Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon May 03, 2010 5:05 pm

Feud wrote:
Xocrates wrote:My problem on the other hand is not so much that I'm against promoting responsible ownership, as I'm against promoting ownership at all.


Well if you'd like to switch tracks we can, but so far I thought we were discussing methods of education and accident prevention.

We were discussing gun control. Your point being that if people are responsible gun control isn't needed and me trying to say we can't assume people are going to be responsible.

Which was what I meant with this:

Xocrates wrote:I think your problem is that you assume gun owners care at least half as much as you do.



Maybe it's because you grew on an area with a big gun culture and I haven't, but I know people with guns (hunters, mostly) and I don't think they care about guns half as much as you do. Case in point: several years ago my father got a gun (a hunting shotgun). The gun was never fired, and no-one in the house ever learned how to operate it. I doubt we still have it, but if we do then I'm pretty certain neither of my parents know where it is.

And these are not uneducated people.

There are essentially three reasons why people want to buy guns: 1) they think they're cool (bad reason), 2) they're scared (meaning an often impulse acquisition), 3) they need one or otherwise have uses for one.

So I honestly don't see what's the problem in having laws preventing people to acquire guns by impulse, or at the very least ensuring they had the proper education to own one.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon May 03, 2010 5:49 pm

Xocrates wrote:We were discussing gun control. Your point being that if people are responsible gun control isn't needed and me trying to say we can't assume people are going to be responsible.


Then we were are very different wavelengths, because I never made any mention (nor intended to) about responsible gun control not being needed. (Perhaps the confusion is that we have different ideas of what responsible gun control is.)


Xocrates wrote:Maybe it's because you grew on an area with a big gun culture and I haven't, but I know people with guns (hunters, mostly) and I don't think they care about guns half as much as you do. Case in point: several years ago my father got a gun (a hunting shotgun). The gun was never fired, and no-one in the house ever learned how to operate it. I doubt we still have it, but if we do then I'm pretty certain neither of my parents know where it is.

And these are not uneducated people.


I'm about on average as far as my like for them (given the area), but no where close to being as into them as what many here are. I don't customize my guns, make my own ammo, build my own guns, belong to any gun clubs or organizations (had a free membership to the NRA, but it lapsed and I'm not rushing off to renew it), and I count my ammo in terms of hundreds and not thousands or tens of thousands like many here do. Perhaps it's that you don't get much exposure to the culture and so I seem a bit extreme (and I suppose I would be where you are due to the relativity of what's popular), but trust me when I say that I'm not one of the hardcore gun guys.

Xocrates wrote:There are essentially three reasons why people want to buy guns: 1) they think they're cool (bad reason), 2) they're scared (meaning an often impulse acquisition), 3) they need one or otherwise have uses for one.


Really, your first two reasons are part of your third reason, which in turn is the reason anyone buys anything (unless they just think they have use for one, but actually don't). :wink:

Xocrates wrote:So I honestly don't see what's the problem in having laws preventing people to acquire guns by impulse, or at the very least ensuring they had the proper education to own one.


What kind of laws would you suggest as far as "impulse" prevention goes? Does it matter if they already own one when they are buying on "impulse", cause if they already own one and are looking to shoot someone they really wouldn't be prevented by not being sold another, but law abiding types would be imposed upon.

The problem I have with laws that don't really stop the criminals but burden the law abiding is that they build a false sense of security and accomplishment. When those laws ultimately fail to do the job they never were really designed to do, they are rarely repealed and are instead replaced with an even more burdensome law. I'm fine with laws that target criminal behavior, but if the point is to babysit reasonable adults then I get a bit wary (doesn't mean I won't go for it, just that I get hesitant).
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Mon May 03, 2010 6:23 pm

I used to be all for legislating the access to gun, and geneally very anti-gun ownership.

But I no longer think that the government here in the UK really has the right to declare itself the only body able to use deadly force legitmately. Let alone the mess we're in overseas, we've seen gross distortion of the government's right to use deadly force (deaths and beatings at legitimate political protests, incorrect targets killed in the hunt-for-terrorists etc.) aligned with increasing and extraordinary erosion of our rights as citizens in the face of the law.

I don't for a second believe that if gun ownership existed amongst civilians that these changes wouldn't have happened - the US have gun ownership precisely because of their lack of trust in the government, but have seen their position vis-a-vis the government similarly eroded, and haven't taken up arms. But I've always had some sympathy with the 'no government's gonna fuck over an armed populace' argument, which has only grown in recent years.

