quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Twisted reasoning, much?

What reasoning? It's a clear cut set of questions to try and get an idea of what principles and beliefs drive people's attitudes towards gun control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I don't have a specific agenda here, and you may not wish to play along but it might be worth giving it a go.

Anyone who believes this is a fool.
You constructed the poll to split up the people who disagree with you to make those who disagree with you look like a bigger block.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo
Our society in the US is very heterogeneous, and some of the minorities have a significant number among them who are actively hostile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo

Without the gun, you're creating an anarchy, the advantage goes to the youngest, the biggest, the strongest. They just take what they want. The gun equalizes the playing field. While civilization may exist for a time among people of good will, over the long run the gun is and allows civilization. Our society in the US is very heterogeneous, and some of the minorities have a significant number among them who are actively hostile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

I think your poll is too narrow.

I need a weapon, because deer and small game won't just lie down and be dead - and I like to eat.
I need a weapon because there are seldom more than three days worth of food stuffs available in stores during any given day and I'm not guaranteed packaged food during a natural or other form of disaster...meaning I'm gonna have to provide another way.

I need a weapon, because trying to obtain one AFTER a natural or other form of disaster is too late and I still suck with a bow and arrow and I'm sure as hell not up to the task of chasing the animals down.

I also need to know how the weapon (gun, bow, slingshot) etc works and be proficient enough with it to make owning one of any use. Which means having and using it enough in advance of any potential need.

I do not believe any property I own is worth killing, dying or going to jail for. It is why I have insurance. So I don't own a gun for home defends. I do have several staffs, knives and mace which I can do damage with, but given the opportunity- I'd slip into flight mode before fight mode, as experience has taught me.

For me, a gun is a tool. Just like my brain. I make it my business to learn what foods are edible for foraging within 10 miles of me at most any given time. I am growing my own food as well. Things that I think are fun and worth doing.

I never even knew, for most of my life, that there was so much controversy surrounding guns.

My father retired from the Air Force, there was always a shot gun and rifle in the home. In Everyone's home that I knew.
Hunting wasn't just a sport, it was a lesson in learning to provide and respecting life and the cost of pulling that trigger.

I believe that gun control based off fear - just like the war on drugs - will simply make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain At a reasonable price what people who are willing to break the law will be able to obtain easily with a simple phone call.

Kay has years of documentation of chronic pain from degenerative diseases. She should be able to get pain pills to ease her suffering and allow her to function daily. Because of over-enforcing of narcotics; doctors no longer want to risk their practice by subscribing narcotics. I could make a phone call and pay out the ass, and have narcotics delivered to the home. Except, I don't break the law. I don't do things I know will put my personal liberties at risk. Which is why I own a gun and take personal responsibility for how it is used, stored, kept locked and out of reach of anyone not me.

I didn't see those options available on your post, otherwise I'd have participated and been less verbose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyJSirF

Tired of all the absurd parallels people try to paint. A fire arm isn't a nuke. My point is you can't take the rights of a populace away because evil people find ways to do evil. How do you think north Korea became the way it did. The government convinced the people they needed no guns to protect themselves because the government run army would do it for them. They gave away the ability to defend their freedom and the current regime took over without too much fuss. What rights would you need to loose before you wish you were armed? This isn't a call to put automatic weapons into vending machines, but we need to look to history and see what has Ben done with under the guise of gun saftey. And all those "no gun" European countries still allow for shotguns and rifles for hunting and sporting purposes. Thier laws limit the availability of pistols that can be hidden and full auto machine and sub - machine guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo

Without the gun, you're creating an anarchy, the advantage goes to the youngest, the biggest, the strongest. They just take what they want. The gun equalizes the playing field. While civilization may exist for a time among people of good will, over the long run the gun is and allows civilization. Our society in the US is very heterogeneous, and some of the minorities have a significant number among them who are actively hostile.

While this sounds plausible at first glance it fails to withstand the slightest scrutiny:
" Without the gun, you're creating an anarchy, the advantage goes to the youngest, the biggest, the strongest. " Sorry but virtually all Western European countries, which each have some variant of gun control, constitutes indisputable empirical evidence that gun control does not equate to or result in anarchy. Alternatively look at the response of Japanese to the shocking tsunami there recently. The institutions of the State had been destroyed, yet the people responded in an orderly fashion co-operating with each other to ensure mutual survival - all of it achieved without a single gun. If anything the opposite to your claim is true.

"The gun equalizes the playing field."
No it doesn't. It loads the dice in favour of gun possessors against non-gun possessors, in favour of those who are proficient with firearms against those who aren't and so on. Again if anything the opposite to your claim is true.

"While civilization may exist for a time among people of good will, over the long run the gun is and allows civilization.
There are no historical grounds to support this claim. If anything, one mark of civilised societies is the removal of guns (and violence) from the public sphere. Modern societies such as those inhabited by you and I operate on the consent of their citizens. Civilisation lasts because we all agree to make it last, because we all agree it's better than the alternative.

Sorry but whatever conclusion you may have reached on the basis of this argument is automatically invalidated by the shonky logic you have employed to reach it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo

Without the gun, you're creating an anarchy, the advantage goes to the youngest, the biggest, the strongest. They just take what they want. The gun equalizes the playing field. While civilization may exist for a time among people of good will, over the long run the gun is and allows civilization. Our society in the US is very heterogeneous, and some of the minorities have a significant number among them who are actively hostile.

While this sounds plausible at first glance it fails to withstand the slightest scrutiny:
" Without the gun, you're creating an anarchy, the advantage goes to the youngest, the biggest, the strongest. " Sorry but virtually all Western European countries, which each have some variant of gun control, constitutes indisputable empirical evidence that gun control does not equate to or result in anarchy. Alternatively look at the response of Japanese to the shocking tsunami there recently. The institutions of the State had been destroyed, yet the people responded in an orderly fashion co-operating with each other to ensure mutual survival - all of it achieved without a single gun. If anything the opposite to your claim is true.

"The gun equalizes the playing field."
No it doesn't. It loads the dice in favour of gun possessors against non-gun possessors, in favour of those who are proficient with firearms against those who aren't and so on. Again if anything the opposite to your claim is true.

"While civilization may exist for a time among people of good will, over the long run the gun is and allows civilization.
There are no historical grounds to support this claim. If anything, one mark of civilised societies is the removal of guns (and violence) from the public sphere. Modern societies such as those inhabited by you and I operate on the consent of their citizens. Civilisation lasts because we all agree to make it last, because we all agree it's better than the alternative.

Sorry but whatever conclusion you may have reached on the basis of this argument is automatically invalidated by the shonky logic you have employed to reach it.

Ahh, but your Western European and Japanese societies are more homogeneous. People of common ancestry with common goals. And good will. Not so here. We have active hostiles living among us with no intention of assimilating into peaceful society, and without me being armed, the bigger, faster, stronger can take whatever they want from me. In my prime I was a lot faster and stronger, but that's no longer the case. Watch what happens as Europe is overrun by immigrants hostile to the way of life there.

quote:

As to equalizing the playing field, that depends on the intent of the individual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyJSirF

Tired of all the absurd parallels people try to paint. A fire arm isn't a nuke. My point is you can't take the rights of a populace away because evil people find ways to do evil. How do you think north Korea became the way it did. The government convinced the people they needed no guns to protect themselves because the government run army would do it for them. They gave away the ability to defend their freedom and the current regime took over without too much fuss. What rights would you need to loose before you wish you were armed? This isn't a call to put automatic weapons into vending machines, but we need to look to history and see what has Ben done with under the guise of gun saftey. And all those "no gun" European countries still allow for shotguns and rifles for hunting and sporting purposes. Thier laws limit the availability of pistols that can be hidden and full auto machine and sub - machine guns.

The absurd parallel is to point out your absurd claim that hey, people who are going to harm are going to harm, so there's nothing we should do. It's bullshit. Like the nuke example, we can limit their access to the ability to harm massively.

Everytime the idea of limiting access to assault rifles comes up, the "debate" is "you want to outlaw guns," an absurd distortion of the actual debate.

Wake up. You're being absurd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

More parroting of the NRA Kool-Aid instead of any actual research.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo
Ahh, but your Western European and Japanese societies are more homogeneous. People of common ancestry with common goals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

More parroting of the NRA Kool-Aid instead of any actual research.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

So your big results that I'm drinking koolaide is this:

"Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."