Control the Trigger and Take it in the Barrel.
Hello everyone,
I would first like to congratulate President Obama for his victory and give my condolences to Governor Romney for his loss this election year.
Moving on, let us talk gun control - now, not that, "I don't like guns" or the, "you can't take my guns away!" stuff. A real discussion about them.
In my personal opinion, I am against gun control. I do believe that everyone should have the right to have firearms, but I also understand the economic and social causation of restricting these weapons. To explain, according to Black Market Theory, when you make something harder for the (law-abiding) citizen to obtain, those who do not follow the law gain by having that restricted item be subjectively worth more in their market. Now, the repercussions are 1) with more criminals holding guns, you have more crimes and with that more security - an added cost to the consumer. It literally hinders those in lower income situations from saving and thus thriving. 2) You have good men and women unable to defend themselves in the case that a criminal pulls out a firearm, endangering their lives. This, in my opinion, is why I am an advocate for the right to hold and own a gun. Thus, I am also a huge advocate of educating and training owners of firearms in the proper safety and aspects of using a gun. This includes when and how to use it, why we use it, how to safely use it and so on and so forth. For, in having any item or in doing any activity, we must be educated on it in order to do it (or use it) responsibly.
Now that I have stated my opinion, what is yours? Share them and, if you would like, let's debate so we may get some developments upon the subject.
Thank you for your time,
Tristan Cody.
I would first like to congratulate President Obama for his victory and give my condolences to Governor Romney for his loss this election year.
Moving on, let us talk gun control - now, not that, "I don't like guns" or the, "you can't take my guns away!" stuff. A real discussion about them.
In my personal opinion, I am against gun control. I do believe that everyone should have the right to have firearms, but I also understand the economic and social causation of restricting these weapons. To explain, according to Black Market Theory, when you make something harder for the (law-abiding) citizen to obtain, those who do not follow the law gain by having that restricted item be subjectively worth more in their market. Now, the repercussions are 1) with more criminals holding guns, you have more crimes and with that more security - an added cost to the consumer. It literally hinders those in lower income situations from saving and thus thriving. 2) You have good men and women unable to defend themselves in the case that a criminal pulls out a firearm, endangering their lives. This, in my opinion, is why I am an advocate for the right to hold and own a gun. Thus, I am also a huge advocate of educating and training owners of firearms in the proper safety and aspects of using a gun. This includes when and how to use it, why we use it, how to safely use it and so on and so forth. For, in having any item or in doing any activity, we must be educated on it in order to do it (or use it) responsibly.
Now that I have stated my opinion, what is yours? Share them and, if you would like, let's debate so we may get some developments upon the subject.
Thank you for your time,
Tristan Cody.
Comments211
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I'll state this right now, I am for gun control
......................Use both hands and hit your target
......................Use both hands and hit your target
You, I - Zombie Apocalypse.
best comment of the thread goes to you.
best comment of the thread goes to you.
Black Market Theory is not a theory. It's an excuse. Gun control legislation is not designed to prohibit people from obtaining weapons at the end-user level- it's about restricting what can be manufactured in the USA and what can be sold. We also try to do a fair job at restricting what comes into the country. I am not familiar with every damn gun law, but generally automatic assault weapons, machine guns, are restricted to some extent. The restriction does not cause a black market to appear- that market would exist already because buying something illegally- i.e. outside of any regulations and taxes it's ALWAYS cheaper. They can avoid the weapon serial# from getting into the government's hands as well. Criminals would probably do this anyway- but not all 'criminals' have access to these markets. So many crimes are committed by first timers aren't they? There's no such thing as a bad guy born to be bad. The idea behind restricting automatics and machine guns and types of bullets is that we can possibly prevent a crime from happening, prevent a mistake, or a person accidentally shooting their own child. I don't trust gun owners with that responsibility. I elect a government to make and enforce laws and keep me safe, that's the meaning of governance.
