How much gun control?
- Thread starter Jerrek
- Start date
- Status
justiceusa
Registered Senior Member
Gun crime statistucs as related to the 18 to 20 age group
Apparently the effect of their undeveloped frontal lobes applies to weapons as well as to their driving habits.
(Just to explain the previous statement, the frontal lobes of the brain are responsible for a person experiencing a feeling of caution towards a possible danger. The frontal lobes are the last part of the brain to develop and this usually doesn't happen until the early twenties.)
This pdf file loads fairly fast
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/report.pdf
Apparently the effect of their undeveloped frontal lobes applies to weapons as well as to their driving habits.
(Just to explain the previous statement, the frontal lobes of the brain are responsible for a person experiencing a feeling of caution towards a possible danger. The frontal lobes are the last part of the brain to develop and this usually doesn't happen until the early twenties.)
This pdf file loads fairly fast
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/report.pdf
jusa,
No offence, but this isn't a problem of age. I've been training people whose ages go from 12 to 43 over the last five years or so with firearms (.22 rifles and air rifles for olympic target shooting). While there are people that need more watching, I have never come across someone that I had to say "I'm sorry, I can't train you, you'll never be able to use a rifle safely" to. That's not to say that they don't exist, you understand, just that with the right training, this is a surmountable problem. And while I only work with rifles, the same applies to pistols, numerous conversations on training techniques with those that work with pistols both in the US and in Northern Ireland and the UK have shown this.)
I've said it often - the problem with gun control is not control of who can own a gun, but ensuring that those that want to own a gun receive adaquate training in its use and the consequences of its use.
No offence, but this isn't a problem of age. I've been training people whose ages go from 12 to 43 over the last five years or so with firearms (.22 rifles and air rifles for olympic target shooting). While there are people that need more watching, I have never come across someone that I had to say "I'm sorry, I can't train you, you'll never be able to use a rifle safely" to. That's not to say that they don't exist, you understand, just that with the right training, this is a surmountable problem. And while I only work with rifles, the same applies to pistols, numerous conversations on training techniques with those that work with pistols both in the US and in Northern Ireland and the UK have shown this.)
I've said it often - the problem with gun control is not control of who can own a gun, but ensuring that those that want to own a gun receive adaquate training in its use and the consequences of its use.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
phnx whenever you want to go back and read through my posts you are welcome too. im still waiting for you to address any of my points about gun control with a logical counter point rather than some attack on intelligence to build up your ego. capitalizing the letter "i" by no means correlates with anything on a generalized basis. you are welcome to think that capitalizing it shows how much of an individual someone is. i just hope you realize that you are not infallible in all of your decrees.
Last edited:
SP,
I read that first post of yours setting out your reasons for not wanting a gun. None of it quoted actual data or facts, it was a mass of "I don't know, but I've heard...." or "I think...." or other such statements. Now there's nothing wrong with not wanting a gun in your home - and noone is forcing you to have one. IN FACT, the Lott/Mustard study shows that those who don't carry a gun actually benefit from others carrying guns, so you don't even lose much personal safety by not having one.
But there's a long gap between your personal choice not to have a gun, and a law saying noone else can have one, and given that to install a law banning gun ownership would be a serious alteration of the constitution in the states, you'll need a better argument than the Brady bunch have been putting forward if you want such a law, not to mention a big wad of cash to compensate people for the guns you confiscate. Just look at the buyback program in Australia - it overran the budget by an enormous amount, and they don't have the gun culture the US has.
I read that first post of yours setting out your reasons for not wanting a gun. None of it quoted actual data or facts, it was a mass of "I don't know, but I've heard...." or "I think...." or other such statements. Now there's nothing wrong with not wanting a gun in your home - and noone is forcing you to have one. IN FACT, the Lott/Mustard study shows that those who don't carry a gun actually benefit from others carrying guns, so you don't even lose much personal safety by not having one.
But there's a long gap between your personal choice not to have a gun, and a law saying noone else can have one, and given that to install a law banning gun ownership would be a serious alteration of the constitution in the states, you'll need a better argument than the Brady bunch have been putting forward if you want such a law, not to mention a big wad of cash to compensate people for the guns you confiscate. Just look at the buyback program in Australia - it overran the budget by an enormous amount, and they don't have the gun culture the US has.
justiceusa
Registered Senior Member
El_sparks
re "no difference"
The statistics prove that there is a difference. Just read the first page of the link.
Training kids to shoot is different situation completely. I started shooting 22's at age 10 undert the supervision of my father and older brother.
A high caliber hand gun in the hands of an untrained undisciplined inner city 18 year old is a different story. Read the link.
re "no difference"
The statistics prove that there is a difference. Just read the first page of the link.
Training kids to shoot is different situation completely. I started shooting 22's at age 10 undert the supervision of my father and older brother.
A high caliber hand gun in the hands of an untrained undisciplined inner city 18 year old is a different story. Read the link.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
sparks im asking for a response to the reasoning i presented. nearly every post on here makes claims without statistics. anyway, i thought that it wasnt my job to inform of you basic things that are "widely" publicized. otherwise i would have to begin a debate by teaching you enlgish? i cant keep everyone informed, right? try this link:
www.google.com
do a seach for my claims
anyway sparks i wasnt saying that guns should be outlawed, i aws just saiying that i dont think anyone needs a gun and that i think they are more of a threat to our society than a safeguard. there is a difference. im just glad that this country isnt in a position that a person can establish laws based on personal beliefs, even if they were my own. i dont think anything works in extremes. it takes a spectrum of ideas to get something to work in function instead of in theory. that is one of the reasons i think this country is going in the wrong direction under the bush administration. he is establishing an uncompromising ideology in the governement. that scares me.
www.google.com
do a seach for my claims
anyway sparks i wasnt saying that guns should be outlawed, i aws just saiying that i dont think anyone needs a gun and that i think they are more of a threat to our society than a safeguard. there is a difference. im just glad that this country isnt in a position that a person can establish laws based on personal beliefs, even if they were my own. i dont think anything works in extremes. it takes a spectrum of ideas to get something to work in function instead of in theory. that is one of the reasons i think this country is going in the wrong direction under the bush administration. he is establishing an uncompromising ideology in the governement. that scares me.
Last edited:
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
jerrek please explain how those that disagree with you are sheep? who are we following? if we are following someone else's lead, then arent you in the same boat?
if you want to compare anything to stealing freedom and 1984 then think about the patriot act I and patriot act II. im just curious, how do you feel about those? are those a violation of constitutional rights? please give me your opinion on it in comparison to the logic presented in gun control arguments. thanks ( :
if you want to compare anything to stealing freedom and 1984 then think about the patriot act I and patriot act II. im just curious, how do you feel about those? are those a violation of constitutional rights? please give me your opinion on it in comparison to the logic presented in gun control arguments. thanks ( :
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
id still like to understand where the progunners draw the line on what is an unreasonable restriction and what is their right. also how do you determine just what is too much? i know that there is a wide sentiment amongst enthusiasists, but id still like to understand how the conclusion is drawn on what is too much. and if it is argued that people need guns to protect themselves from other people with guns, then how can we condemn iraq, NK, iran, etc for pursuing WMD when their main antagonist has them and has used them in the past. dont they have a right to protect themselves based on the same logic presented for no gun restrictions?
why cant i place security devices in my home that kill anyone who sets off my alarm system? if home protection is the goal, why is this illegal?
why cant i place security devices in my home that kill anyone who sets off my alarm system? if home protection is the goal, why is this illegal?
James R:
Myself.
How nice for you. Let me make my answer very simple so that you can understand it:
I don't believe that humans are born with inalienable rights. Humans are not inalienably anything.
However, I do believe that humans have a "just claim" to freedom - if the concept of "what is just" is to have any value.
Ultimately it comes down to force. The ideals of liberty must rest on the power to enforce them.
Oh honestly James, take a joke.
Okay, I'll be serious - they come from Walmart.
Now, as for granted - well this is a pretty idea, but what of slaves in the American soulth? Did they have no rights until they were "granted" to them?
Or were they born with these rights, and slavery was not simply a peculiar, obsolete institution but a obscenity?
Ultimately, the idea of a "granted right" is a contradiction in terms.
-Note-
I do not regard gun ownership as a right and am skeptical as to whether the second amendment protects this right. However, I do not wish to be raped, mutilated or murdered - thus I stand with those who would make guns available.
Myself.
How nice for you. Let me make my answer very simple so that you can understand it:
I don't believe that humans are born with inalienable rights. Humans are not inalienably anything.
However, I do believe that humans have a "just claim" to freedom - if the concept of "what is just" is to have any value.
Ultimately it comes down to force. The ideals of liberty must rest on the power to enforce them.
Oh honestly James, take a joke.
Okay, I'll be serious - they come from Walmart.
Now, as for granted - well this is a pretty idea, but what of slaves in the American soulth? Did they have no rights until they were "granted" to them?
Or were they born with these rights, and slavery was not simply a peculiar, obsolete institution but a obscenity?
Ultimately, the idea of a "granted right" is a contradiction in terms.
-Note-
I do not regard gun ownership as a right and am skeptical as to whether the second amendment protects this right. However, I do not wish to be raped, mutilated or murdered - thus I stand with those who would make guns available.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
fighting over where rights come from seems like a fruitless battle to me. when assumptions of faith come in, realistic discussion seems to hit a pretty big wall
it could be argued that there is no such thing as a right because anyone could walk up to you and shoot you in the face. there goes all the rights that are fundamental that cannot be taken away.
it could be argued that there is no such thing as a right because anyone could walk up to you and shoot you in the face. there goes all the rights that are fundamental that cannot be taken away.
Xev:
It appears we have more in common than I thought.
<i>I don't believe that humans are born with inalienable rights. Humans are not inalienably anything.
However, I do believe that humans have a "just claim" to freedom - if the concept of "what is just" is to have any value.</i>
I agree.
<i>Ultimately it comes down to force. The ideals of liberty must rest on the power to enforce them.</i>
I agree that liberty needs to be protected. I disagree that it needs to be an individual thing, as opposed to protection by delegated authorities. The US is a very individualistic culture.
<i>Now, as for granted - well this is a pretty idea, but what of slaves in the American soulth? Did they have no rights until they were "granted" to them?</i>
Essentially, no, they didn't have certain rights until they were granted. The question of whether one ought to have a right can be separated from whether one does have a right as a practical matter. The former is a moral question. The latter depends on consensus of the majority or those in power, so in that sense you are correct that liberties need the threat of force to back them up.
<i>I do not regard gun ownership as a right and am skeptical as to whether the second amendment protects this right. However, I do not wish to be raped, mutilated or murdered - thus I stand with those who would make guns available.</i>
You are making a big assumption: that a gun will be a positive asset in preventing your rape, mutilation or murder. That is far from established.
It appears we have more in common than I thought.
<i>I don't believe that humans are born with inalienable rights. Humans are not inalienably anything.
However, I do believe that humans have a "just claim" to freedom - if the concept of "what is just" is to have any value.</i>
I agree.
<i>Ultimately it comes down to force. The ideals of liberty must rest on the power to enforce them.</i>
I agree that liberty needs to be protected. I disagree that it needs to be an individual thing, as opposed to protection by delegated authorities. The US is a very individualistic culture.
<i>Now, as for granted - well this is a pretty idea, but what of slaves in the American soulth? Did they have no rights until they were "granted" to them?</i>
Essentially, no, they didn't have certain rights until they were granted. The question of whether one ought to have a right can be separated from whether one does have a right as a practical matter. The former is a moral question. The latter depends on consensus of the majority or those in power, so in that sense you are correct that liberties need the threat of force to back them up.
<i>I do not regard gun ownership as a right and am skeptical as to whether the second amendment protects this right. However, I do not wish to be raped, mutilated or murdered - thus I stand with those who would make guns available.</i>
You are making a big assumption: that a gun will be a positive asset in preventing your rape, mutilation or murder. That is far from established.
Re: El_sparks
To my knowledge the usual victim of such low-lifes is another "inner city" punk. Usually over turf, drug distribution, etc. (we should seriously consider getting back to a society that does not criminalize or predetermine choice of drugs)
As far as I'm concerned that is the ideal form of gun control. Let them be the anti-body that helps cure the disease.
Had a friend (enjoys class III shooting and (lots of!-) reloading). He made the worthwhile suggestion we should just put cases of 9 mm ammo in the "inner cities" and let them have at it.
To my knowledge the usual victim of such low-lifes is another "inner city" punk. Usually over turf, drug distribution, etc. (we should seriously consider getting back to a society that does not criminalize or predetermine choice of drugs)
As far as I'm concerned that is the ideal form of gun control. Let them be the anti-body that helps cure the disease.
Had a friend (enjoys class III shooting and (lots of!-) reloading). He made the worthwhile suggestion we should just put cases of 9 mm ammo in the "inner cities" and let them have at it.
justiceusa
Registered Senior Member
ThePhx
"To my knowledge the usual victim of such low-lifes is another inner city punk."
Except for the tourist who makes a wrong turn or a person who is carjacked in an affluent area. The kids at Colombine didn't exactly live in the the slums. Drug distribution is occuring in all areas of our cities. Stash houses are frequently located in affluent areas.
This link wasn't about your "perceived knowledge" it was about the facts I provided in the United States Department of Justice link. Those facts support newly discovered neurological evidence concerning adolescent brain development and risk taking.
http://web.uvic.ca/~robertsl/
"To my knowledge the usual victim of such low-lifes is another inner city punk."
Except for the tourist who makes a wrong turn or a person who is carjacked in an affluent area. The kids at Colombine didn't exactly live in the the slums. Drug distribution is occuring in all areas of our cities. Stash houses are frequently located in affluent areas.
This link wasn't about your "perceived knowledge" it was about the facts I provided in the United States Department of Justice link. Those facts support newly discovered neurological evidence concerning adolescent brain development and risk taking.
http://web.uvic.ca/~robertsl/
Last edited:
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
jerrek you didnt answer my question. i know the symbolism of sheep. i was wondering what or who those you call sheep are following. who is the leader that is being followed mindlessly and how you are different than those you call sheep?
- Status