Page 804 of 1156

Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 9:28 pm
by MaximusBrood
I can slightly sympathize with the argument that gun ownership is necessary to be able to 'fight' against oppressing governments, notwithstanding my impression that an American Civil War typish 'uprising' is never going to get much support outside the US; simply because we welfare state citizens are spoon-fed that The Government will do nothing but protect us. In that light, I would deem gun ownership for the use of personal defense outside the US undesirable at best.

On the other hand, saying that a international organization consisting of 192 member states "hates America" (including America itself) is ignorant at best, too. Organizations don't hate people, people do. Adding to that, I doubt that the primary motivation behind pushing anti-gun ownership legislation is hate.

Feud wrote:They want our guns, likely so we can't fight back when they take our jerbs.

The year is 1938, and the US senate has finally agreed to let the United Nations control the last remaining autonomous area in the world: North America.

Do you really think that even in such a ridiculous scenario you would stand a chance and fight the regime? With the Constitution in your left hand and a handgun in the other.

Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 9:33 pm
by Feud
Personally, I find it amusing that you seem to have taken me seriously twice. :wink:

Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 9:43 pm
by MaximusBrood
Then for the record: do you or do you not sympathize with the NRA's views on gun possession?

In any case, I know from previous posts that you support gun ownership for personal defense against oppressing governments. I attacked that argument, regardless of whether you agree with that "NRA News" thingy.

(And no, I wasn't aware that that Southpark episode existed :P)

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:20 am
by Feud
MaximusBrood wrote:Then for the record: do you or do you not sympathize with the NRA's views on gun possession?


I don't agree with all of their theories on the motivations of various groups, but as far as actual gun possession laws go yes, I sympathize with them. There are very few, if any, guns that I think should be illegal to own and most of the gun laws that I agree with deal with prohibitions against violent criminals possessing them (and the prevention of such), not restrictions upon ownership or possession by law abiding citizens.

I'll be the first to admit there are lots of silly conspiracy theories out there about gun grabbing, but there's lots of silly theories about the moon landing, 9/11, fluoride, and virtually everything else. I mentioned this one since I found it was funny, I have a self deprecating sense of humor lately.

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 1:23 pm
by Xarlaxas
Actually, I have a query for Feud vis-a-vis gun law too. Would you be for making it a requirement that people have training in gun safety and use before being able to own guns?

That would seem to me to be a sensible compromise, if people who own guns can aim and know how a safety works, and other stuff like "always assume the gun is loaded" etc. it would probably help lower the amount of accidental gun deaths. . . .

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 1:25 pm
by Phelanpt
He posted recently about being for a law that removed the license requirement for guns, which included such training. I actually wanted to ask the same then, but forgot.

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 1:41 pm
by elexis
sigh

Image

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 1:50 pm
by Phelanpt
Think of all the space you're now getting! :P

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 3:18 pm
by Mas Tnega
I can't blame your computer, I'd consider anything by U2 to be antidata too.

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 3:53 pm
by jelco
Whoop-ti-doo, it appears the local football club has won the national championship for the first time ever. I wonder how much of the city will be left standing tomorrow.

Jelco

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 6:45 pm
by Feud
Xarlaxas wrote:Actually, I have a query for Feud vis-a-vis gun law too. Would you be for making it a requirement that people have training in gun safety and use before being able to own guns?

That would seem to me to be a sensible compromise, if people who own guns can aim and know how a safety works, and other stuff like "always assume the gun is loaded" etc. it would probably help lower the amount of accidental gun deaths. . . .


The thing about accidental shootings is that requiring a class probably wouldn't do anything to really fix the problem. Most of the accidental shooting deaths come as a result of negligence, not ignorance. A class can't teach maturity, experience, or proper respect with a potentially dangerous instrument, and the amount of teenage auto deaths despite driver's education courses is a testament to that.

I would be against such a law, unless the classes were free, available sufficiently to accommodate virtually any schedule (so as to not make it financially burdensome upon the poor), and were not used in a manner similar to literacy tests as to exclude people from ownership due to unrealistic standards of testing. Even then I'm not very enthusiastic about the idea, as the requirement of classes means that there would be a requirement of government approval. Such seems contrary to both the spirit and letter of the law.

If the point is to educate then I think the requirement should be that when purchasing from a dealer that, as part of the paper work, a form or something listing the 4 basic firearms rules (always treat every gun as if it were loaded at all times, never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire, never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy, be sure of your target and beyond) plus any other information thought needful, that would require initials after each point and a signature at the bottom stating you've read it and understand it.

That being said, anyone who wants to own and use guns and doesn't take the steps to receive official training on their operation is, in my opinion, a fool. The NRA and various other groups usually offer courses like that for little or no money, and though it might not teach you any safety rules you didn't already know there are numerous techniques and skills involved that a person really needs to be aware of (stances, grips, breathing, how to sight the gun, what to do when it jams, proper cleaning, storage, etc).

Mas Tnega wrote:I can't blame your computer, I'd consider anything by U2 to be antidata too.


That computers seem to have gained the ability to gauge qualitative worth is rather troubling, I'm off to see what it thins of my fiction writing...

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:40 pm
by xander
Feud wrote:If the point is to educate then I think the requirement should be that when purchasing from a dealer that, as part of the paper work, a form or something listing the 4 basic firearms rules (always treat every gun as if it were loaded at all times, never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire, never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy, be sure of your target and beyond) plus any other information thought needful, that would require initials after each point and a signature at the bottom stating you've read it and understand it.

Seriously? Are you really that naive? Paperwork like that is a liability-removing move on the part of a dealer, and has nothing to do with educating everyone. If the point is to educate, then you have to put people in a classroom where they have no choice but to listen to the instructor. If the point is cover your ass, then you have people sign paperwork.

xander

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:05 pm
by Feud
xander wrote:
Feud wrote:If the point is to educate then I think the requirement should be that when purchasing from a dealer that, as part of the paper work, a form or something listing the 4 basic firearms rules (always treat every gun as if it were loaded at all times, never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire, never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy, be sure of your target and beyond) plus any other information thought needful, that would require initials after each point and a signature at the bottom stating you've read it and understand it.

Seriously? Are you really that naive? Paperwork like that is a liability-removing move on the part of a dealer, and has nothing to do with educating everyone. If the point is to educate, then you have to put people in a classroom where they have no choice but to listen to the instructor. If the point is cover your ass, then you have people sign paperwork.


When I was writing that I was thinking of education only insofar as to informing the person of the basic fundamental rules of firearms, which really don't need to be taught in a class as they are simple enough for any right thinking adult to read and understand. I figured that my followup paragraph saying that a person should go to class for proper instruction on the rest of the stuff made it clear that classroom education was something that I felt to be a necessary part of responsible ownership, but I can see how my poor choice of words could lead to confusion over what I meant.

So, I think "inform" would have been a better word in that paragraph rather than "educate", and while some might not pay attention the information would at least have been presented to them.

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:26 pm
by Xarlaxas
Mandatory gun classes in school perhaps?

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:39 pm
by Xocrates
Feud wrote:That being said, anyone who wants to own and use guns and doesn't take the steps to receive official training on their operation is, in my opinion, a fool.

And therein lies the rub. The amount of fools in the world is rather staggering. If gun control laws are able to prevent even a fraction of those fools from getting their hands on guns, quite frankly I think they're doing their job.

Quite frankly it's the DRM argument: having too many restrictions can be harmful for law abiding citizens, but it would be foolish to have none.