More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

What is your stance on gun proliferation?

I own a gun. I DON'T TRUST MY DAMN NEIGHBOUR!!!
2
2%
I own several guns, I'm a hitman .(shhhh don't tell anyone)
3
4%
Change the constitution. Outlaw guns once and for all!
14
16%
GIMME A FLAMETHROWER!
2
2%
Nukes for everyone!
7
8%
I don't own one right now, but I seek to acquire some soon as I'm planning a massacre.
2
2%
I'm a hippie. WADDUA THINK I MEAN?? *punches you in the face*
0
No votes
I don't like guns. When I kill people I use a dildo.
5
6%
mmmmmmmmmmmmy Glock.
1
1%
Strict gun control is the way to go.
18
21%
If everyone had guns, less violence would be the result.
11
13%
I'm in a gun club, I only shoot for pleasure.
2
2%
I'm in a gun club, I train for home defense.
3
4%
I like bananas.
6
7%
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
4%
Militias is our only hope.
6
7%
 
Total votes: 85
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:09 pm

Radiant Caligula wrote:I'm happy I don't live in America for the single fact that it has more public shootings than any other country on earth - if you rule out warzones and civil wars.


That's actually not true. According to the IANSA many countries have higher rates of gun crime. Link



My view is that guns have to be distinguished based on what they are designed to do. A hunting rifle should be treated different than a hand gun or an assault rifle. It's hard to commit a crime with a hunting rifle and it's hard not to with an assault rifle (though recreational shooting is certainly possible). In my mind hand guns should be registered and only sold to those who undergo a serious background check or alternatively should be banned. Assault weapons should be banned. Rifles and shotguns should be as freely available as possible. An alternative to banning is to strictly limit sales of handguns and assault weapons to licensed firing ranges and restrict their use to those ranges. This would provide a place where people can use the weapons recreationally with limited danger to the public.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:17 pm

Feud wrote:Many people take that stand, however you are taking the phrase out of context of the rest of the document. In amendments 1,4, and 9 it refers to "the people" not as a state but as individuals, and now where in the Constitution does it ever refer to the people as either States or any other form of municipal government. When it refers to States it says (as in the case of the 10th amendment) States. So unless we want to consider freedom of speech, and the protection from police as a right of the state and not the individual then we must use the same interpretive judgment on the 2nd amendment as we do with the others.


It is fairly accepted that "the people" as used in the Second Amendment has a collective meaning. The text reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The beginning of the sentence indicates that the purpose of the amendment is to protect "well regulated militias." It is not a statement of an inalienable right. This what most courts who have reviewed the matter have concluded as well.
User avatar
Radiant Caligula
level5
level5
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:47 am
Location: Somewhere sodomized

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby Radiant Caligula » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:43 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Radiant Caligula wrote:I'm happy I don't live in America for the single fact that it has more public shootings than any other country on earth - if you rule out warzones and civil wars.


That's actually not true. According to the IANSA many countries have higher rates of gun crime. Link



My view is that guns have to be distinguished based on what they are designed to do. A hunting rifle should be treated different than a hand gun or an assault rifle. It's hard to commit a crime with a hunting rifle and it's hard not to with an assault rifle (though recreational shooting is certainly possible). In my mind hand guns should be registered and only sold to those who undergo a serious background check or alternatively should be banned. Assault weapons should be banned. Rifles and shotguns should be as freely available as possible. An alternative to banning is to strictly limit sales of handguns and assault weapons to licensed firing ranges and restrict their use to those ranges. This would provide a place where people can use the weapons recreationally with limited danger to the public.


Let me rephrase: No other country produce more killing sprees than the US.

How often do you hear "eight people murdered in city mall" from Russia? Or "32 people killed in killing spree on university campus" from Brazil? Or "6 people killed in office by recently fired man" in South Africa? You hardly have to be an expert in statistics to figure out that the US is world leader in gun nuts gone crazy. The global news is fed with US massacres on a steady basis. If America was a warzone or destabilized country it would be considered "normal", but the USA is a "functional" state that is considered "advanced" in many ways. Why do you produce so many gun nuts?

Most of the red countries on your chart is hardly comparable anyway, as very few of them could be considered to be "stable western societies". I find it interesting that NONE of the other western democracies is pink.

The US is a continent more than it is a single country and your "freedom" has established some of the biggest cultural and social/economical differences of any melting pot in the world. The combination of extreme riches next to millions of people living under the international poverty line is bound to create lots of friction. Add easy access to guns (in general) and you have a volatile mix.

