Gun control thread yay

[JohnnyEgo]

At Johnny - I am glad you have so much faith in the NRA. I don't. You have an organization taking the lead and eliminating competitors for that leadership... that's troublesome. After all, its not the NRA's second amendment, but society's. YOu mix a bit of business and the desire of the organization to perpetuate itself- and you have dangerously mixed motives.

If the NRA is depending on my faith, it's an organization in trouble. If you came away from my NRA commentary believing I am an advocate of the NRA, either I didn't do a very good job explaining my position, or maybe you misread it.

I believe the second ammendment is an individual right, just like the other nine in the Bill of Rights. It no more belongs to the NRA then it does to Sarah Brady.

And yes, while we do have target shooting, I would qualify that guns are made to kill people. Rather, guns are made to cause violence. Target shooting is a sport about who is capable of delivering that ability in a precise and/or rapid way. Whether a person target shoots a .303 or a .50 machine gun, its still a tool meant to deliver violence. How it is, is up to the user.

You are right about target shooting in the sense that it involves precision and/or speed. And for many disciplines, including several of the ones I enjoy, it is indeed about simulated combat. But I don't think there is anything wrong with that. We as a race are entertained by violence. It is why we had gladiatorial matches in ancient Greece and Rome, and why we have the NFL.

Fallout is a game in which we get the opportunity to try out vices of all sorts in simulation, including murder, prostitution, slavery, theft, and drug use. One could argue that violent video games serve no other purpose then to appease blood lust and desensitize people to violence. I argue that it is an outlet for natural aggression, and that most folks can play and enjoy it without succombing to the urge to rape, maim, and kill. And in that regard, I see no moral difference between shooting a man in a video game, shooting a man in paintball or laser tag, or shooting a paper illustration of a man in IDPA.

We can reasonably disagree on the use and possession of firearms, and on the effects they cause on society, but for those (not you) who say there is no sporting purpose, or that those who would find sport in competition are somehow flawed individuals, seems rather hypocritical.

Edit: I like having fun, and I hate getting shot as well. So at least the feminists and I have something in common. Two things, really - I am all for equality between men and women, especially when it comes to picking up the dinner check.

 

[New Enclave]

i'm going to leave the suicide bit alone because i think that people should be free to off themselves

id rather trust society because fear/understanding of the law, ethics and empathy rather then a mutual fear of one another and thinking - no crazy sob will mess with me I HAS GUN

Oh me, so you have more intrinsic faith in a society of people who can kill themselves on a whim, opposed to a society that allows legal firearms owners?

that being said you cant tell me people are easier to be killed with knives, cars, dropping bricks than with a gun

Never said easier, but in a random sense "just as easy".

you'll kill one guy with a knife but i'm sure you wont get to kill 10 in a row ... same with the brick while with a gun even a retard has a pretty good chance of producing a quite fancy killing spree

If nobody could stop said retard (you know "I'm not gonna let this happen" as opposed to "I hope I don't get stabbed, as I run like hell and call the police") why would it be so impossibly hard to stab 10 or more people? As if killing one guy with a knife suddenly slaked his retarded blood lust, and suddenly produced police.

I will never understand the rationale of "I would rather be a victim of circumstance" rather than "I would like to be prepared for as many eventualities as possible".

 

[welsh]

@ Johnny- To be fair, I am for reasonable gun restrictions but I wouldn't be happy to hear Adolf Hitler offering to take away guns either.

@ New Enclave-
I actually think killing ten with a knife is a lot harder than with, say, a semi-automatic.

Walk into a class room with a 15 shot 9 mm and you can probably kill 10 people, provided you block the door. In fact, I think you could probably do it in less than 2 minutes. Bring in an extra clip or an extra 9 mm and I would think its a done deal.

A knife is a bit different. To stab someone to death you have to get close and chances are the person will fight ya. That would make it a lot more personal. The blade could get stuck in the ribs, and I think numerically, there's a better chance that 10 unarmed people can disarm you.

I did a little Tae Kwon Do and believe in self-defense. While I wouldn't like to take on a knife carrying maniac, I would prefer to tangle with a person with a knife than one with a 9 mm.

 

[New Enclave]

I actually think killing ten with a knife is a lot harder than with, say, a semi-automatic.

A knife is a bit different. To stab someone to death you have to get close and chances are the person will fight ya. That would make it a lot more personal. The blade could get stuck in the ribs, and I think numerically, there's a better chance that 10 unarmed people can disarm you.