To take any position that governance need not exist, especially when it comes to the very thing that humans utilize to kill eachother with- is preposterous. And all the whining about how 'law abiding' citizens are somehow inconvenienced by new laws- then I question what makes them "law abiding" if they don't want to follow those laws. I'd think a law-abiding person would be more than happy to show they have civic intentions with their guns by registering them properly and by avoiding purchase of a gatlin gun. Nobody needs a gatlin gun. Get over it.
And I don't want anybody nextdoor to me having one, they could kill me or my loved ones in an instant. When ordinary people have to live in fear that anyone around them could be carrying a weapon that they might not know how to use, then nobody is safe and that's basically anarchy.
To take any position that governance need not exist, especially when it comes to the very thing that humans utilize to kill eachother with- is preposterous. And all the whining about how 'law abiding' citizens are somehow inconvenienced by new laws- then I question what makes them "law abiding" if they don't want to follow those laws. I'd think a law-abiding person would be more than happy to show they have civic intentions with their guns by registering them properly and by avoiding purchase of a gatlin gun. Nobody needs a gatlin gun. Get over it.
And I don't want anybody nextdoor to me having one, they could kill me or my loved ones in an instant. When ordinary people have to live in fear that anyone around them could be carrying a weapon that they might not know how to use, then nobody is safe and that's basically anarchy.
You've never actually owned a gun before, have you?
He's never come out of his mother's basement, mate.
It seems you have taken my words and misunderstood them. Everything you are saying here has nothing to do, nor does it reflect what I believe or advocated.
Certain guns, certain places. Hunting rifles should be allowed, I think, they're more used for just that than violence. Other guns should be limited to licensed areas, or at the very least with well licensed people. I mean, the issue is someone getting a gun and using it where they're not supposed to, not guns altogether. Well, the issue is more that there's just a lot more gun and gang culture in America than most other places, but this will help solve that too.
Economically, it's pretty much just a slightly milder ban. Gun prices would rise dramatically with next to no guns being manufactured and put right into the black market, which in time would stop all but the criminal overlords from getting them easily. As for self defense, guns just plain do more harm than they do good, it'd be better to have neither have guns than to have both have guns. Besides, there's still lots of viable forms of self defense available; get a taser, take a karate lesson, have a baseball bat, there's lots of options that aren't as useful for criminals.
Economically, it's pretty much just a slightly milder ban. Gun prices would rise dramatically with next to no guns being manufactured and put right into the black market, which in time would stop all but the criminal overlords from getting them easily. As for self defense, guns just plain do more harm than they do good, it'd be better to have neither have guns than to have both have guns. Besides, there's still lots of viable forms of self defense available; get a taser, take a karate lesson, have a baseball bat, there's lots of options that aren't as useful for criminals.
Now I can definitely agree to this suggestion as long as you place education of the use and safety of the gun on there as a high priority. 
Of course, that'd probably have to be mandatory to get one of those licenses, and to a lesser degree, even go to a licensed place like a gun range or something.
For sure. Thank you for your input.
My problem with some of the gun control bills, is that their language is too vague.
Yes, vague language, in any case, is dangerous.
I like hunters, I like sport-shooters, and, frankly, I don't even care about criminals; but I'm still in favor of gun control. Why? Because with the last two elections, gun-makers and ammunition suppliers have participated in a ramp up in price for both guns and ammo after fueling a panic. This kind of price gouging is inexcusable, and a restriction on the supply-side of how they may sell is, in itself, a form of gun-control. In fact, many, many actions that are considered gun control are, in fact, SANE and have nothing to do with banning guns. Things like registration, wait periods, background checks, and licensing are all gun control, too.
You have good men and women unable to defend themselves in the case that a criminal pulls out a firearm, endangering their lives.
Keeping a gun around for self-protection is actually more dangerous than anything you would protect yourself from. [link]
Guns are dangerous tools, but just like words, we have a right to them. Unlike words, we can regulate how guns are used, and how they're sold.