I think the American culture is in love with fictionalized violence and it has a historical record of solving many international conflicts with pre-empive force rather than diplomacy. When a culture has gone blind to its own love affair with cultural violence and almost is unable to tame its own military muscles abroad, I see a pattern emerge. I don't say the general American public is positive to the use of force on a personal basis, but when violence becomes so incorporated into the fabric of the society I think it is inevitable for it to manifest and reproduce itself everywhere.

Having a gun nearby greatly increases the chances of you using it. It's really simple arithmetic. It's like having packets of cigarettes around when you're trying to quit. If you were unable to get more cigarettes anywhere your chances of quitting would drastically improve. And when you're trying to quit and suddenly meet people in a social settings who offer you a stick, you are likely to crumble under peer pressure and "have that final blow".

I think the issues with shootings and and violence are a mix of many really simple explanations, but the biggest deciding factor wether a society can reduce gun violence and public massacres basically comes down to one word: accessibility.
-First you wanna kill me. Now you wanna kiss me?? BLOW!
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby NeoThermic » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:02 pm

Radiant Caligula wrote:Let me rephrase: No other country produce more killing sprees than the US.

How often do you hear "eight people murdered in city mall" from Russia? Or "32 people killed in killing spree on university campus" from Brazil? Or "6 people killed in office by recently fired man" in South Africa? You hardly have to be an expert in statistics to figure out that the US is world leader in gun nuts gone crazy. The global news is fed with US massacres on a steady basis. If America was a warzone or destabilized country it would be considered "normal", but the USA is a "functional" state that is considered "advanced" in many ways. Why do you produce so many gun nuts?


Top 4 shooting sprees:

  • Uireyeong massacre (South Korea, 1982) - 57 dead
  • Port Arthur massacre (Australia, 1996) - 35 dead
  • Virginia Tech massacre (United States of America, 2007) - 32 dead
  • Tsuyama massacre (Japan, 1938) - 30 dead


Sure, I'll grant you that if you look at the top 100, then yes, the USA might turn up the most, but I'd wager it's just because it's easy to get weapons in the US.

NeoThermic
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:09 pm

RC wrote:How often do you hear "eight people murdered in city mall" from Russia?

Actually it never happened here. And not because of state politics about guns :? if you really want a gun, you will get it, regardless where you are. We just have psychologicaly stable people here :wink: I've never met a person, who used anti-depressant even once in his life and as I heard somewhere, about half Americans take those things on regular basis :shock: holy shit!!

RC wrote:Having a gun nearby greatly increases the chances of you using it.

Hardly a person who had a gun and ended up not using it at all exists :? I don't think that there are people that buy a gun all of a sudden, just in case :shock: people usually have a direct purpose for such a purchase. As you pointed out, just having a gun with you increases a possibility of using it greatly. I'd say to 100%, speaking about the whole life.

RC wrote:killing spree

AHHA!!! Unreal Tournament!!! Killing Spree!! Rampage!! Dominating!! :twisted: :twisted: :lol:
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:15 pm

rus|Mike wrote:
RC wrote:How often do you hear "eight people murdered in city mall" from Russia?

Actually it never happened here. And not because of state politics about guns :? if you really want a gun, you will get it, regardless where you are. We just have psychologicaly stable people here :wink: I've never met a person, who used anti-depressant even once in his life and as I heard somewhere, about half Americans take those things on regular basis :shock: holy shit!!


Something about their water actually containing detectable amounts of prozac at some point I believe....
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:35 pm

Radiant Caligula wrote:Let me rephrase: No other country produce more killing sprees than the US.


I actually doubt that's true either.

Radiant Caligula wrote:How often do you hear "eight people murdered in city mall" from Russia? Or "32 people killed in killing spree on university campus" from Brazil? Or "6 people killed in office by recently fired man" in South Africa?


How often do you hear any news from those places that doesn't involve their head of state?


Radiant Caligula wrote:You hardly have to be an expert in statistics to figure out that the US is world leader in gun nuts gone crazy.


No, all you have to be prejudiced and ill-informed.


Radiant Caligula wrote:The global news is fed with US massacres on a steady basis. If America was a warzone or destabilized country it would be considered "normal", but the USA is a "functional" state that is considered "advanced" in many ways. Why do you produce so many gun nuts?


The global news is fed with US period. Of course you are going to see much more coverage of violence from America.

That said civil violence has historically been much more of a problem outside the US than inside it. For instance many Americans are shocked by the bombings that have plagued much of the world as well as the fact that in many countries security forces armed with automatic weapons are a common site.

Radiant Caligula wrote:Most of the red countries on your chart is hardly comparable anyway, as very few of them could be considered to be "stable western societies". I find it interesting that NONE of the other western democracies is pink.


I never said the US didn't have a problem, I simply said your statement was incorrect, which it was. I personally believe in evidence to back up such claims, so I provide some to support my correction.


Radiant Caligula wrote:The US is a continent more than it is a single country


I'm not sure what this means. The US is a country in the continent of North America (which also includes Canada and Mexico).


Radiant Caligula wrote:I think the American culture is in love with fictionalized violence and it has a historical record of solving many international conflicts with pre-empive force rather than diplomacy.


Historic record of pre-emption? . . .must be using a different history book than I am.

As for being in love with fictionalized violence that's hardly unique. Japan is far more "out there" in this regard and they have a much lower crime rate than the US. Europe on the other hand likes real violence quite a bit (see the sports brawls and sports like bull fighting). I'm not sure you can connect any of that directly to gun violence.


Radiant Caligula wrote:When a culture has gone blind to its own love affair with cultural violence and almost is unable to tame its own military muscles abroad, I see a pattern emerge. I don't say the general American public is positive to the use of force on a personal basis, but when violence becomes so incorporated into the fabric of the society I think it is inevitable for it to manifest and reproduce itself everywhere.


As I say there is actually a much larger culture of violence in Europe than in the US. Violent crime in most European nations is quite a bit higher than in the US. The difference is that in the US crime is more often fatal. In Europe there is more violent though non-lethal crime. Things like muggings are quite rare in the US but plague many European countries. The only serious violence I've ever seen has been in Europe.
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:38 pm

rus|Mike wrote:Actually it never happened here. And not because of state politics about guns :? if you really want a gun, you will get it, regardless where you are. We just have psychologicaly stable people here :wink: I've never met a person, who used anti-depressant even once in his life and as I heard somewhere, about half Americans take those things on regular basis :shock: holy shit!!


Psychologically stable people like Alexander Pichushkin you mean?

Can you be psychologically stable and delusional at the same time?
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:43 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:must be using a different history book than I am.

omg, don't let me start a talk about what in the US is called "history" :lol: :lol: :lol:

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:there is actually a much larger culture of violence in Europe than in the US

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:muggings are quite rare in the US

...words fail me.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Psychologically stable people like Alexander Pichushkin you mean?

Medical comission found him absolutely psychologically stable and sane. But surely you know better than professional medics :x Or you just don't know what do this words mean? :roll:
User avatar
wwarnick
level5
level5
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: Rexburg, ID

Postby wwarnick » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:46 pm

There's alot of stuff in our water. Don't ask me what though.

Anyway...
Radiant Caligula wrote:I think the American culture is in love with fictionalized violence and it has a historical record of solving many international conflicts with pre-empive force rather than diplomacy. When a culture has gone blind to its own love affair with cultural violence and almost is unable to tame its own military muscles abroad, I see a pattern emerge.

You're generalizing. There certainly are Americans that think that way. Lots of them. And lots don't. I sure don't. I'm all for gun control. Don't assume all Americans are the same.
Fued wrote:To use a popular tag line in the gun community, gun control is racist, sexist, elitist, and has no place in a modern liberal society. It prevents minorities from protecting themselves from an oppressive majority (with 100 million people killed in the 20th century by their own governments the possibility of such should be apparent), it prevents women from properly defending themselves from larger and stronger male aggressors (it gives a 90 pound woman the right to fist fight with a 200 pound rapist), denies protection from the poor while the wealthy can afford body guards (who are permitted to have guns), and hearkens back to the ideas that the people can't be trusted with their own well being.

Look at the flipside. Many of these "assailants" may have guns themselves, rendering their victims helpless. You can run from a gunless criminal, but you can't run from a gun. Besides, calling it racist, sexist, and elitist is calling the people who support it racist, sexist, and elitist. Those that support it think that those people you referred to may actually be "safer".

One person said that gun control means the criminals have guns while the victims don't. In my opinion, there will always be guns on the black market, but the majority of gun killings are done with guns that are bought legally at a gun shop. Maybe not by the criminal, but he couldn't have stolen the gun if there wasn't one to steal. Therefore, there will be times when the criminal is the only one with a gun, but the frequency of gun crimes in general would decrease dramatically. Thus, those situations would be fewer. The defense is weakened, sure, but so is the offense.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:10 am

rus|Mike wrote:Medical comission found him absolutely psychologically stable and sane. But surely you know better than professional medics :x Or you just don't know what do this words mean? :roll:


My point was that Russians are just as capable of killing large numbers of people as anyone else (and historically are responsible for many of largest slaughters in history).


As far as mental health, Russia actually has high rates of mental illness. Historically mental illness in Russia was a highly political matter and was covered up as much as possible. This is starting to change however mental illness is still highly stigmatized which accounts for you no knowing of anyone who will admit to it.

I'm sure you don't trust the BBC at all, but for the others here this is a interesting article on mental illness in Russia.
User avatar
wwarnick
level5
level5
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: Rexburg, ID

Postby wwarnick » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:52 am

rus|Mike wrote:omg, don't let me start a talk about what in the US is called "history" :lol: :lol: :lol:
...words fail me.

It would be nice if they didn't. I would like to hear you refute his argument.

wwarnick
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Re: More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

Postby Feud » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:09 am

Radiant Caligula wrote:
How often do you hear "eight people murdered in city mall" from Russia? Or "32 people killed in killing spree on university campus" from Brazil? Or "6 people killed in office by recently fired man" in South Africa? You hardly have to be an expert in statistics to figure out that the US is world leader in gun nuts gone crazy. The global news is fed with US massacres on a steady basis. If America was a warzone or destabilized country it would be considered "normal", but the USA is a "functional" state that is considered "advanced" in many ways. Why do you produce so many gun nuts?


Well, I seem to remember something about a school massacre and a theater massacre in Russia that produced far more bodies then the average American shooting does.

Every country has their problems. France has rampant racism and riots, Britain isn't far past decades of bombings and shootings due to their Ireland issues, Germany had the Red Army Faction not too long ago killing all sorts of people, not to mention the soccer riots. Everyone has issues, violence is by no means exclusive to America.

Radiant Caligula wrote:The US is a continent more than it is a single country and your "freedom" has established some of the biggest cultural and social/economical differences of any melting pot in the world. The combination of extreme riches next to millions of people living under the international poverty line is bound to create lots of friction. Add easy access to guns (in general) and you have a volatile mix.


Canada is larger then the United States, so there goes the silly "continent" idea. Your next argument also comes up short, you talk about poverty and socio-economic issues, yet in the shootings that make the news that you keep talking about the shooters are almost exclusively from middle class families. You seem to want to ignore facts in order to push your social views of America, which isn't cricket.

Radiant Caligula wrote:I think the American culture is in love with fictionalized violence and it has a historical record of solving many international conflicts with pre-empive force rather than diplomacy. When a culture has gone blind to its own love affair with cultural violence and almost is unable to tame its own military muscles abroad, I see a pattern emerge. I don't say the general American public is positive to the use of force on a personal basis, but when violence becomes so incorporated into the fabric of the society I think it is inevitable for it to manifest and reproduce itself everywhere.


This is the same argument that is used to ban violent video games. So, unless you wish to ban Defcon lest it turn us all into genocidal madmen due to it's contribution to this culture of violence then perhaps this point should just be dropped.

Radiant Caligula wrote:Having a gun nearby greatly increases the chances of you using it. It's really simple arithmetic. It's like having packets of cigarettes around when you're trying to quit. If you were unable to get more cigarettes anywhere your chances of quitting would drastically improve. And when you're trying to quit and suddenly meet people in a social settings who offer you a stick, you are likely to crumble under peer pressure and "have that final blow".


This argument is down right silly. Of course having a gun nearby raises the chance that said gun will be used, just as having an automobile around raises the chance you will drive it (it's hard to drive one if there isn't one around after all). But, the argument says nothing of improper use. Should we ban all automobiles since some people drive drunk? After all, having an automobile around increases the likelihood that someone will drive drunk. Or instead should we only punish those who actually do drive drunk?

Radiant Caligula wrote:I think the issues with shootings and and violence are a mix of many really simple explanations, but the biggest deciding factor wether a society can reduce gun violence and public massacres basically comes down to one word: accessibility.


Again, facts are against you on this one. Switzerland and Israel both have incredibly high rates of accessibility (rivaling those of America), yet very low rates of gun violence.

A good resource would be for information can be found here.
User avatar
Pox
level5
level5
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:23 am
Location: Melbourne

Postby Pox » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:44 am

About the Port Arthur thing: sure, we had a bigger one than the USA ever had. But look how few we have overall - Australian nutters are available in quality, not quanitity. :P
ChileanSuperpower
level2
level2
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:26 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Postby ChileanSuperpower » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:17 am

I can see that you don't know nothing about chilean killing spree stories (that happend in the past and the last in the goverment of Agusto Pinochet).
In 1907 happened the massacre of the Escuela Santa María de Iquique (Santa María de Iquique School) ; soldiers fire on saltpeter workers and their unarmed associates. It will be years before the workers, terrorized by the brutal repression, resume the struggle for their rights.
saltpeter workers was killd with their wifes and kids, between 500 and 2,000 were killed. It's remembered like the worst massacre of unarmed people in the countries's story.
The place where it happened still working like a school, but it's also known like the most haunted school in the country.

During Pinochet's goverment over 1.000 of people was killed or tortured and desapeared.
In 1984, 12 unarmed people was killed by the police during an strike

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests