Attempted Gun Burglary Tied To Journal News Gun Maps

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/breaking-news-attempted-gun-burglary-tied-journal-news-gun-maps

If you don't happen to remember, a quite controversial thing happened a little while ago. Turns out another thing happened and that thing (the recent thing that is) turns out to be directly related to the first thing... and that's a bad thing ladies and gentlemen.

"Today Senator Greg Ball (Patterson - R, C, I) announced that a burglary has been reported on Davis Ave. in White Plains, New York that evidently ties into The Journal News gun maps. It is reported that the burglar used The Journal News' interactive gun map to target a home included on the map. Luckily the gun was locked up and no one was hurt."

"Senator Ball will be publicly unveiling three separate pieces of legislation, all with bipartisan support,among them (S2132), to protect the privacy rights of ordinary citizens; including: law enforcement personnel, victims of domestic violence and private citizens."

"Senate bill (S2132) would protect lawful gun owners, including thousands of retired and active law enforcement and victim of domestic violence survivors, from having their information publicly disclosed."

"Let it be clear however, that under Ball's legislation that has garnered bipartisan kudos and support, law enforcement and all related agencies would continue to have full access to permit information.

Is there an actual source for the claim, or simply a republican gun enthusiast arguing for his legislation? I could not find where it was "reported" that the burglar used this info in your link. After reading thr other link, apparently so many homes in that area have guns I could probably burgle any home and come away with a weapon.

Edit: To clarify I'm asking is there anything to go on other than the congressman's opinion. I see the correlation (gun owner on a map gets robbed) but not the causation (crimminal says I robbed him because he was on a map).

Check your sources OP, it's a hardcore conservative republican who's a member of the gun lobby. He's obviously going to lie about this.

Plus gun owners are an objective danger to the public. All guns can become murder weapons, so every presence of guns is a risk. People have a right to know who's a risk around them. There's no such thing as a right to privacy about gun ownership. Neither does it protect gun owners like that lying senator claims, because the escalation of violence that guns bring, comes to their doorstep regardless. The only thing he's trying to do is protect potential school shooters from appearing on the radar before it's too late.

I wonder how he justifies that to himself...

If it's a pro gun republican stating this he screwed his own side. Because this event would prove that criminals are using and looking for legal guns to add to their own arsenal. Great way to prove more legal guns = more illegal guns!

Blablahb:
Check your sources OP, it's a hardcore conservative republican who's a member of the gun lobby. He's obviously going to lie about this.

Plus gun owners are an objective danger to the public. All guns can become murder weapons, so every presence of guns is a risk. People have a right to know who's a risk around them. There's no such thing as a right to privacy about gun ownership. Neither does it protect gun owners like that lying senator claims, because the escalation of violence that guns bring, comes to their doorstep regardless. The only thing he's trying to do is protect potential school shooters from appearing on the radar before it's too late.

I wonder how he justifies that to himself...

As usual let's break this down.
"Plus gun owners are an objective danger to the public. All guns can become murder weapons, so every presence of guns is a risk."
So can all knives, hammers, fists, you get the picture. The presence of everything in the world is a risk.
"People have a right to know who's a risk around them."
So basically everyone
"There's no such thing as a right to privacy about gun ownership."
Yes there is
"Neither does it protect gun owners like that lying senator claims, because the escalation of violence that guns bring, comes to their doorstep regardless. The only thing he's trying to do is protect potential school shooters from appearing on the radar before it's too late."
Potential school shooters? Seriously? Not everyone with a gun is a violent person, a small minority of gun owners commit crimes or are a risk to people around them. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens who like the idea of being able to defend themselves against criminals.

Xan Krieger:
"Plus gun owners are an objective danger to the public. All guns can become murder weapons, so every presence of guns is a risk."
So can all knives, hammers, fists, you get the picture. The presence of everything in the world is a risk.

To which I can rewind the usual routine, the way the gun lobby has lost this argument a million times before: Tools have a purpose, guns do not. The sole purpose of these is to commit murder with.

Anyone who wants to argue differently, can't oppose a gun ban, because the restrictions on weapons imposed by one, would leave open the ability for hunting, sports shooting and the only exception to this rule. So the gun lobby loses if they contest guns are for murder, because then they need to support a gun ban. They also lose if they affirm guns are for murder

Xan Krieger:
"There's no such thing as a right to privacy about gun ownership."
Yes there is

Okay, quote the law where found the bit that there's no such thing as a government responsibility for public safety, and a right to do whatever you like with your guns without anyone knowing about.

Please don't make the mistake of quoting that 2nd amendment. That says nothing about such things.