That being said, gun ownership and crime is an incredibly complex issue, and I know that what I've said the above is depserately myopic.
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
User avatar
Phelanpt
level5
level5
Posts: 1837
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:20 am
Location: Portugal

Postby Phelanpt » Mon May 03, 2010 6:23 pm

I think positive incentives like the ones Feud mentioned would motivate more people to take the courses. And I think if I lived over there, I would want to encourage people to get the courses, seeing as they're likely to get guns anyway.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon May 03, 2010 6:28 pm

Cooper42 wrote:I don't for a second believe that if gun ownership existed amongst civilians that these changes wouldn't have happened - the US have gun ownership precisely because of their lack of trust in the government, but have seen their position vis-a-vis the government similarly eroded, and haven't taken up arms. But I've always had some sympathy with the 'no government's gonna fuck over an armed populace' argument, which has only grown in recent years.

These changes were slow enough and not drastic enough to cause people to take up arms against a government. Besides that, Americans, as a whole, no longer have the character and fortitude to do such a thing, even if it was for the right reasons.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon May 03, 2010 7:05 pm

So apparently the Hubble Space Telescope is lubricated with whale oil. Didn't see that one coming.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon May 03, 2010 7:32 pm

Feud wrote:I'm about on average as far as my like for them (given the area), but no where close to being as into them as what many here are. I don't customize my guns, make my own ammo, build my own guns, belong to any gun clubs or organizations (had a free membership to the NRA, but it lapsed and I'm not rushing off to renew it), and I count my ammo in terms of hundreds and not thousands or tens of thousands like many here do. Perhaps it's that you don't get much exposure to the culture and so I seem a bit extreme (and I suppose I would be where you are due to the relativity of what's popular), but trust me when I say that I'm not one of the hardcore gun guys.

Which just proves my point. By any standards around here you would be heavily hardcore.

Feud wrote:What kind of laws would you suggest as far as "impulse" prevention goes? Does it matter if they already own one when they are buying on "impulse", cause if they already own one and are looking to shoot someone they really wouldn't be prevented by not being sold another, but law abiding types would be imposed upon.

The problem I have with laws that don't really stop the criminals but burden the law abiding is that they build a false sense of security and accomplishment. When those laws ultimately fail to do the job they never were really designed to do, they are rarely repealed and are instead replaced with an even more burdensome law. I'm fine with laws that target criminal behavior, but if the point is to babysit reasonable adults then I get a bit wary (doesn't mean I won't go for it, just that I get hesitant).


A background check and a training course go a long way in decreasing impulse buying without hampering "reasonable adults".


Personally I don't think the point of these laws were ever to build a sense of security so much as to prevent things to get out of hand.

But you know something else that creates a false sense of security and accomplishment? Owning a gun.

Guns won't actually protect you. What's worse, they may lead to escalation. What's worse: a twitchy drug addict trying to rob you or a twitchy drug addict trying to rob you while believing you to be carrying a gun?

Also, congratulations, you managed to use your gun to defend yourself, however the other guy died. You'll have to spend the rest of your life with the weight on your conscience and spend thousands of dollars in court to prove it was self defence and necessary force.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon May 03, 2010 8:05 pm

Xocrates wrote:Which just proves my point. By any standards around here you would be heavily hardcore.


And in an Amish community I'd be tech savy, while in the real world I'm mediocre at best. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Xocrates wrote:A background check and a training course go a long way in decreasing impulse buying without hampering "reasonable adults".


I'm fine with background checks, and it just depends on the nature of the training course (as I already said). How would a background check and training prevent impulse buys? I've gone through many hours of training, and go through a background check with each gun purchase. Takes me all of about twenty minutes to get one, tops.

Xocrates wrote:
Guns won't actually protect you.


Oh really? Well, I'll be sure to inform my friends and family who, up until this time, were under the false assumption that having a gun in their situation had protected them. Certainly a gun won't save you all the time, just a first aid kit won't save you all the time. But just because a situation might exist where precations won't save you doesn't mean precautions shouldn't be taken in case of the numerous other situations where they would.

Xocrates wrote:What's worse: a twitchy drug addict trying to rob you or a twitchy drug addict trying to rob you while believing you to be carrying a gun?


That's entirely dependant upon the situation, but in general I'd much rather be armed in such a situation than unarmed (if he's twitchy it just means that he not only won't be shooting as straight, but also any learned skills will be far degraded, while I'm on my A game ;) ).

