Discussion of the Week: Gun Control

Well last week's topic didn't generate as much interest as I'd hoped, but thats okay as I didn't really have a good opinion either way anyway. Klinkman wanted me to post it as a topic but he hasn't responded to it yet, lol. You should do that honey if you have something to say! Anyway the topic this week is gun control, and this is definitely something I have an opinion on, which may surprise some of you given my stances on other issues. Again though this is just an introductory post to get the ball rolling. So post your thoughts! I look forward to reading them as always.

well i am so against gun control. i believe that we should all have the right to posses a gun no matter automatic or not. u know they did these gun laws to curb violent crimes and it hasnt done much to stop or even slow it down. i like the laws in texas and arizona. where u have a gun on u as long as let it be seen. california has wacky laws on guns. like if u shoot someone that enters your house and doesnt shoot at u if u kill him or her u can go to jail for defending ur property and your family. or say if u dont kill him and he lives then he can sue u if any permanent damage to his lively hood. well i own one and will use it to defend myself or family. take me to jail. if i save someone that tries to hurt someone then i feels its worth it. i love guns. did i mention that. target practice and hunting is the best.:sifone:

Aren't weapons now the biggest USA exports?
I weapon is a better investment than the stock market or a house now a days.
Add some bling and you got a valuable asset.

BANG :patriot: BANG

I know it's a slogan that's been cliche for years, but if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. But, I'm going to attempt to use simple game theory to demonstrate why this is true, why it's important, and why it justifies allowing law abiding citizens to have guns.

It is very important to remember that those who will break laws regarding murder, robbery, and other violent acts, certainly aren't going to respect laws restricting gun ownership. But what about laws restricting their sale? Wouldn't that help keep guns out of criminal hands?

Not really. Criminals are willing to do a lot for the power that having guns provides. That means giving a lot of money. So people are willing to do whatever it takes to get guns to them, for that money. The higher the risk the higher potential reward for the person willing to take that risk. But why is the reward so high for those who will take that risk.

This is where game theory comes in. Assume 2 states, guns and no guns. Assume 2 groups of people. Criminals, and Law-abiders. If neither group has guns, neither group has power over the other. If both groups have guns, we reach a stalemate where no one can pull the trigger and come out ahead. But, if we make laws that prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns, we give criminals the opportunity to have power over regular citizens.

This can be illustrated by a payoff matrix, which I will do once I have the opportunity. But the central idea, is while the ideal is that there is no guns for anyone to take power with, that ideal is not attainable, because criminals are willing to cheat to gain that power. That's why we call them criminals. Therefore, the best we can do is allow citizens to have guns. And prevent the criminals from winning.

I don't think people should be walking around with a gun on their hip. I think that would allow for more shouldn't haves then necessary. However I am totally against the fact they want to take our rights to bear arms. The reasons; are about keeping them out of the hands of the so called "bad guy", is not a good one. IMO The "bad guys" will always find ways to get guns. What makes sense about taking the guns out of the peoples hands if for protection. That just gives the "bad guys" that much more power against the law abiding citizen. I think they need a better reason. If I thought they could control it they claim I wouldn't be against certain gun laws. But in all honesty I don't think so.

I don't think people should be walking around with a gun on their hip. I think that would allow for more shouldn't haves then necessary. However I am totally against the fact they want to take our rights to bear arms. The reasons; are about keeping them out of the hands of the so called "bad guy", is not a good one. IMO The "bad guys" will always find ways to get guns. What makes sense about taking the guns out of the peoples hands if for protection. That just gives the "bad guys" that much more power against the law abiding citizen. I think they need a better reason. If I thought they could control it they like they claim, I wouldn't be against certain gun laws. But in all honesty I don't think so.

I am a big time fan of guns, and have own alot of them in my life, mostly hunting guns. One of my best child hope memories involve me getting my first real deer hunting rifle, a .243 bolt action, and going hunting withmyfamily in hondo, texas. Blief it or not guns are involved in this favorite american past time, which is hunting. Also i do believe alotof the mass shooting and people gtting mowed down by crazy folks, would reduce dramatically if people where allowed to carry guns for their satey without the fear of going to jail for some 5-10 felony jail sentence. Just imagine, one citizen with a license to carry could have stopped the madman that killed 20 something poeple in that mass shooting-suicide that happened at lubys a while ago. Guns are also an important part of american history and the freedoms we fought for, and without them, we wouldnt have what we have today. i have always said that one day, that we wont have the right to go out and buy a gun, for simple things like hunting with the family, or to protect our family and others. So if you dont have a few good guns, maybe a rifle and a shotgun, then go out get them, while you can, because tommorrow you migt not be able to. When that happens, when we are no longer able to do this, what do you think the criminals are gonna do? say aww shucks, we gotta give up using guns? Ya right, guns will always be on the black market and the more the government takes our rights to own them away, the more vunerable we become to the worst of society.

Guns dont kill people. People kill people. Guns just get the job done faster. Pretty much like glo was saying you can have all the laws you want people will still find a way to kill others no matter what guns or no guns.

I for one think we all should be able to carry a weapon with the proper course and as long as you pass a back ground test. Its just a shame the guns get in the wrong hands. Look at the old west they carried their 6 shooters on their waist and if you do the wrong thing it was taken care right there and then. i think the crime wont go up just cuz people are carring guns. if anything it will go down. why would i try jacking you if there is a chance your going to shot me.


Honestly i can see both side of the arguemnt but nothing is going to change much about the issue. crime is always going to be going on with or with out guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klinkman

I know it's a slogan that's been cliche for years, but if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. But, I'm going to attempt to use simple game theory to demonstrate why this is true, why it's important, and why it justifies allowing law abiding citizens to have guns.

It is very important to remember that those who will break laws regarding murder, robbery, and other violent acts, certainly aren't going to respect laws restricting gun ownership. But what about laws restricting their sale? Wouldn't that help keep guns out of criminal hands?

Not really. Criminals are willing to do a lot for the power that having guns provides. That means giving a lot of money. So people are willing to do whatever it takes to get guns to them, for that money. The higher the risk the higher potential reward for the person willing to take that risk. But why is the reward so high for those who will take that risk.

This is where game theory comes in. Assume 2 states, guns and no guns. Assume 2 groups of people. Criminals, and Law-abiders. If neither group has guns, neither group has power over the other. If both groups have guns, we reach a stalemate where no one can pull the trigger and come out ahead. But, if we make laws that prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns, we give criminals the opportunity to have power over regular citizens.

This can be illustrated by a payoff matrix, which I will do once I have the opportunity. But the central idea, is while the ideal is that there is no guns for anyone to take power with, that ideal is not attainable, because criminals are willing to cheat to gain that power. That's why we call them criminals. Therefore, the best we can do is allow citizens to have guns. And prevent the criminals from winning.

---

wow was that original. that was a good way of putting it. you speak the truth my brother. halleluja ( i know i spelt wrong lol )

My position about gun control are probably about as convoluted as my position on euthanasia. However, unlike the other issues we've discussed, my position on this issue is different from what it used to be.

Again, at the very basic level, I feel that humanity should not be in charge of life or death decisions regarding themselves, especially when it comes to determining the life or death of someone other than oneself. On the other hand, if a person feels they wish to end their life on their own terms, then a lot of me thinks that should be their decision. I know it still sounds like I'm talking about euthanasia, but bear with me for a moment.

It used to be that I was almost completely opposed to guns- not only because I hate the way they sound and it scares me ****less to hear one go off, but because I felt that it was wrong to give one person life or death control over another, even in situations where a criminal was putting someone else's life in danger and someone with a gun killed the intruder out of self defense. Like the death penalty, also, I at least somewhat felt that if someone were to try and kill one of my family members and killed me in the process of me trying to protect them, that I should not necessarily strive to even out the situation because life and death decisions over another human life are not something that should be placed in anyone's hands, criminal or no. Additionally, a lot of me felt that even simple ownership of a gun for self defense purposes, while not illegal or unconstitutional by any means, was a little disconcerting and difficult to distinguish the difference between a gun owned by a law abiding citizen for self defense and a gun being in the hands of a criminal, as a gun is still a gun.

As I've thought about it, however, I've come to realize that the presence of guns in the hands of law abiding, responsible citizens in *times of crisis only* is, I guess you could say, a necessary evil. If for example, someone carrying a concealed weapon were able to kill the gunman at Va Tech before he went too far on his rampage, yes his life would be lost and put into the hands of another human, but dozens of other innocent lives might be saved.

If more people are trained to carry and yield a gun properly, then the risk of a criminal being able to get his or her way is lessened significantly, even if it is no more difficult for a gun to be in the hands of a criminal than a law abiding citizen. It is the principle of mutually assured destruction- if everyone has the potential to own and carry a gun, hopefully no one will use it on another. I do think, however, that proper handling and training of guns is critical before they are given to anyone, and no matter what children must be safeguarded from any guns in the home. I'm not opposed to having one in the house for self defense as I used to be, but I definitely feel they should be locked away where children could not possibly get to them, ever.

This leads me to a separate but related issue- guns being used for hunting and/or sport. Basically I feel that hunting on its own is not necessarily bad, but if one is to hunt then they should at least hunt with the intent to eat what they have killed and use it to provide for their family, as opposed to just killing animals for the hell of it. As I was telling Klinkman, we do not live in a society that requires hunting to obtain food anymore, but I see nothing wrong with consuming what you have hunted as a meal, like deer meat or the like. Killing animals for a sport without intending to use them for at least partially a practical purpose is, in my opinion, wrong.