Xan Krieger:
Potential school shooters? Seriously?

Yes, you need guns to be able to perpetrate a shooting you know. 100% of all shootings are perpetrated by people with guns, gun owners.

Also, you can't defend yourself using firearms, that's a myth, one we covered extensively and which the gun lobby lost because they failed to prove it happens often enough to outweigh all the gun violence, so repeating that already busted myth would be the same as being purposely obtuse.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
"Plus gun owners are an objective danger to the public. All guns can become murder weapons, so every presence of guns is a risk."
So can all knives, hammers, fists, you get the picture. The presence of everything in the world is a risk.

To which I can rewind the usual routine, the way the gun lobby has lost this argument a million times before: Tools have a purpose, guns do not. The sole purpose of these is to commit murder with.

Anyone who wants to argue differently, can't oppose a gun ban, because the restrictions on weapons imposed by one, would leave open the ability for hunting, sports shooting and the only exception to this rule. So the gun lobby loses if they contest guns are for murder, because then they need to support a gun ban. They also lose if they affirm guns are for murder

Xan Krieger:
"There's no such thing as a right to privacy about gun ownership."
Yes there is

Okay, quote the law where found the bit that there's no such thing as a government responsibility for public safety, and a right to do whatever you like with your guns without anyone knowing about.

Please don't make the mistake of quoting that 2nd amendment. That says nothing about such things.

Xan Krieger:
Potential school shooters? Seriously?

Yes, you need guns to be able to perpetrate a shooting you know. 100% of all shootings are perpetrated by people with guns, gun owners.

Also, you can't defend yourself using firearms, that's a myth, one we covered extensively and which the gun lobby lost because they failed to prove it happens often enough to outweigh all the gun violence, so repeating that already busted myth would be the same as being purposely obtuse.

"Tools have a purpose, guns do not. The sole purpose of these is to commit murder with."
Or self-defense, or target practice, or hunting.

"Anyone who wants to argue differently, can't oppose a gun ban, because the restrictions on weapons imposed by one, would leave open the ability for hunting, sports shooting and the only exception to this rule. So the gun lobby loses if they contest guns are for murder, because then they need to support a gun ban. They also lose if they affirm guns are for murder "
And self-defense of course

"quote the law where found the bit that there's no such thing as a government responsibility for public safety,"
Telling people about other's private property =/= public safety.

"Yes, you need guns to be able to perpetrate a shooting you know. 100% of all shootings are perpetrated by people with guns, gun owners.

Also, you can't defend yourself using firearms, that's a myth, one we covered extensively and which the gun lobby lost because they failed to prove it happens often enough to outweigh all the gun violence, so repeating that already busted myth would be the same as being purposely obtuse."
No not gun owners the same way stealing a car does not make you the car's owner. As for self-defense are we gonna cover this again? You call it a myth, I call it a fact. If someone is attacking you and you have a gun you're telling me you can't shoot them in self-defense? Of course you can, you have a right to defend yourself.

Blablahb:

Also, you can't defend yourself using firearms, that's a myth

Then why was I able to do so?

And yes, I will hound you to the gates of hell with this if you keep lying about a situation you were never involved in on any level. I don't appreciate people slandering me.

Comocat:
Is there an actual source for the claim, or simply a republican gun enthusiast arguing for his legislation? I could not find where it was "reported" that the burglar used this info in your link. After reading thr other link, apparently so many homes in that area have guns I could probably burgle any home and come away with a weapon.

Edit: To clarify I'm asking is there anything to go on other than the congressman's opinion. I see the correlation (gun owner on a map gets robbed) but not the causation (crimminal says I robbed him because he was on a map).

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/13/gun-permit-list-to-blame-for-white-plains-burglary/

This is the best article I could find of course "went straight for the guns" hasn't been confirmed by anyone besides the "source". They didn't get the gun(s) at least.

I do think the map is generally in bad form and legislation might be appropriate, could we throw that in with the national gun bill as a concession to conservatives?

Blablahb:
Check your sources OP, it's a hardcore conservative republican who's a member of the gun lobby. He's obviously going to lie about this.

Plus gun owners are an objective danger to the public. All guns can become murder weapons, so every presence of guns is a risk. People have a right to know who's a risk around them. There's no such thing as a right to privacy about gun ownership. Neither does it protect gun owners like that lying senator claims, because the escalation of violence that guns bring, comes to their doorstep regardless. The only thing he's trying to do is protect potential school shooters from appearing on the radar before it's too late.

I wonder how he justifies that to himself...

Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much? Yes all guns can be murder weapons, as can fists, and bats, and cars. There is little risk of someone who went through all the legal hoops to get a firearm using it to harm others. Thats just silly. You are basing this whole idea on fear of other people. The 2nd amendment is not concerned with hunting or sport. Its concerned with the preservation of liberty.

Shock and Awe:

Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much? Yes all guns can be murder weapons, as can fists, and bats, and cars. There is little risk of someone who went through all the legal hoops to get a firearm using it to harm others. Thats just silly. You are basing this whole idea on fear of other people. The 2nd amendment is not concerned with hunting or sport. Its concerned with the preservation of liberty.

Can't speak for blah but here is why i wouldn't trust them: they may very well go batshit crazy one day and guns have that nasty tendency to increase the K/D ratio of people who go on a killing rampage.
And secondly those legal owners are great suppliers of guns for criminals. (willingly or unwillingly)

generals3:

Shock and Awe:

Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much? Yes all guns can be murder weapons, as can fists, and bats, and cars. There is little risk of someone who went through all the legal hoops to get a firearm using it to harm others. Thats just silly. You are basing this whole idea on fear of other people. The 2nd amendment is not concerned with hunting or sport. Its concerned with the preservation of liberty.

Can't speak for blah but here is why i wouldn't trust them: they may very well go batshit crazy one day and guns have that nasty tendency to increase the K/D ratio of people who go on a killing rampage.
And secondly those legal owners are great suppliers of guns for criminals. (willingly or unwillingly)

Thats true, any person may go apeshit one day. However statistically speaking people with firearms permits (like the one involved in this case) are far less likely to commit a crime. Most crime isn't done in the heat of the moment or during some psychotic episode. Its planned and it part of a pattern.

As far as legal owners providing guns for criminals I couldn't say. I haven't seen any info on that besides the fact that 70% of guns are acquired illegally so I can't make an educated comment on that.

generals3:

Shock and Awe:

Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much? Yes all guns can be murder weapons, as can fists, and bats, and cars. There is little risk of someone who went through all the legal hoops to get a firearm using it to harm others. Thats just silly. You are basing this whole idea on fear of other people. The 2nd amendment is not concerned with hunting or sport. Its concerned with the preservation of liberty.

Can't speak for blah but here is why i wouldn't trust them: they may very well go batshit crazy one day and guns have that nasty tendency to increase the K/D ratio of people who go on a killing rampage.
And secondly those legal owners are great suppliers of guns for criminals. (willingly or unwillingly)

Would you, unlike Blahab, at least advocate for police officers to be made legally culpable for our protection in compensation for that?

GunsmithKitten:

Blablahb:

Also, you can't defend yourself using firearms, that's a myth

Then why was I able to do so?

Because you didn't. You murdered that poor soul in cold blood. MURDERER!

Pink.

LetalisK:

GunsmithKitten:

Blablahb:

Also, you can't defend yourself using firearms, that's a myth

Then why was I able to do so?

Because you didn't. You murdered that poor soul in cold blood. MURDERER!

Pink.

Eh, it would be more like attempted murder, which the county prosecutor actually brought forth (and got thrown out in a matter of seconds). But I already brought up that fact to Blahab, and he proceeded to go off like a broken record about me "hiding behind legal hairsplitting".

GunsmithKitten:

LetalisK:

GunsmithKitten:

Then why was I able to do so?

Because you didn't. You murdered that poor soul in cold blood. MURDERER!

Pink.

Eh, it would be more like attempted murder, which the county prosecutor actually brought forth (and got thrown out in a matter of seconds). But I already brought up that fact to Blahab, and he proceeded to go off like a broken record about me "hiding behind legal hairsplitting".

And he would be right. Facts are just there to obscure the truth. You gotta go with your gut.

OT: I don't see this getting off the ground at all, but it's all very...cult-like. And reeks of paranoia, to be honest.

GunsmithKitten:
Then why was I able to do so?

You never made it clear just how you were in mortal danger, or how guns were the sole thing that could save you.

Let alone that you presented a case which proves that such a thing happens so often it outweighs the loss of 30.000 lives every year.

Shock and Awe:
Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much?

The fact that they murder thousands of people every year may have something to do with that. Also I live in a pretty gun-free society myself. The odds of being confronted with armed violence are very small, firearms violence almost neglicable. I've seen how much better things are when society isn't flooded with guns.

Plus you have no idea how many hotheads, deluded people, mentally unstable folks and such I've seen over the years. The prospect of all of those carrying the means to turn a disagreement into a massacre in a split second is enough to make you realise there's not a single decent argument to be made for unlimited gun possesion and violence.


Kind frankly it even mystifies me how some Americans can go "Well, yes, 20 children have been murdered, but I don't care, I want my guns", and then get incredibly rude and hostile about that towards anyone who disagrees with them. I've always been taught a strong sense of responsibility, so sacrificing children's lives to buy myself a false sense of security wouldn't even occur as an option to me.

Blablahb:
You never made it clear just how you were in mortal danger, or how guns were the sole thing that could save you.

I did.

A man with a blade attempted to get me into his car. Had I done so, I would have been killed by his own admitted plan. He had no intention to let me live.

He was deterred and stood dwon only when he was facing a firearm.

Let alone that you presented a case which proves that such a thing happens so often it outweighs the loss of 30.000 lives every year.

Doesn't mean a thing to me as I was talking about my individual situation.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much?

The fact that they murder thousands of people every year may have something to do with that. Also I live in a pretty gun-free society myself. The odds of being confronted with armed violence are very small, firearms violence almost neglicable. I've seen how much better things are when society isn't flooded with guns.

Plus you have no idea how many hotheads, deluded people, mentally unstable folks and such I've seen over the years. The prospect of all of those carrying the means to turn a disagreement into a massacre in a split second is enough to make you realise there's not a single decent argument to be made for unlimited gun possesion and violence.


Kind frankly it even mystifies me how some Americans can go "Well, yes, 20 children have been murdered, but I don't care, I want my guns", and then get incredibly rude and hostile about that towards anyone who disagrees with them. I've always been taught a strong sense of responsibility, so sacrificing children's lives to buy myself a false sense of security wouldn't even occur as an option to me.

I can understand where you're coming from but you need to remember is that the vast majority of people with guns will never use them against people defensively or offensively. They have no want to hurt anyone, they just don't want to be hurt themselves. Even people tat seem like hotheads and weirdos almost never hurt anyone. The danger with gun crime does not lie in unstable people and radical right/left wingers. It lies in criminals using violence as a means to an end. In the end most gun crime is about money and drugs. These are social problems that would exist without firearms. If there were no guns these career criminals would just beat/stab the shit out of each other with bats/knives.

You also need to remember that things like Sandy Hook and Aurora are statistical anomalies. Is it tragic? Yes, but it only begets more trouble to try and disarm a people who consider bearing arms to be among the most important of rights.

Blablahb:

GunsmithKitten:
Then why was I able to do so?

You never made it clear just how you were in mortal danger, or how guns were the sole thing that could save you.

Let alone that you presented a case which proves that such a thing happens so often it outweighs the loss of 30.000 lives every year.

Shock and Awe:
Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much?

The fact that they murder thousands of people every year may have something to do with that. Also I live in a pretty gun-free society myself. The odds of being confronted with armed violence are very small, firearms violence almost neglicable. I've seen how much better things are when society isn't flooded with guns.

Plus you have no idea how many hotheads, deluded people, mentally unstable folks and such I've seen over the years. The prospect of all of those carrying the means to turn a disagreement into a massacre in a split second is enough to make you realise there's not a single decent argument to be made for unlimited gun possesion and violence.


Kind frankly it even mystifies me how some Americans can go "Well, yes, 20 children have been murdered, but I don't care, I want my guns", and then get incredibly rude and hostile about that towards anyone who disagrees with them. I've always been taught a strong sense of responsibility, so sacrificing children's lives to buy myself a false sense of security wouldn't even occur as an option to me.

One time I left my AR-15 fully loaded and put it near an open window. I left it for an hour and when I came back it didn't take off and go on a shooting spree. I guess I got lucky that I have such a good firearm. Cause you know, some firearms go berserk on their owners and shoot them. Good thing I raised my AR right or surely it would have turned evil.

Blablahb:

GunsmithKitten:
Then why was I able to do so?

You never made it clear just how you were in mortal danger, or how guns were the sole thing that could save you.

Let alone that you presented a case which proves that such a thing happens so often it outweighs the loss of 30.000 lives every year.

Shock and Awe:
Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much?

The fact that they murder thousands of people every year may have something to do with that. Also I live in a pretty gun-free society myself. The odds of being confronted with armed violence are very small, firearms violence almost neglicable. I've seen how much better things are when society isn't flooded with guns.

Plus you have no idea how many hotheads, deluded people, mentally unstable folks and such I've seen over the years. The prospect of all of those carrying the means to turn a disagreement into a massacre in a split second is enough to make you realise there's not a single decent argument to be made for unlimited gun possesion and violence.


Kind frankly it even mystifies me how some Americans can go "Well, yes, 20 children have been murdered, but I don't care, I want my guns", and then get incredibly rude and hostile about that towards anyone who disagrees with them. I've always been taught a strong sense of responsibility, so sacrificing children's lives to buy myself a false sense of security wouldn't even occur as an option to me.

"Also I live in a pretty gun-free society myself. The odds of being confronted with armed violence are very small, firearms violence almost neglicable." Finally we have the source of why you don't like guns, you don't understand them or live with them on a day to day basis. Maybe you should try it, come over here and learn it's not that bad, your odds of dying to someone with a gun is small. I've been living here my whole life, 22 years, and I've never been shot. I've been bitten by 3 dogs so in my experience dogs are more dangerous than guns (note that the 3 bites happened on 3 seperate occasions and only one of the dogs was mine, they were all forgiven and nothing bad happened except some blood loss on my part).

Blablahb:
Check your sources OP, it's a hardcore conservative republican who's a member of the gun lobby. He's obviously going to lie about this.

Plus gun owners are an objective danger to the public. All guns can become murder weapons, so every presence of guns is a risk. People have a right to know who's a risk around them. There's no such thing as a right to privacy about gun ownership. Neither does it protect gun owners like that lying senator claims, because the escalation of violence that guns bring, comes to their doorstep regardless. The only thing he's trying to do is protect potential school shooters from appearing on the radar before it's too late.

I wonder how he justifies that to himself...

might want to be careful, a conservative republican doesnt neccessarily mean the same thing in NY as it does elsewhere. Hell we have had politicians who have run on the conversative ticket who act more like moderate DEMOCRATS than moderate republicans, let alone far right republicans.

Not to mention Senator Ball does not seem to be popular within his own party.

In terms of his policies, he seems to switch between typical left and right views. He looks more like a centralist to me.

GunsmithKitten:

generals3:

Shock and Awe:

Ah, mein freund, why do you fear gun owners so much? Yes all guns can be murder weapons, as can fists, and bats, and cars. There is little risk of someone who went through all the legal hoops to get a firearm using it to harm others. Thats just silly. You are basing this whole idea on fear of other people. The 2nd amendment is not concerned with hunting or sport. Its concerned with the preservation of liberty.

Can't speak for blah but here is why i wouldn't trust them: they may very well go batshit crazy one day and guns have that nasty tendency to increase the K/D ratio of people who go on a killing rampage.
And secondly those legal owners are great suppliers of guns for criminals. (willingly or unwillingly)

Would you, unlike Blahab, at least advocate for police officers to be made legally culpable for our protection in compensation for that?

Well that seems like a no-brainer. Police officers should always be made to try and protect/save people (while remaining realistic, obviously). If there is clear negligence than they should be held accountable.

Shock and Awe:
Yes all guns can be murder weapons, as can fists, and bats, and cars.

The amount of killing one can do with those isn't exactly equivalent.

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:
Yes all guns can be murder weapons, as can fists, and bats, and cars.

The amount of killing one can do with those isn't exactly equivalent.

Well that really depends on how they're used. Serial killers with the highest death tolls in the US used knives and strangulation if I recall correctly.

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:
Yes all guns can be murder weapons, as can fists, and bats, and cars.

The amount of killing one can do with those isn't exactly equivalent.

Well that really depends on how they're used. Serial killers with the highest death tolls in the US used knives and strangulation if I recall correctly.

You seem to be under the odd impression that had something to do with the tool used.

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

The amount of killing one can do with those isn't exactly equivalent.

Well that really depends on how they're used. Serial killers with the highest death tolls in the US used knives and strangulation if I recall correctly.

You seem to be under the odd impression that had something to do with the tool used.

That all depends. Guns are loud and messy. In many places if one is heard going off the police are called.

GunsmithKitten:

Would you, unlike Blahab, at least advocate for police officers to be made legally culpable for our protection in compensation for that?

I'll never get why America allowed the police to not be responsible in the first place. Seriously I think the American gun culture is ridiculous and needs to change but if you made me choose between proper gun control or a police force that actually does the job they're meant to do I wouldn't hesitate in choosing the police force. A decent police force is important gun or no guns, it takes priority and should be something the government implement alongside any gun control.

Actually scratch that, they should be doing it anyway, it's a fucking disgrace that they let this slide.

Xan Krieger:
Finally we have the source of why you don't like guns, you don't understand them or live with them on a day to day basis. Maybe you should try it, come over here and learn it's not that bad, your odds of dying to someone with a gun is small.