Xocrates wrote:Also, congratulations, you managed to use your gun to defend yourself, however the other guy died. You'll have to spend the rest of your life with the weight on your conscience and spend thousands of dollars in court to prove it was self defence and necessary force.


No, actually I wouldn't.

Thanks to my family's strong ties and involvment in law enforcement I've had the opportunity to meet quite a few people who, in an act of self preservation, have had to take another life. Though I make no claim to knowing each and every thought I've yet to meet one who, when asked, has expressed any indication of a guilt of what they've done. They've all said similar things, that they felt free of the burden of guilt since the taking of the life wasn't their decision, but rather the choice of the attacker who decided to place themselves into the situation. You don't just shoot someone because you want to, you do it because they've forced you into a posistion where you must decide to take a life or allow them to potentially take yours. Might I be striken with guilt? Sure, I might. But, in my experience, that isn't very likely if you've done what you're supposed to do.

Also, I wouldn't have to spend thousands proving it was neccesary. The burden is upon the State to prove otherwise (and we have very friendly laws concerning self defense in this state), and they have to pick up the bill of my defense.
Last edited by Feud on Mon May 03, 2010 8:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon May 03, 2010 8:09 pm

Xocrates wrote:Personally I don't think the point of these laws were ever to build a sense of security so much as to prevent things to get out of hand.

Are you crazy?! I would venture a guess that most gun laws were created specifically out of fear and therefore to alleviate that fear. "Your post savors strongly of fear." [cookie for anybody that gets the reference]

Xocrates wrote:But you know something else that creates a false sense of security and accomplishment? Owning a gun.

Guns won't actually protect you. What's worse, they may lead to escalation. What's worse: a twitchy drug addict trying to rob you or a twitchy drug addict trying to rob you while believing you to be carrying a gun?

Also, congratulations, you managed to use your gun to defend yourself, however the other guy died. You'll have to spend the rest of your life with the weight on your conscience and spend thousands of dollars in court to prove it was self defence and necessary force.

Now you're dealing in absolutes; who says I just killed him/her? I could have just wounded him/her. In fact, I could have just fired in the air and scared them straight.
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Mon May 03, 2010 8:29 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:In fact, I could have just fired in the air and scared them straight.


I'm hoping you wouldn't decide to do that within city limits. :/
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.
Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon May 03, 2010 8:34 pm

Hehe, I can't as I don't own a gun. :P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon May 03, 2010 8:37 pm

Montyphy wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:In fact, I could have just fired in the air and scared them straight.


I'm hoping you wouldn't decide to do that within city limits. :/


That actually could get you arrested around here, as unless it was shot (as in from a shot gun and not a slug) it could hurt someone.

And Ace, how can you live in Georgia and not own a gun? I thought they gave them out when you got a driver's license out there. :P
Last edited by Feud on Mon May 03, 2010 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon May 03, 2010 8:37 pm

Feud wrote:And in an Amish community I'd be tech savy, while in the real world I'm mediocre at best. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

My point was simply that one can not assume to be norm. i.e.: don't expect other people to be as aware of something as you.

Feud wrote:Oh really? Well, I'll be sure to inform my friends and family who, up until this time, were under the false assumption that having a gun in their situation had protected them. Certainly a gun won't save you all the time, just a first aid kit won't save you all the time. But just because a situation might exist where precations won't save you doesn't mean precautions shouldn't be taken in case of the numerous other situations where they would.


Not knowing what situations you refer to, I can't comment. Although I doubt that there weren't precautions other than a gun that couldn't have helped solved the situation, and if that's the case then let me tell you that you live in a fucked up place.

Feud wrote:
Xocrates wrote:What's worse: a twitchy drug addict trying to rob you or a twitchy drug addict trying to rob you while believing you to be carrying a gun?


That's entirely dependant upon the situation, but in general I'd much rather be armed in such a situation than unarmed (if he's twitchy it just means that he not only won't be shooting as straight, but also any learned skills will be far degraded, while I'm on my A game ;) ).


Assuming of course that he's not at point blank range, and therefore aiming is a non-issue while he shoots you when you try to react. Or since he knows he's in an area where most people are packing and therefore just shoots you outright before even making his intentions clear ;)

Either way, you just risked your life for what? A couple hundred grand (at best) and the work of filling in the paperwork at the police station?

Feud wrote:Thanks to my family's strong ties and involvment in law enforcement I've had the opportunity to meet quite a few people who, in an act of self preservation, have had to take another life. Though I make no claim to knowing each and every thought I've yet to meet one who, when asked, has expressed any indication of a guilt of what they've done. They've all said similar things, that they felt free of the burden of guilt since the taking of the life wasn't their decision, but rather the choice of the attacker who decided to place themselves into the situation. You don't just shoot someone because you want to, you do it because they've forced you into a posistion where you must decide to take a life or allow them to potentially take yours. Might I be striken with guilt? Sure, I might. But, in my experience, that isn't very likely if you've done what you're supposed to do.


This right here? It's scary.

Ace Rimmer wrote:Are you crazy?! I would venture a guess that most gun laws were created specifically out of fear and therefore to alleviate that fear.

I'll grant this. But will note that I reasonably, they shouldn't be (but like I said previously, reason is rather sparse in the world)


Ace Rimmer wrote:Now you're dealing in absolutes; who says I just killed him/her? I could have just wounded him/her. In fact, I could have just fired in the air and scared them straight.

And who's to say you did? You need to consider the worst case scenario before taking that kind of risk.
Last edited by Xocrates on Mon May 03, 2010 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon May 03, 2010 8:40 pm

Xocrates wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:Are you crazy?! I would venture a guess that most gun laws were created specifically out of fear and therefore to alleviate that fear.

I'll grant this. But will note that I reasonably, they should be (but like I said previously, reason is rather sparse in the world)


Ace Rimmer wrote:Now you're dealing in absolutes; who says I just killed him/her? I could have just wounded him/her. In fact, I could have just fired in the air and scared them straight.

And who's to say you did? You need to consider the worst case scenario before taking that kind of risk.

Thank you and my point wasn't to dismiss the worst case scenario, rather to say you shouldn't reason based solely on worst case scenario.

Edit:

Feud wrote:And Ace, how can you live in Georgia and not own a gun? I thought they gave them out when you got a driver's license out there. :P

I actually have two Georgia driver's license (old address/new address). :P I am just not a fan of guns for a number of reasons:
  1. Shooting them is fun! However, maintenance, safety (have three kids), training takes that fun out of it (I'd rather do other stuff).
  2. I don't/wouldn't rely on guns for protection.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon May 03, 2010 9:05 pm

Xocrates wrote:My point was simply that one can not assume to be norm. i.e.: don't expect other people to be as aware of something as you.


I didn't, or else I woouldn't have considered a need for incentives to get people to gun classes. :wink:

Xocrates wrote:Not knowing what situations you refer to, I can't comment. Although I doubt that there weren't precautions other than a gun that couldn't have helped solved the situation, and if that's the case then let me tell you that you live in a fucked up place.


Oh, there were plenty of precautions, all of which ultimately failed. Get enough drugs into a person that they think they are Superman battleing Robo-Cop, or one that intends to kill themselves but not before taking someone they feel wronged by down with them, and they tend to burn through the firewalls fairly quickly.

Certainly, there are times when there are other options availible. I've been in them, and I chose those options. But, I'd much rather have a weapon and choose not to use it than to need one and not have it.

Xocrates wrote:Assuming of course that he's not at point blank range, and therefore aiming is a non-issue while he shoots you when you try to react. Or since he knows he's in an area where most people are packing and therefore just shoots you outright before even making his intentions clear ;)

Either way, you just risked your life for what? A couple hundred grand (at best) and the work of filling in the paperwork at the police station?


Well, there are several things going wrong with your assmptions right there that the whole proper training would do a lot to mitagate (distances, reactions, etc). When people get training on firearms the training isn't "how to shoot an unarmed person", it's on how to avoid the situation, and if forced into it, how to win from a disadvantaged posistion. Most of the time training wins, even in those situations you described (you'd be surprised how many fights are won by the person who gets shot first).

Xocrates wrote:This right here? It's scary.


What's scary to me is that you'd expect them to feel guilt for not being victimized, that they should feel bad about preserving thier life when placed by others in danger, and that they should avoid taking life saving actions against bad people for fear of feeling bad about it later. That's truely bizzare. Personally, I'd think that I'd feel much greater guilt that my inaction would have put many others, who are perhaps less able to survive, in danger.

Ace Rimmer wrote:[*] I don't/wouldn't rely on guns for protection.[/list]


I don't either, but that first part of point 1 makes up the difference. :wink:

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests