GOProud: Gays Need Guns, Not Hate Crimes Legislation

I'm against civilians owning guns as it is so.

 

So your going to blame victims for someone against their will assulting and/or killing them because they choose not to own a gun. What about minors who get attack for being gay, but are not old enough to legally own guns? what if the attacker shoots before the victim can go for the gun, or the victim is in some way imcompacitated, and can reach their weapon to fight back?

blanket statements dont hold up, because when you oversimplify everything, you ignore the reality of what actually happens. life is not black and white.

Your acting like there is some moral/ethical problem in our justice system viewing hatred as a mitigating factor in the motivation or a crime.

history shows us what happens when hatred is legitimized.

how is it wrong that when someone kills a person out of hatred for what they are, that they are held accountable to a higher degree because their crimes were premeditated?

this is not a matter of opinion. this is a matter of right and wrong beyond religious demogogery and ideological masterbation.

If it is wrong to assult or kill a person out of hatred for that persons race, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation, then why is it wrong that you be punished harshly for it.

this isnt random killing, this is premeditated killing on the basis of your refusal to accept the civil rights of others.

is the entire basis of our justice system wrong?

 

Can I ask you to expand on why? I know we are likely to never agree but I always and curious to hear peoples reasoning on this. As we are not likely to agree on this I would like to hear your views maybe give a response and some questions and then read your response to that if you care to give one. I suggest we go no further then that because it is likely to go in circles after that. Are you game? If not I would understand as these things can go in circles forever.

 

I see nothing wrong with gun ownership... but the mitigating factor needs to be if a person can handle a gun responcibly.

 

While I am not passionate about this opinion, it is one I have held for a long time. I dont really want to debate on it, and I'm not sure how to explain it exactly, but I'll answer any questions you have.

 

Ok Ember I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said what you quoted. No it is not the victims fault. Not at all. I simply think it is better to train someone to protect themselves then it is to pass laws that are not likely to wipe out the criminals any time soon.

As for the rest I am trying to ask why is one form of premeditated murder worse then any other. THAT is what I want to understand. Why is one form what amounts to the same crime in my eyes worse then another to you? If I am enraged at a person because he "disrespected" me how am I an more wrong to take his life then if I hate the same person because of race, religion, or sexual orientation. If I can understand that then I might be able to give some ground here. If i cannot then I suggest we drop the matter as has been stated prior to your post. To be honest I only responded because I feel maybe in my other posts I was unclear on my questions to you or I worded things poorly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well No One the biggest one starts with the why are you against it? I cant ask too many questions if I dont understand that lol. Though I will only ask any others if I dont get something you say in your response. I get this can be an emotional issue or at least a charged one for some people so I wont attempt to change your mind as I know that is never going to happen lol.

Ember that is one thing I can agree with. Though I am probably at odds with the HOW we ensure a person can handle a gun without becoming insanely burdensome in my mind.

 

I believe it has been said in this thread before (but I'm too tired to go back and look) that hate crimes are a form of terrorism against the target group because they are meant to instill fear in other members of the attacked group. If someone attacks someone who is gay, they are sending a message to other gay people that they should be afraid for their safety because they are gay. Crimes that aren't hate crimes aren't trying to instill fear in a group at large (for the most part), which is why they are treated differently.

 

LOL I didnt post here before now but in a pm with Ember I told him that I was convinced of the usefulness of hate crime legislation after I got my mothers opinion on it. She is a criminal justice major and brought me around. Thus Ember not responding. So the debate between us is dead. Though I still think the term is used too losely and it had a large potential for misuse.

 

The idea that we should arm people so they're less likely to be victimized is not bad, but I do think it's flawed. In the first place, it implies that the weak are more deserving of being victimized than the strong. It used to be that in rape cases, to prove non-consent, the woman had to fight and preferably wound the man and be knocked out herself. It was assumed that someone who didn't fight back deserved to be victimized, because it was better to die than to be raped (a reason many women don't fight back is because they're afraid of being killed).

But that's not the only problem. Arming people gives them the temptation to use the weapons they have unnecessarily. Conservatives like to say that only bad people use weapons for bad reasons, but the truth is that, given a weapon and the knowledge and ability to use it, most people will be tempted to use it for bad reasons, and many will succumb. A society where everyone is armed is less safe.

And of course, a weapon is only good if it's ready-to-hand. Most people don't have time to reach for a gun (or a knife) when they're being attacked. By the time they have the weapon, it's too late. And if their attacker sees the weapon before their victim gets it, the attacker may take that weapon and have even more of an upper hand. This can particularly be a problem when people are attacked by someone without a firearm, and then lose their gun to their attacker.

There are other problems as well, but those are the main ones that spring to mind that seem applicable in this thread.

 

First off please explain how this implies that they deserve it Liam. Secondly You are wrong about the being tempted to use it for bad reasons. As I have stated else where people have a natural aversion to killing. It is not as easy a thing as you think to harm a person in cold blood. Also where do you get your facts on the idea that a normally controlled individual will suddenly be driven to extreme violence if they are armed? finally the idea that you wont get to it in time or it will be taken to you. If you go out and just buy a gun then sure that is possible and you are an idiot. If you get proper firearms training then you will learn not only proper gun safety and shooting skills but situational awareness on how to spot trouble prior to it happening and proper weapons retention. A person that takes the time to learn the proper use of a firearm is not a danger. Thousands across the US carry concealed every day and you dont hear of them suddenly snapping

 

dont worry, I am still here. I just took a shower and made a late night snack. getting ready for bed to refuel my opinonation cells for tommarow.

---------- Post added 24th Jul 2011 at 11:15 PM ----------

I know alot of gun owners that are not the kind of person who would be tempted to use it in some powertrip kind of way... not everyone is sarah palin, getting a thrill out of shooting things for a helicopter that the prey cant outrun...

my grandfather had guns because he had livestock to protect, and he was fairly responcible with them. My mom also taught BB Guns and Archery safety to cub scouts for a few summers, and though they are not high powered, gun safety is not that complicated.

Just dont stick it down the waist of your pants, even with the safety on (incase you scratch yourself, hit the safety, then next thing you know, hello john bobbitt support group!

though I do not agree with the "guns dont kill people, people kill people" analogy. it is incredibly flawed. the gun is the impliment that kills, and it does kill. you cant seperate a person shooting someone dead without acknowledging the role the gun plays.

Gun rights is a tricky issue because it is complicated... and gun crimes is self perpetuating because gun control has some lax areas dealing with gun shows, and the fact that it is damn near impossible to stop gun being sold to criminals under the table.

 

There's an implication (I think) that people should be able to fend off attacks. That's why there's a call to arm them. But with that implication comes a secondary implication that those not able to are weak, and consequently deserve what they got. It's a cultural thing, rather than an individual one, however. I'm worried about a cultural shift towards assuming that people who get attacked deserve it.

People have an aversion to killing, but I don't think that aversion is as strong as you think it is. And not in cold blood, but in anger or fear.

It's true that people snapping is rare. I don't oppose the basic idea behind concealed carry laws (I'm more concerned by the "concealed" bit than the "carry" bit), but that doesn't mean more guns out there is a good idea. Having the weapon carries with it the intention to use, as I said before (though you disagree, if I understand you correctly). And training is all well and good, but self-defense in real life is not the same as self-defense in training (though I don't know too much about training so I can't really comment on the efficacy of training).

 

Ok if you think that there is a cultural idea that those that are attacked and couldnt fight back earned it I cant disagree. Personally I think its sick that people feel that way but I have heard it enough to know that people do think it.

Now on to the aversion to killing. I suggest if you can you look up the book called "On killing: the psychological cost of learning to kill. ." Its a massive study of how ever TRAINED soldiers have trouble pulling the trigger even in combat and will intentionally miss and that those that do kill often have to have help to cope with it. It is really much harder then I think people realize. Yes if you have a gun you better have it knowing if need be you will use it but I doubt people will use it out of anger or even fear in many cases. If the were likely too I think we would have a lot more in the news about gun owners going to jail.

May I ask why you are more worried about the concealed part? As for the training proper training is really realistic. Weapons retention techniques can be very effective but if you keep your eyes and ears on a swivel you wont need them. Problem avoidance is as much a part of learning proper firearms skills as knowing how to shoot. Most attacks and robberies are telegraphed before they happen if you know what to look for. If you can spot the signs you can ready yourself or get out of there long before the person has a chance to act.

 

The reason you carry a weapon is so that you won't get attacked. So you should want that weapon visible so that people will see it and not attack you. If they can't see, it's not serving it's full function. It's not so much concern as puzzlement, really.

 

Well that would make sense if people were sensible about guns. But most people freak out when they see a person that carries so to be honest its mostly to keep the public from acting like the sheeple they are. On top of that there are tactical advantages to keeping your firearm hidden. The first one is that if someone walks say into a store with the intention to rob it at gun point and see you walking in armed you may cause them to walk away or they may shoot you in the back and continue with what they wanted to do. Its kinda like not telegraphing your punch in a boxing match. I see benefits to both concealed and non concealed carry so I am 50/50 with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ember I am again at odds with the gunshow idea. Please give me your evidence that firearms used for criminal intent are coming from gun shows even at a moderate level? Gun show owners have to be more careful if anything so they dont get hit with a BAFTE set up.

 

the big problem that we have been facing with gun shows stems from the fact that there are loopholes and lax enforcement of the same laws gun shops have to follow. You can walk into gun shows, buy a gun without a background check, and walk out with the gun in some places in america. Some of the guns end up turning up as evidence in criminal investigations, and traced back to the people vendors.

There has been effort to close loopholes, and require background checks and waiting periods of all purchases, be it at a gun show or at a gun store.

I don't know if the 2009 effort passed, because people are still talking about the loopholes that allow gun shows to circumnavigate the laws that apply to gun shops put in place to stop guns from getting into the hands of convicted felons and the like.

 

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I think giving guns to lots of people is a stupid idea. Just imagine all these idiot people who think they can shoot a gun because of Call of Duty.

No. Only people who know how to properly handle a fire arm should own weapons.

 

Ummm just as a heck of a lot more guns were sold at the behest of BAFTE in operation fast and furious? Those shows are no more responsible for the sale of guns to criminals then any other legal sale of guns. Unless someone has proof to the contrary.
Also I am totally against the background check and just about every other gun law that we have. the reason being that if you served your time did you not pay you debt to society? If the answer is yes then why are we keep many of your basic rights locked up? If not then why are we letting you out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shevanel I dont know what you are getting at when most places I have heard of require you to take a firearms safety class prior to applying for a permit. Besides even people with hundreds of hours of proper training do dumb crap with a firearm.

 

I personally don't have an issue with background checks at gun shows...although there will always be some nuts out there that will slip through and buy their weapons to shoot up the local Wal-Mart at gun shows, but thankfully those are very rare.

you can actually find some beautiful antique guns at those things.

A lot of random gun violence is the result of weapons obtained by "less-than-legal means" so to speak, not weapons bought at gun shows

Joey, I agree with you that people should be educated on how to use one before they take that step, but I don't think it should be a requirement to own one.
We do have to take a information course and safety course get a concealed permit, which I do agree with
In the South we grow up with guns...some schools even have gun safety classes which I think is a good thing...

 

I am firmly against the existance of loopholes in any compacity... anywhere.