Gun control and your thoughts

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

They need a 350-500 question quiz with repeated questions to trip up psychopaths run by the federal government, you can get a voucher that day at a gun store and take your number home, take the quiz to rule out psycho people and tendencies, bring the number back printed from your at home printer certifiing you passed the quiz and purchase your fire arm.

They also need to raise the premium of firearms, primarily hand guns to above 1000 - 1100 per hand gun to prevent what im sure would be a credible amount of fire arms falling into the wrong hands and careless behaviors, along with problems caused by fire arms of a poor quaility… this way people that really think its needed to own a fire arm will make the needed and extra effort to purchase a home defense weapon and will be mindful enough to make sure to keep it where its safe.

It’ll keep poor weapons out of the hands of individuals in areas where 100 - 500 weapons are prevelent and prone to criminal activity…

What do you think

2

Bad people will do bad things with guns.

Good people will do good things with guns.

Not sure what is so hard to understand. Focus on giving more guns to good people and less guns to bad people. Problem solved.

3

Try telling the president of the united states or any rich and famous dude Hey bro we have gun control so all your body guard and security guys will now be armed with tasers only.

Yeah, good luck. Those guys don’t believe in gun control. They want their own good guys HEAVY ARMED.

As you too should be. Assuming you are good, that is.

4

This is the same reasoning I use for why everyone should have nukes, combined with the fact that the reason we have that amendment thingy is so that we can defend ourselves from people who are just as armed as we are. Except bad.

Thankfully, with the advent of WILD artificial intelligence, we don’t have to worry about that problem.

5

Most of the problem with guns in the US isn’t about new guns being purchased, it’s about the guns that are already ‘in the wild’. Layering new regulations on gun purchases doesn’t do anything to address that – which is not to say it shouldn’t be done, just that when it doesn’t make a dent in the problem we shouldn’t call it a failure.

Regulating the guns that are already owned is a much harder problem to tackle. A few possibilities:

  • Buyback programs that let people turn guns they own into cash. They’re expensive but they may be worth the price.
  • Rewards for reporting illegal guns. Similar to buybacks, but tend to target the guns most likely to be involved in wanton violence, because e.g. gangs can effectively trade their enemies’ guns for cash.
  • Regulations on bullets or bullet components might help, though the supply of bullets in the wild might itself be too high for this to make much difference. But since they’re an expendable resource necessary to keep guns working, restricting supply could restrict gun use (and could make buyback programs more appealing). And if bullet purchases required registration, background check etc. we place on gun purchases, it could effectively track the guns those bullets end up in.

This is a silly argument. Presidents and other famous people really are at greater risk of violence, and the paid security they use are exactly the kinds of people who should be allowed to own guns: they’re likely to be highly trained, unlikely to misuse their weapons, and they probably even have insurance in case of accidents or collateral damage. There is no serious proposal for gun regulation that would prohibit them from owning guns.

6

Yep, because gun control only targets the plebs, not the rich. The rich can afford armed body guards, the regular person cannot. Your elitism is showing.

Then again you probably have no problem with the government tracking every person’s firearm purchases, including ammo, and keeping a list. Hm, yes what could possibly go wrong. It’s not like any large government in history ever turned on its people, right? But if it did, I know you would support the state against the common man. If you had been alive back during the revolutionary war days you certainly would have been trying to sell out the American colonists to the British army.

But hey I get it. Life is scary without a big authority figure to keep you feeling secure. Life out in the wild is scary and risky. Best to avoid that, right? Trade freedom for security and ‘peace’ even if it requires selling out to a power structure infinitely larger than you, which could at any moment murder or throw you in prison forever. But so long as you don’t make it angry, you feel safe, eh?

Oh, back to gun control. Seems I got off on a tangent there.

Here’s a question for you: What stops a bad guy with a gun?

Give up? The answer is: a good guy with a gun.

Try to fit that into your gun control paradigm. Good luck.

Here’s another question: do guns kill people? Yes or no.

And the answer: No. Guns do not kill people. Guns cannot shoot themselves. No gun ever aimed and fired itself, except maybe some kind of weird AI-powered DARPA doggie robot drone. Which I am sure you think is a great idea, because it comes from the federal government so it must be good right?

Guns in the hands of the government are good. Guns in the hands of everyday average good citizens like you and me, is bad. Unless we can be chipped and tracked and monitored to make sure we are good obedient plebs. No threat to anyone.

Imagine a world where humans are no threat to anyone. Because that is the kind of world those in power are pushing us toward. Humans, in cages.

But you would be fine with it, so long as CNN and NPR report that everyone is safer and happily taking their state-provided tranquilizer pills. Right?

7

Sorry, Im drunk.

And not taking any of it back either.

8

Guns are good in the hands of good people. Bad in the hands of bad people.

Let’s do our best to maintain access to guns for good people and prevent that access for bad people. I think we can all agree on that. It’s never going to be a perfect system, but that’s life.

de Toqueville already criticizsed America for its obsessive reductionist games of diminishing moral returns. Let’s try to not be that stupid and silly. ANd remembethe lessons of history, let alone understand the basic logic of slippery slopes.

9

but who is good and who is bad?

1 Like
10

Who is good at determining it, and who is bad at determining it? We are all warped wood, as Kant understood.

I think it has to be either all guns, or no guns. Take away the privileges from those who abuse them because their action did not pivot self=other.

Unfortunately, it’s too late for that. Nuke everything.

Or, I don’t know, set everything right of your own free will. Yeah, that’ll happen. Prove me wrong.

11

A good person with a gun is someone who will use the gun for good ends. Such as to protect themselves and others from harm. Or to stop a crime.

A bad person with a gun is someone who will use the gun for bad ends. Such as hurting or killing innocent people or committing other crimes.

The distinction is pretty basic.

12

“to protect themselves and others from harm”

— what if the harm was decided by a “justice system”

— what if that system is corrupt?

13

What if the gun punishment does not fit the crime?

What if the crime is not a crime at all, but determined to be by a corrupt “legislative branch”?

14

If you can’t even figure out the difference between good uses of a gun and bad uses of a gun then I definitely and strongly believe in gun control for you specifically.

1 Like
15

So that would be you, since you can’t answer those questions. Gun privileges revoked.

16

Didnt see, don’t plan on seeing.

If that bothers you, so be it.

17

Quit thinking you’re who you’re trying to be. Be the one who left me in California before he left for that chick at his work, or shut up.

On second thought, leave your head up your ass and fight for air.

18

but, Merry Christmas, nonetheless.

1 Like
19

Gun control is using both hands.

1 Like
20

Explains why you think it is excessive.

;^P