I mean, don't criminals automatically surrender when the police arrive with guns? Everyone has a gun in that situation.

And what is this about stress? I can surely trust my neighbor when in a bank robbery situation, we all have guns. All we need to do is draw all at the same time. It's not like the criminals will react badly and shoot us all?

-

In actual honesty, I'm fine with guns. It's the whole criminals/insane people with guns. If you can't trust your regulations to prevent people such as these from buying ammo and such, or you can't curb illegal gun trading, step up the regulations. Track the things. Track the bullets. Invent something to negate the effectiveness, either installed in public areas or on weapons themselves. Things that will disable criminals before they can hurt people.

If this sounds like scifi, maybe that's what you guys need. The fact that public shootings even happen isn't a good thing.

What will happen if someone with a gun does get into a bad situation, getting caught up in a robbery? Do you trust him to do nothing or eliminate the criminals?

Would this be better if every hypothetical hostage was a police officer or military personnel? Probably. But civilians exist, and would I trust them to act in a professional manner? Would I trust them to aim well? Would I trust them with the lives of people around me?

I dunno, I don't live in the US. But this pro-gun/anti-gun stuff doesn't take account for a) the ability of criminals to acquire weapons or b) the mental state of such an individual. Both sides are defeated by both of these points.

Regulate the things so damn well that any sane and good person will be able to get one without hassle.

Obviously a pipe dream, considering that illegal weapons in the US seem to pop out of nowhere, compared to up here in Canada. But the day that illegal arms are stopped, and the day that crazy people can't get them, will be the day no one will argue against a good American's right to purchase his/her own firearm.

I hear you, this is the point I try to make. Proper education and training for those who do or do not own a firearm.

There are regulations there for a reason, however on the same token, it is impossible to regulate something (at least at this time) to determine the intended purpose that an individual who has NO PAST RECORD of committing a crime, that their express purpose to purchase a firearm is for exactly that.

The Aurora shooting in Colorado is a perfect example as much as I'd hate to use it as an example.

What about those who are mentally ill?

Federal Law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

There are laws and regulation against that, but how do you determine someone is deranged? How can you tell? It's not that simple, life seldom is.

Ultimately it's a matter of principle I believe. The anti gun activists can't control those who commit these atrocities, so they go after the one thing they can. The guns and the ammunition. The Pro-gun activists oppose it not only based on what our constitution states, but as a principle that the government wants to punish those who go through all the legal channels and have no intention of committing a crime in the first place for the actions of those that do abuse the privilege to keep and bear arms.

I believe there needs to be some regulation, but the out right ban of firearms is not the answer. Everyone should be entitled to have the means to defend their liberty, property and loved ones, with limitations of course. Machine guns I agree should be regulated, as well as sound suppressors, but firearms that aesthetically appear similar to military firearms? No, I don't believe they should be regulated. Johnny psychopath, with enough training and motivation can empty and reload a 10 shot magazine just as fast as a handgun/rifle with a 20-30 shot magazine.

You're not solving anything with more gun regulations, you're treating the symptom of a much larger problem, that being society itself, and the individuals ability (or lack there of) to deal with situations that presents to them the choice of either reacting responsibly or violently.

Sadly some choose the latter option. So what made this individual choose this route? How can we prevent it? The answer is you can't, you can try to mitigate the damage, but there are some people out there that are so far gone in the head, that no matter what law you enact, what safeties you put into place, they will find a means to commit whatever atrocity they desire to carry out. Be it a pipe bomb, handgun or "assault rifle

Artimise Flare wrote:

Sadly some choose the latter option. So what made this individual choose this route? How can we prevent it? The answer is you can't, you can try to mitigate the damage, but there are some people out there that are so far gone in the head, that no matter what law you enact, what safeties you put into place, they will find a means to commit whatever atrocity they desire to carry out. Be it a pipe bomb, handgun or "assault rifle

Curious, but what would you do if you were in this situation, as an innocent bystander?

Anti gun people too, I'd like to see what people think. Just trying to get a feel for America.

I cannot say, but provided I have the skills and the means to defend those who cannot, I would do so. Such a reason is why I would open or concealed carry in the first place.

For the other party, I cannot vouch for what they would do.

it really depends on the culture too. Never hear many talk about that either. Places like Japan never have any shootings that I've heard of,but,trying to ever instill those values here in the US will never happen I think lol.

I've stated it numerous times already, the problem is multifaceted, the state of society being a major factor, American society specifically.

yea I agree

I've decided to just let this one go, but I actually had a rebuttal for his Comment.

This is what I would have said if I had replied

"In regards of "Without regulation" Please see section
922 in regards to this document published by the BATFE
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

For the shortened and brief rundown, please see the following link, which is published by the DoJ

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

Of course firearms are used in more crimes than any other, it's because they're the most effective tool to be used/abused in violent crimes and one of the most profitable markets to exploit among many in the criminal world. Back during the great crusades, the sword, axe and spear were the most used weapon at killing/maiming people.

During the years of Genghis Khan, the bow and arrow were the most efficient weapons of the era, helping him in his conquest to rule an empire that spanned most of Eurasia.

In a couple hundred years, perhaps it will be telekinesis that will be the most effective means to kill someone, who's to say.

When America tried to enforce the Prohibition act on January 16, 1920, it started an era in which organized crime saw a means to exploit a commodity, that being alcoholic beverages. It helped organized crime to flourish, and wide spread corruption exploded during this time period.

Not saying that this would happen in this time frame, but eliminating firearms will not solve the problem, in fact, it may exasperate the problem. Criminals will always find a means to get what they want, regardless of what the government attempts to do to curb it.

If it's not guns, criminals and the mentally deranged who wish to do harm upon others will find the means to do it regardless. If I wanted to kill someone and I mean I REALLY wanted to kill someone, it doesn't matter if the tool I used was a handgun or a pipe wrench, I'm going to do whatever it takes to kill that person.
Regulations are there to help prevent crimes, that's is the whole purpose of the federal laws that prevent the ownership of firearms for individuals who are convicted felons or have a history or domestic violence among other criminal charges. However enacting further regulation in an effort to curb violence is not the answer. What we need to focus on is educating those who make up the demographic population that are more apt to committing crimes, the impoverished and those who are not properly educated."

http://news.yahoo.com/trucker-made-wrong-turn-freed-mexican-prison-172615544--abc-news-topstories.html

that gun control sure is working out well for mexico >__>