You have good men and women unable to defend themselves in the case that a criminal pulls out a firearm, endangering their lives.
Keeping a gun around for self-protection is actually more dangerous than anything you would protect yourself from. [link]
Guns are dangerous tools, but just like words, we have a right to them. Unlike words, we can regulate how guns are used, and how they're sold.
I agree with you on this. In the beginning, I did feel many things in gun-control were good, yet, as we have discussed them and explained them out, I have agreed to them because, as you aid, they are in fact sane.
Also, another point which was brought up and proven as fallacy on my end. We should help educate and regulate guns in a sane way. I see that now.
Also, another point which was brought up and proven as fallacy on my end. We should help educate and regulate guns in a sane way. I see that now.
Exactly. There's the possibility for gun control to be a moderate position; but when you have a party that is unwilling to compromise, it's either too strict or none at all. The compromise and debate is supposed to be where sanity is found.
I agree that a bi-partisan decision can be made on the subject. Actually, it should. Yet, none of the people who can make a change want sanity - they want dominance.
THIS MAN IS A SPY!
but anyway on topic.... uzis shouldnt be legal
but anyway on topic.... uzis shouldnt be legal
The names Bond, James Bond. 
Why Uzis?
marijuana is illegal...nobody uses it...what would be different with guns
Its just become legal in my state, and tons of people use it. The difference between guns and weed, guns tear holes in whatever they're pointed at, a pipe dosen't.
On to the point. Gun controle is a win-lose idea. With the plan to shrink our standing army, state militias will become more important than ever, so that if there was some kind of national threat, we could have some kind of pretrained backup army.
However, with such high crime rates, some gun controle would be a good thing. Weapons would be in shorter supply for criminals, and more common would be the guns on cops and federal agents.
On another downside, taxes would have to increase in order to pay for the people who would be required to make sure that all the lose guns would be recolected. And after the weapons had been colected, the taxes would not drop again. They never do.
On to the point. Gun controle is a win-lose idea. With the plan to shrink our standing army, state militias will become more important than ever, so that if there was some kind of national threat, we could have some kind of pretrained backup army.
However, with such high crime rates, some gun controle would be a good thing. Weapons would be in shorter supply for criminals, and more common would be the guns on cops and federal agents.
On another downside, taxes would have to increase in order to pay for the people who would be required to make sure that all the lose guns would be recolected. And after the weapons had been colected, the taxes would not drop again. They never do.
so if you take guns away from honest citizens and naturally criminals will keep theirs, this makes us more safe? I don't get it?
Well, if the guns aren't on the honest citizens, wouldn't that just make it easier to tell who the "bad guys" are? Besides, controle doesn't mean that the guns will be taken away, just means that there will be tighter regulation on who can get them. Point your eye at sweeden for a moment, every sweedish citizen is given a hand gun upon reaching adulthood. They are also put into a required six-month training progam on gun safety. Their gun distribution is controled, in order to purchase another gun, the must go threw a long process of filling out applications, background checks, and waiting process that, if my source, exchange student, is to be beleived, can take anywere from six months to six years. Control. Not deprivation as you were suggesting.
also, indeviduals use and obtain guns at there own disgression. Im not suggesting that only people who are bad would keep their guns if the Powers That Be decided that guns needed to be removed, and yes moraly perverse people would be more likely to keep them, but that doesnt
neccicarily mean that their criminals. I personaly would keep any fire arm in my possion untill the police came to me with a warent to both search my home and take them from me.
And for the record, I don't support gun controle, and i appologize for my inabuility to spell.
also, indeviduals use and obtain guns at there own disgression. Im not suggesting that only people who are bad would keep their guns if the Powers That Be decided that guns needed to be removed, and yes moraly perverse people would be more likely to keep them, but that doesnt
neccicarily mean that their criminals. I personaly would keep any fire arm in my possion untill the police came to me with a warent to both search my home and take them from me.
And for the record, I don't support gun controle, and i appologize for my inabuility to spell.