Gun Laws Debate - Chambersburg, PA

[AntiPolitician]

My biggest problem with addressing "reasonable", especially when it pertains to rights, is that reason,(or "reasonable" by the definition you cited) is relative.

There are perfectly rational and intelligent human beings on both sides of the argument, and both have points of view that are equally valid.

However, neither side is willing give and never have.

The gun laws currently on the books advocated by the gun control lobby aren't restrictive enough for them. Conversely, the same is said for the pro 2A lobby, that existing laws are already too restrictive.

Bottom line there's no way to make everyone happy.

I have several firearms, many that would be considered to be "assault weapons" just based on their appearance.

However, I'm no threat to anyone that doesn't threaten me or my family.

I've never accidentally or negligently discharged any firearm, I exercise almost over-the-top safety precautions when it comes to handling, carrying and storing firearms and ammo. I simply like collecting firearms and shooting targets. It's something that I enjoy and is even somewhat of an investment, as the anti-gun lobby is driving up the value.

Should I not have the right to have and do what I want so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, exercising my own right to liberty and pursuit of happiness?

I agree, there are many people out there that should not ever be let near a firearm, whether it be from inexperience, ignorance or psychological factors... but, why should people give up their rights because others abuse theirs? It's sacrificing liberty for security.

Those are my views.

[Dan the Man]

AntiPolitician wrote:

I agree, there are many people out there that should not ever be let near a firearm, whether it be from inexperience, ignorance or psychological factors... but, why should people give up their rights because others abuse theirs? It's sacrificing liberty for security.
Those are my views.

I think the biggest reason is that so many people get shot and killed.

So are you saying that you aren't willing to sacrifice any degree of unrestricted access to guns and ammunition in order to prevent some of those deaths? Do you concede ANY limits on the possession of firearms and/or ammunition?

[Dan the Man]

AntiPolitician wrote:

I agree, there are many people out there that should not ever be let near a firearm, whether it be from inexperience, ignorance or psychological factors... but, why should people give up their rights because others abuse theirs? It's sacrificing liberty for security.
Those are my views.

I guess my other question here is - are you okay with that? Is it fine with you that some people who "should not ever be let near a firearm" still get them? And some of them do horrible things, intentionally or unintentionally?

Surely you agree that there are some reasonable, common-sense limitations to keep us safe from those people.

[AntiPolitician]

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the biggest reason is that so many people get shot and killed.

So are you saying that you aren't willing to sacrifice any degree of unrestricted access to guns and ammunition in order to prevent some of those deaths? Do you concede ANY limits on the possession of firearms and/or ammunition?

There already ARE limits on possession of firearms and ammunition. Unrestricted access for those who are law abiding and would NEVER use them to wantonly harm innocent people I believe is acceptable.

[AntiPolitician]

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess my other question here is - are you okay with that? Is it fine with you that some people who "should not ever be let near a firearm" still get them? And some of them do horrible things, intentionally or unintentionally?

No, I'm not okay with it, especially with those intent on using them for horrible things.

I don't know what you're getting at by "unintentionally".

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Surely you agree that there are some reasonable, common-sense limitations to keep us safe from those people.

See my previous post on the use of "reasonable" as far as pertaining to firearms.

Proper and safe use, handling and storage of firearms IS common sense to me. Never using my firearms to intentionally hurt or kill someone IS common sense to me.

The anti-gun lobby as successfully implemented many of what they consider to be "reasonable, common-sense" laws over the years. It's been proven over and over again that those words on paper do very little if anything to stop firearms from falling into the hands of those who shouldn't have them, and make it harder for responsible gun owners to pursue their hobbies.

I noticed that you opted to pick-and-choose which parts of my post to address. I ask you to address my posts as a whole and answer my questions, just as I've shown courtesy to you by answering yours.

[Wha]

Look at Chicago. Guns are banned in the city, yet every night people are killed by guns. It's not the legal guns that people have to worry about it's the individual(s) who are looking for trouble. Criminals will always get guns despite what laws are on the books so creating new laws that criminals won't adhere to is just a waste of time and its targeting law abiding citizens instead of the criminals. I think a better way to deal with the extreme cases are to have better reporting on people who are at a greater risk of hurting other people because of Psychological problems. It just seems like people automatically want to say it’s a gun problem when in facts it's not. Allowing more people to carry weapons makes criminals think twice before they engage in unscrupulous behavior.