I don't live in a country with religious fanatics in charge and I still think it's a bad idea, does that mean I just don't understand a theocracy? Just because me (and Blahb) don't live in a country surrounded by guns doesn't mean we can't form reasonable opinions. You don't live with UK (or Dutch) specific culture but you can still have a valid opinion on it that is in no way diminished by not being immersed in it.

Now this bits all me as I'm not sure about Blahb but the issue is not guns in of themselves, they have a role that they fill, the problem is the totally alien attitude to guns. Last big school shooting in the UK - handguns are banned. Last big shooting in the US - stores are literally sold out.

You can boil my problem down to 3 words; inclusive gun policy - you can have a gun unless you do something to ban you from having one. That is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. We don't let people drive mopeds without them proving they wont kill themselves or someone else with it but we give them a gun and hope for the best?

I'm not joking changing that would be all you would have to do to get me (at least partially) on side. I have no issue with someone owning a gun if they prove they aren't a risk to themselves or others.[1] Change the law to make sure that the idiots, gun fetishists and would be spree killers can't get their hands on guns like they would a super soaker, that's all it takes.

It's not that we don't understand guns or the culture it's that we don't see the gain to loss ratio the same way you do. You say "well it's rare, it's not that big a deal" but we don't see it that way; the chance of being in a car crash is quite low but we still legislate on things like seatbelts and airbags because the risk is there, no matter how small.

It doesn't matter if 99% of gun users are safe, it's that 1% that presents such a significant risk that we can't ignore
it, same way that it might only be in 1% of cases that a seatbelt saves lives but we still all have to wear them.

[1] Some other issues on taking them out in public, etc. but one step at a time

Karma168:

GunsmithKitten:

Would you, unlike Blahab, at least advocate for police officers to be made legally culpable for our protection in compensation for that?

I'll never get why America allowed the police to not be responsible in the first place. Seriously I think the American gun culture is ridiculous and needs to change but if you made me choose between proper gun control or a police force that actually does the job they're meant to do I wouldn't hesitate in choosing the police force. A decent police force is important gun or no guns, it takes priority and should be something the government implement alongside any gun control.

Actually scratch that, they should be doing it anyway, it's a fucking disgrace that they let this slide.

Xan Krieger:
Finally we have the source of why you don't like guns, you don't understand them or live with them on a day to day basis. Maybe you should try it, come over here and learn it's not that bad, your odds of dying to someone with a gun is small.

I don't live in a country with religious fanatics in charge and I still think it's a bad idea, does that mean I just don't understand a theocracy? Just because me (and Blahb) don't live in a country surrounded by guns doesn't mean we can't form reasonable opinions. You don't live with UK (or Dutch) specific culture but you can still have a valid opinion on it that is in no way diminished by not being immersed in it.

Now this bits all me as I'm not sure about Blahb but the issue is not guns in of themselves, they have a role that they fill, the problem is the totally alien attitude to guns. Last big school shooting in the UK - handguns are banned. Last big shooting in the US - stores are literally sold out.

You can boil my problem down to 3 words; inclusive gun policy - you can have a gun unless you do something to ban you from having one. That is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. We don't let people drive mopeds without them proving they wont kill themselves or someone else with it but we give them a gun and hope for the best?

I'm not joking changing that would be all you would have to do to get me (at least partially) on side. I have no issue with someone owning a gun if they prove they aren't a risk to themselves or others.[1] Change the law to make sure that the idiots, gun fetishists and would be spree killers can't get their hands on guns like they would a super soaker, that's all it takes.

It's not that we don't understand guns or the culture it's that we don't see the gain to loss ratio the same way you do. You say "well it's rare, it's not that big a deal" but we don't see it that way; the chance of being in a car crash is quite low but we still legislate on things like seatbelts and airbags because the risk is there, no matter how small.

It doesn't matter if 99% of gun users are safe, it's that 1% that presents such a significant risk that we can't ignore
it, same way that it might only be in 1% of cases that a seatbelt saves lives but we still all have to wear them.

So, to me punishing 99% of people of a culture because of the crimes of 1% of a culture is...I almost want to say tyranny but it doesn't quite match it. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to "Some black people are thieves, therefore all black people are thieves" or "Gypsys" or "Jews" or 'Catholics'. I can prove that there have been black people, jewish people, catholic people, who have committed crimes. Quite deadly crimes, probably.

And with Blah it's like someone saying they hate all Christians, and Christians are evil...without ever having talked to a christian person, or read the bible, or at all connected to the thing they profess to hate. I don't own a weapon, but I've held one, I've shot with it, and I've known people who would be dead now if they hadn't had one. Blah just comes of as an isolated university student spewing fairly stereotypical western European university views.

I mean he's quite literally said anyone who owns a gun for any purpose other then 'hunting' ( I think) is a paranoid racist out to protect themselves from minorities. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.398188-School-shooting-at-taft-high-school-in-california?page=4#16297819

And are you seriously OK with someone who's never interacted with the UK government on any level coming in and telling YOU, in YOUR NATION, how they should live despite having no idea how it works?

Also, I'm still waiting to hear whether or not the source is factual or not. Automatically assuming it's not is hubris and bigotry, automatically assuming it is is prejudice and foolish. Just because someone is 'conservative' does not automatically make them 'a liar'.

Also, if we can start proclaiming which house owns guns, why can't we start reporting who owns, say, marital aids? How about people who own a bible. Or a Qur'an? What about any house that owns the communist manifesto?

Guns are the 'scary thing' today, but what about tomorrow? It's a bit of a slippery slope arguement, but I'm not actually arguing there's going to be a significant event in the future as a result of this (like "Gays marry -> world ends") but just "If you can do it for guns, why not something else people find scary in the future?". Can you imagine if someone had released a list of everyone who owned a copy of the communist manifesto during the Cuban missile crisis?

I don't want to know what goes on in peoples bedrooms, why should I care what they have in their cabinet? As long as it's not a dead body, stolen goods, or explosives, I just don't give a shit and no one else should have the right to snoop either.

Hell, police need a warrant to do a hard search of anything that isn't obvious and out in the open don't they?

Heh, it's more like a slip 'n slide fallacy since theirs no slope downwards, just sidewards XD

[1] Some other issues on taking them out in public, etc. but one step at a time

Why don't the people with their addresses listed just use their guns to repel the burglars? If owning a gun is such a great deterrent then these houses should be safest from burglars. The thieves should instead be targeting the houses that aren't listed. The law invalidates the concept of firearms as a deterrent since it assumes that people who own a firearm are incapable of defending themselves and that having a weapon significantly increases your chances of being targeted for crime. Bonus points since owning the weapon in the case of the burgled man did not in fact allow him to apprehend the criminal on his own, he had to wait for law enforcement which effectively dealt with the threat. Check and mate gun activists.

Notsomuch:
Why don't the people with their addresses listed just use their guns to repel the burglars? If owning a gun is such a great deterrent then these houses should be safest from burglars. The thieves should instead be targeting the houses that aren't listed. The law invalidates the concept of firearms as a deterrent since it assumes that people who own a firearm are incapable of defending themselves and that having a weapon significantly increases your chances of being targeted for crime. Bonus points since owning the weapon in the case of the burgled man did not in fact allow him to apprehend the criminal on his own, he had to wait for law enforcement which effectively dealt with the threat. Check and mate gun activists.

Cause people aren't home 24/7? They may not be in the house to actually do anything about it. This event is actually the opposite of what I expected to happen, as i expected burglars to use the map to pick gunless houses as easy marks.

Shock and Awe:
Well that really depends on how they're used. Serial killers with the highest death tolls in the US used knives and strangulation if I recall correctly.

Now you're fleeing away from the argument. Serial killers are rare, violence due to gun ownership is an everyday occurance that kills thousands.

Xan Krieger:
"Also I live in a pretty gun-free society myself. The odds of being confronted with armed violence are very small, firearms violence almost neglicable." Finally we have the source of why you don't like guns, you don't understand them or live with them on a day to day basis.

That's a big and rather silly assumption on your part, considering how I've been systematically destroying the arguments of the gun lobby. I know both what guns do technically, and what the consequences of gun possession are. Both of these I have argued succesfully at many occasions. Not just that, I deal with agression, the occasional violence and de-escalation on a professional level for a few years so, so I understand perfectly how such things work. For certain I understand it a lot better than paranoid people who pull guns on others if they carry around a screwdriver or other tools, or dare to be black in their neighbourhood, or other forms of gun owner's 'self-defense'. Weapons escalate a situation at all times, even if just for psychological reasons, because the explicit threat of murder that cowardly pulling a gun makes, is mirroring someone's agression, which escalates the situation. Don't mirror agression and people can stay at peak agressiveness for 2 minutes at most before their own brain calms them down, simple psychological phenomenon.

The stuff that some deluded people buy guns for because they believe murder is in order, I've dealth with peacefully on dozens of occasions, so give me a break.

If I don't understand, and only gun freaks and murderers understand, then how come the gun lobbyists have consistently lost every argument they entered?

Lunar Shadow:
Cause people aren't home 24/7? They may not be in the house to actually do anything about it. This event is actually the opposite of what I expected to happen, as i expected burglars to use the map to pick gunless houses as easy marks.

Nothing seems to have occured. It's just a loony gun activist republican who claims something like that has happened. He's likely lying.

Bentusi16:

So, to me punishing 99% of people of a culture because of the crimes of 1% of a culture is...I almost want to say tyranny but it doesn't quite match it. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to "Some black people are thieves, therefore all black people are thieves" or "Gypsys" or "Jews" or 'Catholics'. I can prove that there have been black people, jewish people, catholic people, who have committed crimes. Quite deadly crimes, probably.

Is it punishing the 99% of people who can drive perfectly well by making them prove they can because 1% of people shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel? I'm not saying take guns away from everyone, I'm saying make them prove they are responsible first. If 99% of gun users are responsible then they will have zero problem in getting one. That's no more a punishment than sitting your drivers test.

Imagine how much carnage we would see if we let 100% of people who want to drive have a licence, some people are so irresponsible and incapable of acting safely behind a wheel it is much better to make everyone prove they are responsible first. Same with guns.

Blablahb:
Plus gun owners are an objective danger to the public. All guns can become murder weapons, so every presence of guns is a risk. People have a right to know who's a risk around them. There's no such thing as a right to privacy about gun ownership. Neither does it protect gun owners like that lying senator claims, because the escalation of violence that guns bring, comes to their doorstep regardless. The only thing he's trying to do is protect potential school shooters from appearing on the radar before it's too late.

I wonder how he justifies that to himself...

There are already plenty of others debating the existence of guns with you so I'm not going to get into that, but I just want to know if you understand the reasons people are concerned about this list from a "non-gun" point of view. A map like that is akin to having a map of who in the area has a security system, or a guard dog, or who lives alone. It is a perfect tool for burglars to know what they're getting into ahead of time, or even more unsavory people like rapists.

So for that trade-off of not knowing if they're going to break in and find a defenseless woman or a gun pointed at their head, what exactly is gained from that? Knowing who owns a gun. But that knowledge itself is pretty useless because 1) Mass murderers are the way they are due to mental illness, which has virtually no correspondance with who actually owns a gun and 2) Does not at all address the issue of potential mass-murderers who acquire their guns by way of others (which was the case in the elementary school shooting just a few weeks ago).

In fact, this can only help potential mass-murderers in that situation. They know exactly where to go to find the tools for their plot. They don't have to have a relative with guns or fiddle with the black market, they just have to do a quick search on the gun map and find the easiest place to grab a gun.

All of those tools given to people who want to steal, murder, and rape, all so you can have a map that doesn't really keep anybody safer in the slightest. The "safeness" you are perceiving from knowing which of your neighbors has a gun is based on the veneer of paranoia you've coated the very idea of guns with. Really, what does it help? Sure you know which neighbor owns a gun, but you have no idea if they are mentally unstable or not based purely off that fact. That sort of information alone doesn't actively prevent gun crimes, but as has been demonstrated in this case it does actively aid in other types of crimes and the pursuit of guns.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Well that really depends on how they're used. Serial killers with the highest death tolls in the US used knives and strangulation if I recall correctly.

Now you're fleeing away from the argument. Serial killers are rare, violence due to gun ownership is an everyday occurance that kills thousands.

Thats absolutely true, serial killings and mass murders are incredibly uncommon regardless of the murder weapon. The point I was responding to was that guns increase the amount of killing that could be committed. I said that depends. Guns are loud and guns are messy. In addition they require some skill to use at range effectively. Blunt objects and blades don't really share this problem as much. Firearms have much more killing power then any other common weapon, thats true. However most do not have the ability to exploit this. Multiple homicide cases are much rarer then single homicides if I recall correctly so the gun in and of itself could have been replaced by a bat or blade in many cases. The nature of crime in the US is not random nor is it driven by anger or sudden spurts of emotion. Its a business that is closely tied to the drug trade and those involved.

Also, if you're going to accuse someone of fleeing arguments, it'd help not to totally drop off arguments when you're losing.

Blablahb:

Lunar Shadow:
Cause people aren't home 24/7? They may not be in the house to actually do anything about it. This event is actually the opposite of what I expected to happen, as i expected burglars to use the map to pick gunless houses as easy marks.

Nothing seems to have occured. It's just a loony gun activist republican who claims something like that has happened. He's likely lying.

Incorrect my friend. The local police have confirmed there was a burglary at a home that was listed on the map and it appears they were trying to get the firearm. Police are currently investigating the link.

Source

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked