Gun Advocates: What Would it Take?

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

Nothing. It's a right. Nothing would justify it. I mean you give a lot of vague hypotheticals that are I would assume pretty unrealistic. I mean terrorists also use bombs, knives, clubs etc. Criminals use whatever they want. The only laws people like you ask for would affect law abiding citizens for the most part.

Now short of a complete ban... tell me what laws would have made a difference in the recent shootings?

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

Gun violence has gone down, while gun ownership has gone up. Perhaps we should look into other issues as to why guns are used for crimes. Mental health, the war on drugs, and gangs all have way more to do than legal gun ownership.

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

Click to expand...

You do realize violent crime including gun violence has been on the decline for decades right? There is no epidemic. But that's irrelevant because the level of violence isn't my problem with gun control, its that it doesn't work, Harvard proved none of it does anything, so why even if your hypothetical doomsday level of crime ever happened would I want to be disarmed? If anything, I would have even more reason to defend myself and would want the best means to do so.

I don't care if the entire world went mad, "if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own—I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist."

What would it take to give up on liberty? On a individuals rights, everything it means to be free? Nothing could. You don't give up liberty with the hope of saving lives, especially considering the number of lives given to secure said liberties; To do so would be to dishonor our ancestors.

jimithyashford said:

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

Its not just the gun ownership. The right is sacred, its unconstitutional to assail it. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice,... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

That said, the level of violent crime being on the decline means it isn't extreme. The status quo is working, it ain't broke but your "fixes" certainly wont help. There is more we could do to increase the rate violent crime is going down, but gun control doesn't work and violates our rights. Why not instead focus on what we can do that works while still being free? Or is it the guns you want, is getting rid of guns all that matters or is addressing violent crime?

We could address suicides, which make up the majority of gun homicides. Or how about inner city War on Drugs related gang violence, I believe that's the next cause. How about police brutality? Those are considering justifiable homicides. Lots we can do that would make a difference, without infringing on anyone's rights.

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

Well.. here is the real rub... if gun violence as you call it has gone up.. guns aren't the issue.. because guns are not violent... people are violent.. but guns are inanimate objects...

so if there is "gun violence" using your vernacular.. it means that there is lots of people out there violating the law and murdering and injuring people.

now...

Given that.. why would I want to support stricter gun laws.. that will only reduce my ability to protect myself and my family. while leaving guns in the hands of those that are already willing to break the law to murder me?

Please explain to me why I should disarm myself or make it harder for any other law abiding citizen to protect themselves from those that aren;t obeying the law in the first place and certainly won';t obey a gun control law?

jimithyashford said:

1. What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

1a. I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

1a (repeated). Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

2. Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

2b. If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

1. There is no point at which violence caused by others using a firearm would justify "strict" gun control. On the contrary, an increase in such gun violence would argue all the more strongly for individual gun rights.

2. The right to self-defense is the most basic right in existence, and being as well armed as possible to provide for self-defense is a corollary. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight; you bring a gun.

Now if you really want a breakdown of arguments in support of items 1 and 2 above, simply peruse all the existing threads in the Gun Control forum and I am sure you will be well informed. :coffeepap:

ajn678 said:

Gun violence has gone down, while gun ownership has gone up. Perhaps we should look into other issues as to why guns are used for crimes. Mental health, the war on drugs, and gangs all have way more to do than legal gun ownership.

Click to expand...

I do not detect an answer to the question anywhere in this reply.

jimithyashford said:

I do not detect an answer to the question anywhere in this reply.

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't think I needed to spell it out in a fairly obvious response. There is no reason to increase gun control. It has done nothing to stop crime with weapons. Therefore, there needs to be no increases. Period.

jimithyashford said:

I do not detect an answer to the question anywhere in this reply.

Click to expand...

I do not detect a reply in this reply.

You granting me god powers. Since you can't do that the answer is nothing. It simply won't happen.

Lachean said:

You do realize violent crime including gun violence has been on the decline for decades right? There is no epidemic. But that's irrelevant because the level of violence isn't my problem with gun control, its that it doesn't work, Harvard proved none of it does anything, so why even if your hypothetical doomsday level of crime ever happened would I want to be disarmed? If anything, I would have even more reason to defend myself and would want the best means to do so.

I don't care if the entire world went mad, "if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own—I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist."

What would it take to give up on liberty? On a individuals rights, everything it means to be free? Nothing could. You don't give up liberty with the hope of saving lives, especially considering the number of lives given to secure said liberties; To do so would be to dishonor our ancestors.

Click to expand...

I cannot seem to pick out a direct answer to my question in your reply. I am not asking you to give up on liberty or individual rights. Nobody think not being allowed to own a particular type of weapon is equivalent to giving up on liberty. I mean, mini-Guns are super restricted, but nobody equates that to giving up on liberty.

So, I don't want to misrepresent your reply, so I will simply ask for clarification: At what point would the cost, in lives, of gun ownership, OR the imbalance between lives killed with guns vs lives saved with guns, be great enough for you to feel ok placing guns along side a great many other types of arms in the "heavily restricted" category? Or is there no conceivable cost in life or imbalance between lives saved and lives taken, that would ever justify such action?

And I guess I would like to add a follow up question to you specifically. You accept, I am sure, that there are a great many kinds of arms that are heavily restricted, do you feel liberty has been given up on because those restrictions exist? If you are ok with those restrictions on those objects, then I assume you are ok with the general concept of SOME arms being too dangerous for the general population, if you are ok with that in concept, then presumably there is, in fact, a threshold at which putting arms in that restircted list is appropriate, and I would like you to elaborate on what that point is.

Henrin said:

You granting me god powers. Since you can't do that the answer is nothing. It simply won't happen.

Click to expand...

No conceivable cost of life that is more important than your personal right to bear arms. Check.

ajn678 said:

Sorry, didn't think I needed to spell it out in a fairly obvious response. There is no reason to increase gun control. It has done nothing to stop crime with weapons. Therefore, there needs to be no increases. Period.

Click to expand...

That was not the question. The question was is there any conceivable point at which there would be, and what would that point be like?

jimithyashford said:

No conceivable cost of life that is more important than your personal right to bear arms. Check.

Click to expand...

The lives are irrelevant if the gun control measures are proven not to work. Why bother with them if such a dangerous environment was occurring, better to defend yourself as best as possible.

If it doesn't help, why give up that right?

That's like asking "No conceivable number of teenage pregnancy would make you support mandatory abstinence only sex education?"

NO! Because abstinence only doesn't work, nor does prohibition of alcohol, drugs or any kind of prohibition, EVER IN HISTORY. So why do it?

Lachean said:

I do not detect a reply in this reply.

Click to expand...

Your answer did not answer the question, I am imploring you to actually answer the question. I understand that you do not currently think such action is warranted. I am asking you if there is any hypothetical situation under which it would be, and to elaborate on what that situation would be like.

jimithyashford said:

That was not the question. The question was is there any conceivable point at which there would be, and what would that point be like?

Click to expand...

I know there has been a lot of lawyer talk the last few days in regards to Clinton's emails, but you really need to stop pretending I'm not answering the question. No point at all. Period. Understand it yet?

jimithyashford said:

Your answer did not answer the question, I am imploring you to actually answer the question. I understand that you do not currently think such action is warranted. I am asking you if there is any hypothetical situation under which it would be, and to elaborate on what that situation would be like.

Click to expand...

I did, see posts #4 and #14, I edited #4 before you posted your response including further answer to your question.

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

since gun control is not intended to control criminals, there is no reason to ever support it as a crime control method.

jaeger19 said:

Well.. here is the real rub... if gun violence as you call it has gone up.. guns aren't the issue.. because guns are not violent... people are violent.. but guns are inanimate objects...

so if there is "gun violence" using your vernacular.. it means that there is lots of people out there violating the law and murdering and injuring people.

now...

Given that.. why would I want to support stricter gun laws.. that will only reduce my ability to protect myself and my family. while leaving guns in the hands of those that are already willing to break the law to murder me?

Please explain to me why I should disarm myself or make it harder for any other law abiding citizen to protect themselves from those that aren;t obeying the law in the first place and certainly won';t obey a gun control law?

Click to expand...

In case it was unclear, I do not believe that Guns are actually sentient objects that come to life and act of their own accord. If you were under the impression that I thought that, let me assure you that I do not.

But I also think that the guns make a vast difference in the killing capacity of bad actors. I mean, if they didn't, then our military is wasting a lot of time and money equipping our soldiers with them. Assuming that the Military knows that its doing, I will continue to operate under the impression that guns are deadly objects that radically imporve the effectiveness of killers. If you disagree, take it up with a soldier, I wont argue the point.

Now, to my question, I know you do not support gun control under the current circumstances, you asked me "why would I want to support gun control"....why are you asking me? That was my question to you. Why would you? Under what conceivable set of circumstances would you deem it warranted?

jimithyashford said:

I cannot seem to pick out a direct answer to my question in your reply. I am not asking you to give up on liberty or individual rights. Nobody think not being allowed to own a particular type of weapon is equivalent to giving up on liberty. I mean, mini-Guns are super restricted, but nobody equates that to giving up on liberty.

So, I don't want to misrepresent your reply, so I will simply ask for clarification: At what point would the cost, in lives, of gun ownership, OR the imbalance between lives killed with guns vs lives saved with guns, be great enough for you to feel ok placing guns along side a great many other types of arms in the "heavily restricted" category? Or is there no conceivable cost in life or imbalance between lives saved and lives taken, that would ever justify such action?

And I guess I would like to add a follow up question to you specifically. You accept, I am sure, that there are a great many kinds of arms that are heavily restricted, do you feel liberty has been given up on because those restrictions exist? If you are ok with those restrictions on those objects, then I assume you are ok with the general concept of SOME arms being too dangerous for the general population, if you are ok with that in concept, then presumably there is, in fact, a threshold at which putting arms in that restircted list is appropriate, and I would like you to elaborate on what that point is.

Click to expand...

its a false choice. Its like saying how many people in bangladesh have to starve before i give up eating dinner.

Captain Adverse said:

1. There is no point at which violence caused by others using a firearm would justify "strict" gun control. On the contrary, an increase in such gun violence would argue all the more strongly for individual gun rights.

2. The right to self-defense is the most basic right in existence, and being as well armed as possible to provide for self-defense is a corollary. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight; you bring a gun.

Now if you really want a breakdown of arguments in support of items 1 and 2 above, simply peruse all the existing threads in the Gun Control forum and I am sure you will be well informed. :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

I feel you missed a key phrase in my OP: "Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?"

I am not necessarily describing a situation of say, outright war in which of course you would then want a gun for your own protection, but also, potentially, a situation in which guns slay a massive number of people and save few to none. Is there a point at which the cost in lives would be so high, and the preservation of life so low, that the trade off just stops being worth it?

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

No, quite the opposite. If there was no violence, then I'd say sure. Seeing as that's contradictory and impossibly hypothetical anyways, unlikely. In no period should people be at the will of others.

TurtleDude said:

its a false choice. Its like saying how many people in bangladesh have to starve before i give up eating dinner.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. I am asking for YOU to craft the hypothetical in which you would deem the restriction warranted. If that means rampant violence in your very own street, so be it. The relation and proximity to yourself and you own life is all on the table, I am asking at what point YOU would feel such restriction was warranted, whatever that hypothetical would be.

Lachean said:

I did, see posts #4 and #14, I edited #4 before you posted your response including further answer to your question.

Click to expand...

Well, then perhaps you will have to reword because it was not clear to me. Or not, I mean I'm not going to beg you for your input, but if you are interested in sharing your idea with me, I did not understand your reply and ask that you restate it then. Thanks

jimithyashford said:

Incorrect. I am asking for YOU to craft the hypothetical in which you would deem the restriction warranted. If that means rampant violence in your very own street, so be it. The relation and proximity to yourself and you own life is all on the table, I am asking at what point YOU would feel such restriction was warranted, whatever that hypothetical would be.

Click to expand...

Look kid, I spent 3 decades as a prosecutor. I have spent 40+ years on this topic. NOTHING is going to cause me to support any kind of gun control other than laws that punish the MISUSE of firearms or laws that restrict certain people who have demonstrated they are a danger when armed -like violent felons or certified nut cases

If there is rampant violence on my street, I sure don't want laws that are going to disarm me long before those laws impact people who disobey laws in the first place.