[Dan the Man]

AntiPolitician wrote:

<quoted text>
There already ARE limits on possession of firearms and ammunition. Unrestricted access for those who are law abiding and would NEVER use them to wantonly harm innocent people I believe is acceptable.

Well of course. I believe that a total lack of regulation and laws in general is acceptable for those who would never do anything wrong.

But the reality is that we don't write laws for those who would never harm innocent people. We write laws for those who don't have those internal controls, don't we?

So, given that there is a segment of society that does wantonly harm innocent people and even more who will mishandle firearms in such a way as to injure and kill, how do you propose to address that harm? Or is that harm at a level you're okay with?

[Dan the Man]

AntiPolitician wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm not okay with it, especially with those intent on using them for horrible things.
I don't know what you're getting at by "unintentionally".

You're not okay with it, but you have no thoughts on how to address it?

I mean "unintentionally" in terms of accidental maiming and killing with guns. You mentioned inexperience and ignorance, which leads to unintentional harm, right?

AntiPolitician wrote:

See my previous post on the use of "reasonable" as far as pertaining to firearms.
Proper and safe use, handling and storage of firearms IS common sense to me. Never using my firearms to intentionally hurt or kill someone IS common sense to me.

You're avoiding the point. Not everyone is reasonable. Not everyone has common sense. We see the tragic results of that every day.

The point is - what do we do about that? Do we simply let maiming and killing continue at the current rate or do we address gun violence using the law?

AntiPolitician wrote:

The anti-gun lobby as successfully implemented many of what they consider to be "reasonable, common-sense" laws over the years. It's been proven over and over again that those words on paper do very little if anything to stop firearms from falling into the hands of those who shouldn't have them, and make it harder for responsible gun owners to pursue their hobbies.

Again, the goal isn't to stop all violence. The goal is to reduce gun violence.

If legislation around gun purchase and ownership isn't the solution, what is?

AntiPolitician wrote:

I noticed that you opted to pick-and-choose which parts of my post to address. I ask you to address my posts as a whole and answer my questions, just as I've shown courtesy to you by answering yours.

I hope I have replied in a form that is satisfactorily courteous.

If you check, I think you'll see that the post I responded to didn't contain many questions. I replied to one. Sorry I missed the other one (although my response certainly addressed it).

And just because you quote my questions in your posts, doesn't mean you're showing me the courtesy of answering them. Your responses generally haven't been direct answers.

[AntiPolitician]

Along with items from my 1st post on this page that you failed to address, I have some questions for you:

Do you believe that there are responsible people out there who would NEVER harm another human being with a firearm and who are responsible firearm owners?

Don't you think that those same responsible people have a right to pursue their own happiness, whether it be collecting, target shooting, etc. with firearms and ammunition of their choosing?

Do you think that people have the right to defend their lives, homes and freedoms with equal or greater methods than those who would seek to take them from them by force?

Do you think that responsible firearms owners should not be punished because of the actions of those who aren't responsible?

[Dan the Man]

Wha wrote:

Look at Chicago. Guns are banned in the city, yet every night people are killed by guns. It's not the legal guns that people have to worry about it's the individual(s) who are looking for trouble. Criminals will always get guns despite what laws are on the books so creating new laws that criminals won't adhere to is just a waste of time and its targeting law abiding citizens instead of the criminals. I think a better way to deal with the extreme cases are to have better reporting on people who are at a greater risk of hurting other people because of Psychological problems. It just seems like people automatically want to say it’s a gun problem when in facts it's not. Allowing more people to carry weapons makes criminals think twice before they engage in unscrupulous behavior.

By this logic, we shouldn't have any laws at all. I mean, criminals will continue to do bad things whether or not there are laws, right? Why make bank robbery illegal - people will still rob banks. Why make murder illegal - people will still murder. Why make fraud illegal - people will still commit fraud.

This argument is nonsensical. OF COURSE people will continue to commit crime no matter how many laws we have. But that doesn't mean we abandon lawmaking, does it?

But at least you suggested a solution - identifying people who are unfit to own guns. How do you suggest doing that? How do we identify people who are at greater risk of hurting others?

[Dan the Man]

AntiPolitician wrote:

Along with items from my 1st post on this page that you failed to address, I have some questions for you:
Do you believe that there are responsible people out there who would NEVER harm another human being with a firearm and who are responsible firearm owners?
Don't you think that those same responsible people have a right to pursue their own happiness, whether it be collecting, target shooting, etc. with firearms and ammunition of their choosing?
Do you think that people have the right to defend their lives, homes and freedoms with equal or greater methods than those who would seek to take them from them by force?
Do you think that responsible firearms owners should not be punished because of the actions of those who aren't responsible?

Again, I answered both of your questions. The rest of your post was a statement of your beliefs. If I didn't respond, it's because I don't have any argument.

To answer your questions:
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
It's not "punishment" to be restricted from owning any weapon made, or from purchasing more ammunition than one would reasonably use for innocent shooting activities. I'm capable of driving at high rates of speed, but it's not a "punishment" for me that the roads are posted with speed limits or that I have to have to register with the state to drive at all. I'd rather not have to do those things, but they are reasonable restrictions to maintain the common good, not "punishment."

[AntiPolitician]

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Well of course. I believe that a total lack of regulation and laws in general is acceptable for those who would never do anything wrong.
But the reality is that we don't write laws for those who would never harm innocent people. We write laws for those who don't have those internal controls, don't we?
So, given that there is a segment of society that does wantonly harm innocent people and even more who will mishandle firearms in such a way as to injure and kill, how do you propose to address that harm? Or is that harm at a level you're okay with?

Aah, yes... we've come to the point that I was expecting, the conundrum that everyone wants answered at the heart of the whole issue:

Allow me to fire that question right back at you... how do you propose that we protect the freedoms I've stated previously of the segment of society who would never do anyone harm with a firearm, while not being cost or process prohibitive, while still preventing them from falling into the hands of the segment who would use them for harm... intentional or other? Or is punishing and disarming the law abiding and responsible, leaving them defenseless and unable to pursue their own happiness okay with you?

If both your question and mine can be answered agreeably, than the whole controversy may finally be able to be put to rest and we will have accomplished the unthinkable: solving an age-old debate on an online forum.

Since I don't see that or finite prediction of an individual's future happening, I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave those questions in the hopes that someone more intelligent than we can solve it someday. I see your points and concerns and consider them valid, as I hope you do mine.

In the meantime, it's still going to be an ongoing battle.

As for myself, I'm unwilling to give up freedoms for what I perceive to be a false sense of security. We've given up enough of that already.

[AntiPolitician]

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
By this logic, we shouldn't have any laws at all. I mean, criminals will continue to do bad things whether or not there are laws, right? Why make bank robbery illegal - people will still rob banks. Why make murder illegal - people will still murder. Why make fraud illegal - people will still commit fraud.
This argument is nonsensical. OF COURSE people will continue to commit crime no matter how many laws we have. But that doesn't mean we abandon lawmaking, does it?
But at least you suggested a solution - identifying people who are unfit to own guns. How do you suggest doing that? How do we identify people who are at greater risk of hurting others?

Yes, but freedom to rob and do bad things is not a right. I see laws more useful for prosecuting a crime AFTER it's been committed and less for preventing crime.

Think about it, murder is murder, regardless of the weapon used and the punishment is steep, even in our joke of a legal system.

Adding a felony possession charge for an illegal firearm isn't going to be a deterrent for someone who is only focusing on the end goal of killing as many people as they can, especially if they plan on taking their own lives.

[AntiPolitician]

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not "punishment" to be restricted from owning any weapon made, or from purchasing more ammunition than one would reasonably use for innocent shooting activities. I'm capable of driving at high rates of speed, but it's not a "punishment" for me that the roads are posted with speed limits or that I have to have to register with the state to drive at all. I'd rather not have to do those things, but they are reasonable restrictions to maintain the common good, not "punishment."

Well, I and many others do consider it punishment to be restricted to own something I desire because someone else's misuse of them.

I see your argument about posted speeds, but there are places that you can go and drive your vehicle as fast as you wish,(e.g. drag strip), and you can even have your own non-registered non-street legal vehicle to do it without restriction.

Sorry to bring this up, but it 's one of my pet peeves... not trying to bash you or tie it to our debate, but the phrase "rate of speed" is redundant by most common usage. "Speed" is a rate, unless it's used as a rate of a rate (e.g. rate at which speed varies).

[Dan the Man]

AntiPolitician wrote:

Allow me to fire that question right back at you... how do you propose that we protect the freedoms I've stated previously of the segment of society who would never do anyone harm with a firearm, while not being cost or process prohibitive, while still preventing them from falling into the hands of the segment who would use them for harm... intentional or other? Or is punishing and disarming the law abiding and responsible, leaving them defenseless and unable to pursue their own happiness okay with you?

You're last question slides back into my original point - that a debate on this issue can't happen when one side uses fearmongering and emotional reactivity in place of logical argument.

Nobody is proposing leaving law abiding citizens defenseless. Nobody is proposing that you are completely unarmed. Discussion of reasonable limitations on gun ownership is neither of those things, but you respond as if that's all we're talking about.

Laws that place some restrictions on everyone for the common good is a fundamental part of a successful, civilized society. As long as you're unwilling to accept that basic fact of life, it's impossible to have reasonable debate on this issue.

AntiPolitician wrote:

As for myself, I'm unwilling to give up freedoms for what I perceive to be a false sense of security. We've given up enough of that already.

Again, nobody is taking your freedom by preventing unlimited access to every weapon made. Some guns are appropriate for hunting and self-defense. Others are clearly made for purposes no civilian ever has legitimate use for. Some amount of ammunition is adequate for legitimate, law-abiding use. Other amounts exceed that are are necessary only for inflicting harm on society. Until you can acknowledge that distinction, you are simply doing what I originally complained about.

[Dan the Man]

AntiPolitician wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but freedom to rob and do bad things is not a right. I see laws more useful for prosecuting a crime AFTER it's been committed and less for preventing crime.
Think about it, murder is murder, regardless of the weapon used and the punishment is steep, even in our joke of a legal system.
Adding a felony possession charge for an illegal firearm isn't going to be a deterrent for someone who is only focusing on the end goal of killing as many people as they can, especially if they plan on taking their own lives.

Wow, are you honestly saying that law isn't a deterrent to crime? Laws don't prevent crime?

[Dan the Man]

AntiPolitician wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I and many others do consider it punishment to be restricted to own something I desire because someone else's misuse of them.
I see your argument about posted speeds, but there are places that you can go and drive your vehicle as fast as you wish,(e.g. drag strip), and you can even have your own non-registered non-street legal vehicle to do it without restriction.

There are plenty of other examples of activities that we aren't permitted unregulated access to because of the potential harm to others. That's simply part of living in a society - we make compromises for the common good. Unwillingness to compromise is detrimental to the common good.

One of the biggest problems in our nation is our exaltation of individual wants and desires over the common good. When people are unwilling to compromise what they want, conflate wants with needs, and sacrifice the common good for me, my, mine, then our society is weakened.

[AntiPolitician]

"Dan the Man",

You're clearly taking some of my statements out of context and appear to be foaming at the mouth with a "gotcha" attitude when you perceive that you've found something on which to pounce before you've taken the time to understand what's being said. Of course, sometimes my context isn't clear, so I will take responsibility for some of it.

You're using fear-mongering and emotional reactivity in your arguments as well.

When I said "defenseless", I meant it in the context of: if a criminal can get access to an assault rifle and go up against a law abiding citizen who can only legally own a shotgun or deer rifle, that's not a level playing field.

Many "assault-style" weapons are used in competition shooting and home defense and some are just fun to shoot at plinking targets... the same weapons that you appear to be advocating against.

When I made my statement on laws as a deterrent to crime, I meant in the scope of violent crime, such as the Aurora shooting, Virginia Tech, Columbine, et al.

The cost of ammunition is going up consistently. I know many people who buy and keep large quantities for hunting and competition shooting so that they can get ammo when it's cheaper instead of waiting and paying more for it in the future.

You keep going back to the common good argument. Many people and systems take advantage of laws and programs for the "common good". Communism was founded for the "common good" for an example. Granted, that's an extreme example, but it does fit as an example.

[AntiPolitician]

Also, you appear to have failed to answer my question in response to yours... how do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them without preventing law abiding and responsible owners from being able to have the firearms and ammunition they desire for collection and other personal usage (competition usage, self-defense, target shooting or just for fun)?

[Unarmed]

AntiPolitician wrote:

"Dan the Man",
You're clearly taking some of my statements out of context and appear to be foaming at the mouth with a "gotcha" attitude when you perceive that you've found something on which to pounce before you've taken the time to understand what's being said. Of course, sometimes my context isn't clear, so I will take responsibility for some of it.

TRANSLATION: "I'm losing this debate"