But not totally unfeasible was my point.

I also totally agree with reasonable gun restrictions, and if we lived in a society were gun carrying and knife wielding maniacs (etc,etc) was a total non-reality then I would absolutely see no need in self defense weapons except for recreational usage.

 

[Paladin Solo]

i'm going to leave the suicide bit alone because i think that people should be free to off themselves

Gun or no gun.

that being said you cant tell me people are easier to be killed with knives, cars, dropping bricks than with a gun ... you'll kill one guy with a knife but i'm sure you wont get to kill 10 in a row ... same with the brick while with a gun even a retard has a pretty good chance of producing a quite fancy killing spree. (and i know this too has been said before so sorry)

People can do that with bombs, too. So let's eliminate bombs, oh wait, you can't. Because, y'know, people don't stop making bombs just because a guy in a suit says 'no sir'. There is no ideal situation, there are numbers of statistics. But since when can we safely say we know what everyone is thinking?

But I've already been over things like this before, too bad some people don't like reading other people's posts more than their own. If that comes off as hostile, then it is, because instead of arguing new points, I'm arguing against points that have already been raised and discussed. Maybe tomorrow morning I'll be in a better mood, though.

id rather trust society because fear/understanding of the law, ethics and empathy rather then a mutual fear of one another and thinking - no crazy sob will mess with me I HAS GUN

Cute. Too bad people aren't controlled as easily as you think. I can't rob this guy, GUNS BE ILLEGAL, OH DARN! Ideas, though nice on paper, depend on many things. Culture, is a big one. Economy, poor people don't care what a rich man thinks they should and shouldn't do. How do I know? Well, I did grow up in a poor, dirty Turkish village for seven or so years, amongst other places I've lived. Then there's environment, which when mixed with culture and economy, can make for a bad neighborhood. Good luck convincing a black neighborhood gang that they can't legally own guns so they should get rid of them, but hey, it's easy to support the idea on an online message board.

 

[SuAside]

Actually SUA- I like the fact that you have to go through some regulation to own a gun. Hey, we go through restrictions to own a car, so why not a gun.

where did i say you shouldnt have to pass tests or background checks?

but do you have to own a seperate driver's license for each car, renewing it every 5 years? (while if you commit a crime, you'll loose it straight away anyway, so that's not an argument)
do you loose the right to drive when caught on an entirely unrelated offense?

why do i have to shoot my gun a fixed minimal number of times per year if i want to remain owner of said weapon? why cant i just store it for a year?

regulations are good, but this is pure kafka...

WHere you have crime related violence- those guns originate from a legal market. That so many guns become "illegal" indicates that more needs to be done to keep guns from getting "stolen" or at least put into criminal hands.

maybe in the US, but not so in Europe. the vast majority of said guns are illegal to start with and were never legally owned in the EU.

(except the majority used in suicides ofc)

most guns used in violent crimes in Europe are:
1) eastern block surplus or otherwise illegaly imported weapons
and
2) converted weapons. alarm pistols modified to fire real bullets (there are many rules in the EU for alarm pistols, but cheaper manufactured alarm pistols often dont have all the required safeguards to prevent modification)

About Suicide- I am not so sure I agree. A person often shoots himself because he feels depressed or dispondent. Given the right counselling, the person might go on to live a healthy and valuable life. That suicides often happen among young people indicates there is a problem. That guns are often used indicates again that there is a problem with access to guns. It seems easier for some depressed folks to get guns rather than counselling. I think that's a problem.

persons can easily get sleeping pills too.

or a hot bath and a razor blade.

or jump in front of a train.

or jump from a building.

or hang himself.

the tool doesnt really matter. a gun is just a quick and usually painless way out. but so is driving into a brick wall at 120km/h with a motorcycle.

Many states require fishing licenses and its rather unsporting to use .303 or handgrenades to fish.

good luck hitting fish with a .303

Oh, and Suaside- I think the anti-gun in being promoted primarily by liberals and feminist causes- because apparently its more likely that men go on rampages and women are victims.

anti-gun is mostly promoted by politicians (men) that see an easy way to scare the populace and score points by taking away said threat.

even if in reality, taking away the so called threat caused an increase in criminality. go UK & Aussieland!

I actually think killing ten with a knife is a lot harder than with, say, a semi-automatic.

given time, i could kill just as much people with a knife as i could with a pistol. though it would require planning and murdering people one by one rather than in a group, like a classroom.

but if i wanted to? sure, no biggy. as long as the people are unprepared of course, but that's always the case in school shootings as well.

PS: now don't say you need to outlaw Krav Maga, please!

Walk into a class room with a 15 shot 9 mm and you can probably kill 10 people, provided you block the door. In fact, I think you could probably do it in less than 2 minutes. Bring in an extra clip or an extra 9 mm and I would think its a done deal.

2 minutes? more like 25 seconds.

also: MAGAZINE! modern pistols and rifles are not fed with clips.

I did a little Tae Kwon Do and believe in self-defense. While I wouldn't like to take on a knife carrying maniac, I would prefer to tangle with a person with a knife than one with a 9 mm.

you had a bad teacher then, young padawan.

at close range (withing 2 meters) a knife is far more dangerous than a pistol or a rifle.

of course, you cant dodge bullets if the dude is further out, but arguably, if the dude with the knife was at the same long distance, you'd run instead of fight in the first place.

 

[radnan]

People can do that with bombs, too. So let's eliminate bombs, oh wait, you can't. Because, y'know, people don't stop making bombs just because a guy in a suit says 'no sir'.

There's a bomb and grenade shop in town ?
Also building the bomb yourself requieres a bit more premeditation ... knowledge, ingredients, time (unless you are mac guyver)

bombs are illegal and working with explosives requieres a bigger set of requierements. guns are easy ...and anti-personal.

i'm again sorry for bringing up old points... i do enjoy the arguement but if you tell me to stop i'll stop.

how about looking at it like this

a gun gives an individual a single purpose tool that can kill multiple individuals with ease ... there is no punishment that justifies this liberty mathematically ...

basically 1 can kill many - but the law can only punish one individual .... the legal system cannot impart neither justice, nor equity nor a credible threat that would deter or PREVENT a worst case scenario.

 

[Paladin Solo]

There's a bomb and grenade shop in town ?
Also building the bomb yourself requieres a bit more premeditation ... knowledge, ingredients, time (unless you are mac guyver)

Independence Day is a big thing around these parts. Now, you said as easily as a gun, when a bomb can be far more destructive, and far more lethal. The thing is, you rely too much on the theory that most criminals just pick up a gun and waste people. Why can't a bomber do the same thing? All he needs to do is make a bomb and blow shit up.

bombs are illegal and working with explosives requieres a bigger set of requierements. guns are easy ...and anti-personal.

And a bomb isn't? All you need is a bathroom and some money. If you don't know how to make one, well, go to your local library and research on the internets. Not much different from a gun. Again, one of the many points already brought up was that if someone wants to kill someone else, you think taking away his or her gun will stop them?

i'm again sorry for bringing up old points... i do enjoy the arguement but if you tell me to stop i'll stop.

Stop. At least stop until you've read everything up to the most current post and if you think you have something new to raise, then post. I know it's a lot of shit to read, and you may not have the time or patience, but it helps to not make you look like you're one of those types that just likes the sound of their own voice.

a gun gives an individual a single purpose tool that can kill multiple individuals with ease ... there is no punishment that justifies this liberty mathematically ...

basically 1 can kill many - but the law can only punish one individual .... the legal system cannot impart neither justice, nor equity nor a credible threat that would deter or PREVENT a worst case scenario.

Again, points that have already been raised, provided counter-points for, and discussed thoroughly.

 

[welsh]

Quick response-

Suaside and Paladin are both right. You can kill others with a bomb or with commit suicide with other means besides a gun. I wouldn't challenge.

But making a bomb isn't easy and is often prohibited under law. Even where fireworks are allowed you will also find that other states don't allow it. Furthermore, making a bomb requires a bit of expertise- as the Watchmen terrorist group found in. This group of student radicals turned terrorists ended up blowing themselves up while preparing a bomb.

I have no problem with bomb making being illegal for most civilians and requiring special licensing. Under common tort law, use of explosives is deemed inherently dangerous and subject to strict liability.

As for committing suicide, yes, jumping out a window or a bridge is pretty final and people do it quite regularly. But I think the way a lot of people might otherwise commit sucide- a slit wrist or pills- might be avoided should the person thing "you know, this is stupid. Why the hell am I doing this? maybe I should see a shrink instead."

I have known people who have tried. Honestly, its possible that they tried to commit suicide by slitting their wrist or by taking pills in order to get some attention and choose those methods intentially. But the act wasn't quite so final. Another kid I knew, a college student, was going through depression and ate a bullet. Had the suicide been delayed he might have gotten counselling and the suicide prevented. Maybe not.

Honeslty, I am not keen on the idea of a right to suicide. A lot of these could be avoided. And if keeping guns out of their reach prevents a few suicides, I'm ok with it.

The argument that guns cause crime or that guns cause suicides are silly. But I think the argument that guns make suicides easier isn't. ANd honestly, I have no problem making either crime or sucide harder to accomplish.

 

[alican]

I agree that the existence of a gun in the vicinity of a potential criminal would increase the chances that the person will commit the crime. Especially, in my country (which is Turkey, where the government is selling guns with installments!) people who are drunk, on some drug, or even just angry shoot / stab / punch people around quite much and almost everyday. Firearms just make it easier.

Different thing with committing suicide. If the intention is not getting attention, people will commit suicide and succeed if they want to. Possessing / not possessing a gun won't change a thing for someone with the intention. I don't think suicide should be considered in this topic at all. + it's a personal and private matter if a person wants to live or not.

 

[Paladin Solo]

I've seen a lot of stabbings in Turkey, first hand. Never saw anyone get shot, but I've seen plenty of people with concealed guns. The thing is, those people usually had concealed knives, shivs, and things like brass knuckles as well. Of course, a madman with an assault rifle in a crowded market will do plenty of damage, but it's people like that who won't be bothered by weapons bans. Plenty of people do their killing with other methods that don't involve firearms, and face it, guns are not hard to get a hold of. Hell, I know a friend who has those connections in which I can get a hold of a wider selection of weapons for a cheaper price and without any paperwork or questions (not that there is much in North Dakota, if any at all, depending on the retailer).

Which reminds me, the other day, while browsing through the postings on the public bulletins at the BX I noticed someone selling an AKM47 and an old M4.

 

[alican]

I remember reading your post about living in a Turkish village. Where did you live when you were here?

 

[SuAside]

But making a bomb isn't easy and is often prohibited under law.
*snip*
Under common tort law, use of explosives is deemed inherently dangerous and subject to strict liability.

you mean killing people with a firearm is not prohibited by law?

oh lulz...

how is this relevant?

as for making bombs, it is a lot easier than you'd expect. sure, if you disrespect the stuff you're handling, you'll blow yourself up. but it really isn't hard to get educated on the subject.

As for committing suicide, yes, jumping out a window or a bridge is pretty final and people do it quite regularly. But I think the way a lot of people might otherwise commit sucide- a slit wrist or pills- might be avoided should the person thing "you know, this is stupid. Why the hell am I doing this? maybe I should see a shrink instead."

I have known people who have tried. Honestly, its possible that they tried to commit suicide by slitting their wrist or by taking pills in order to get some attention and choose those methods intentially. But the act wasn't quite so final. Another kid I knew, a college student, was going through depression and ate a bullet. Had the suicide been delayed he might have gotten counselling and the suicide prevented. Maybe not.

Honeslty, I am not keen on the idea of a right to suicide. A lot of these could be avoided. And if keeping guns out of their reach prevents a few suicides, I'm ok with it.

1) personal choice
2) overcrowded earth
3) cost of the depressed/sickly/dying person on society (and nature)

personally? i'd strongly support state-run euthanasia and suicide programs. both with some minimal required counseling and if you still feel the same way? off you go.

but that's not going to happen any time soon. as such, if you want to blow your brains out, go right ahead as far as i'm concerned.

But I think the argument that guns make suicides easier isn't.

people have commited suicide for many thousands of years. guns are just one of the easiest and most humane ways out... but to think suicide can be prevented? pffft, i cant say much about the state of mind of those people, but i cant believe that it would matter that much if they're serious about it.

ANd honestly, I have no problem making either crime or sucide harder to accomplish.

but what if in doing so you impede freedoms of other people?

you could easily push alcohol into the dangerous drug section and make it illegal. just because many people abuse it and end up hurting themself or others.

yet, you're not even seriously pondering on this issue? that while the deaths related to alcohol or tabacco for that matter are exponentially higher than those caused by legally owned firearms...

 

[victor]

Maybe you fail to see that a lot of people who commit suicide aren't really in touch with themselves anymore, and have clouded judgment?

 

[SuAside]

Maybe you fail to see that a lot of people who commit suicide aren't really in touch with themselves anymore, and have clouded judgment?

and? that changes the matter how exactly?

 

[New Enclave]

You are now dead. Thank you for using Stop and Drop.

The future.

 

[SuAside]

haha, yeah, i remember that episode.

but i was thinking more along the line of those euthanasia centers in Soilent Green (except with some counseling sessions attached to it).

but hey, that's never going to happen...

 

[Starseeker]

Reminds me of Alita, with a sci-fi interpretation of the heaven and hell. The upper city, the heaven, is a technological utopia where you can have do just about everything. But it's controlled by a big brother AI program that controls things right down to the genetics.(basically you think you have the choice) Hell, or the cities/city on earth is a polluted wasteland where everything goes, but life is shit.

Anyway, whenever someone brings up the topic of gun control, I am reminded of what my law professor said, school violence would never have happened in his time. He meant that in the way as in, if the guy tried to do something stupid, he would have been shot dead/wounded before he even tried. If there is an equality in gun ownership, people can probably take care of themselves more in the face of danger.

A quote from a book that I am reading, he is a reporter in China, and one guy he met on the plane told him this, "America is equal because people are allowed to own guns. It's an equalization of power. China doesn't allow its people to own guns, so we are powerless. The only power/thing we can rely on to protect ourselves, is money"

 

[Paladin Solo]

I remember reading your post about living in a Turkish village. Where did you live when you were here?

My dad was stationed at Incirlik AFB for about ten years. During those ten years, I lived in Adana for one year, and since my dad was regularly on duty or on TDY and since my mom was busy working to try and keep money coming in, I spent most of my time in the village right outside the base staying with relatives and family friends. I was in Turkey from 1987 to 1996.

 

[welsh]

@ Suaside- the bomb making thing was aimed at what Paladin Solo was saying about bomb making. Yes blowing up people with bombs is also illegal, but I think just making explosives without a license is banned in some places. Those who make fireworks often do so under stiff regulations.

As for suicide- last I checked no nation allows its people to commit suicide and its still a felony. Generally, the consequences of attempted suicide are probably a bit of court ordered counseling. Whether that works or not, I am not so sure. At the end of the day, the idea is that no one has the right to take his own life. Why? Probably the social costs are too great.

Does it infringe personal choice? Yes. But if the person is really committed they will achieve it. Perhaps some times self-destruction is rational, but I think usually its not.

But if they are of mixed motives, then what they might end up doing is causing trouble for others- potential rescuers, for instance. At the end of the day, a person considering sucide might be better off checking into a psychiatric clinic and reconsidering their choices. I have a bit more faith in psychiatry- we have medicine for depression.

I am willing to bet that we have not reached the point where Soyvent Green is the answer to overcrowded earth and I don't think the costs of psychiatric care is higher than the costs of suicide. That said, I would also say that there is a difference between suicide and the "right to die with dignity" for those suffering great pain of an illness that is medically uncurable.

When we get to the point where life is easily extinguished then we are moving to a very bad place for human civilization.

Seriously, I sympathize for those suffering depression who off themselves. But I think they might have tried psychiatric care or medication before they caused a lot of drama. Usually, I think, is pathetic.

As for alcohol and drugs- I think mix alcohol and drug use and firearms and you have a dangerous mix. Add immaturity and things get really dangerous- which is why I don't support guns on campus.

Starseeker- with all do respect, your law professor was an asshole if that's what he said. Justifiable homicide is a very small minority of the total number of death by firearms done each year.

About firearms and China- well, lets be fair. Governments and run by rulers, rulers represent ruling classes. If the ruling class monopolizes violence for its own means, is a dictatorship, and distributes wealth to its own class interest- you have the recipe of a predatory state. In China, a nationalist orientation, a socialist history and a capitalist ruling class with corporatist interests makes me think that China isn't far off from Facism.

In contrast, a state in which the ruling class needs to bargain with other classes to stay in power means they are constrained. Such a state requires domestication of violence as violence makes economic interactions unstable. And to be fair, that's one of the key functions of government- to make the collective action problem of economies work. As Max Weber said, a state is foremost a centralized entity with a monopoly over legitimate violence. So I guess it depends on your ruling class and not whether they have guns. Afterall, had Chinese had guns after 1945, do you think the communists would not have come to power?