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
User avatar
Grandstone
level2
level2
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:13 am
Location: New England
Contact:

Postby Grandstone » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:41 am

I can't find any way to respond to ChileanSuperpower's post without sounding like a prick for going back on topic, because clearly Pinochet's government was awful and repressive, but the topic is more about individual murderers, not governments, having access to guns, because governments have access to the most powerful weapons in the land as a matter of course.

That said, where do people get such weird ideas about the US? Prozac in the water? That's the stuff of conspiracy theory. Half of the country on antidepressants? The only report I find relevant says ten percent of women over 18 and four percent of men (presumably over 18 as well) are on antidepressants in the US. Here's the link: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/hus04.htm.

As for the gun debate, I haven't done enough research on the subject to have a firm idea of what to believe. I currently lean towards Feud's more libertarian view. Time and information could change that.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:29 am

Grandstone wrote:That said, where do people get such weird ideas about the US? Prozac in the water? That's the stuff of conspiracy theory. Half of the country on antidepressants? The only report I find relevant says ten percent of women over 18 and four percent of men (presumably over 18 as well) are on antidepressants in the US. Here's the link: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/hus04.htm.


A big part of that particular stereotype is that Americans are very free in talking about and admitting mild mental illnesses like depression. Most of the world still stigmatizes mental illness greatly and thus people tend to believe it doesn't exist while they see Americans talking about going to shrinks and figure it's rampant over here.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:14 am

Grandstone wrote: I currently lean towards Feud's more libertarian view.


It's been a long time since the last time someone described my views as Libertarian (at least while being serious), brings back old memories. :)
User avatar
Tripper
level4
level4
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:05 am
Location: Freeeeeeee

Postby Tripper » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:47 am

Just a quick one -

@NeoThermic - didn't the Korean massacre use grenades as well? That's cheating ;) - I said mass "shooting" (by an individual)

And as for the "armed criminal v unarmed law-abiding citizen" scenario. There must be some Nash equilibrium proof out there (it seems common sense) that if only the criminal is armed, it is far less likely that the gun will be used than if both the criminal and the victim are armed. In the latter case, it is preferable to shoot first (the victim because they are acting in self-defense against an armed aggressor, the criminal because they know the victim will shoot first, and so it goes). In the former case, the criminal has much more to lose by shooting (a murder rap) than by not shooting. It's also in the victim's interest to cooperate which reduces the change someone will get killed.

Please note that this presumes the actors are rational. If one of the actors is a psycho, you'd be thanking gun control for stopping him having an uzi ...
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

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

Postby Xocrates » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:26 pm

Feud wrote: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.


And I seem to recall a certain even in recent American history where the body count was significantly larger than those two combined. Should I mention the date?

Seriously, does anyone want to include terrorist organizations and acts of war on this discussion?
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:03 pm

Feud wrote: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.

So? It was done by terrorists, plus non-russians so I fail to understeand this remark. Using your way of thinking I can say about WTC massacre lol
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
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.

a) We are not talking about mental illnesses in general. We're talking about guys that, for example get fired, become angry and shoot couple dozens people in the supermarket. It never happened in Russia, but judging by the news (not Russian ones, no) happens really often in the US.

b) Somebody said about maniacs, mentioning Pichyshkin. That's another story. This man is perfectly sane and after some thinking came to the conclusions that he is aloud to kill people :? well, conclusions are OK, but then he started executing his ideology, even knowing that it's against law and because of that he's put into a prison for the rest of his life. That's totaly different from those mass kills by people who are fired, left by a girl/boyfriend etc.

And btw, Pichyshkin is ONE person afterall and I can use search function of some news site to find really MANY of mass kills in US.

c) Oh and that article made me laugh :lol: respect for authors for finding this "Peveralsk Psychiatric Hospital outside Yekaterinburg in the Urals". Well surely if you search well, you can find some halfly-abandomed vilage with doctors willing to say some really stupid things.

And once again, ther's no point in discussing gun crimes in general, because a criminal will be able to get a gun EVERYWHERE. Regardless state politics about weapons. Even if you're a citizen of Vatican, you really want a gun=you get it.
However, there's a point in talking about murders commited by those depressed people. They do such things just on the spot, so if there's no a shop with guns nearby, they're likely to end up calming down. That's my view on the problem.
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 3:25 pm

Xocrates wrote:
And I seem to recall a certain even in recent American history where the body count was significantly larger than those two combined. Should I mention the date?

Seriously, does anyone want to include terrorist organizations and acts of war on this discussion?


The point I was trying to make is that no country is immune to violence, we just have different types that we, for lack of a better phrase, get used to. The attacks I mentioned are all examples of domestic violence (unless people here wish to declare Chechnya or North Ireland independent), and were meant to show that while America may have more incidents of violence of certain types, that it in no way has a monopoly on violence.

People can point at the gun statistics all day if they want and decry America as being a violent backwards place (as RC did), but every country has some type of violence which in the end will kill you just as surely. Sure, you might get shot by a gang banger in America, just as you might get beaten by a rioting mob in Paris, blown up by a bomber in Israel, taken hostage in Russia, or what ever.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:25 pm

rus|Mike wrote:a) We are not talking about mental illnesses in general. We're talking about guys that, for example get fired, become angry and shoot couple dozens people in the supermarket. It never happened in Russia, but judging by the news (not Russian ones, no) happens really often in the US.


There was a case of two Russian Army recruits deserting and then going on a rampage and killing 7 officers and 2 civilians in 2002.

If you look at it Russians have bigger problems than getting fired. There is far more anxiety over larger issues like politics. Thus you see political assassinations far more than in say the US. The way violence is expressed in a country depends on lots of things. Some countries have more gun crimes, others have more bombings. Some have crimes fueled by personal issues others have crime fueled by national issues.

Statistically Russia has a murder rate more than four times that of the US. You can pretend that is not the case all you want, but all your wishing isn't going to change anything.


rus|Mike wrote:They do such things just on the spot, so if there's no a shop with guns nearby, they're likely to end up calming down. That's my view on the problem.[/b]


Actually many of these massacres are planned well ahead of time.
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:30 pm

What I don't understand is, by saying that there are worse countries than the USA for gun crime somehow automagically makes the USA.....good?

I don't think so. Gordon Brown could well turn round and say "AT LEAST IM BETTAR THAN MUGABE LOL" but it won't wash with anybody.
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.
Image
ChileanSuperpower
level2
level2
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:26 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Postby ChileanSuperpower » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:49 pm

I know a prision riot in Brazil that finished in a massacre

1992 Carandiru Massacre, São Paulo, Brazil, October 1992 - 111 inmates killed. Most of them already surrender or was unarmed and was murdered by the military police

talking about a single person killing spree in Chile, the last happened in the 80' where only one prision guard killed 10 inmates just for the rumor of a riot and wasn't planed, some people says that was superior's orders
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:55 pm

shinygerbil wrote:What I don't understand is, by saying that there are worse countries than the USA for gun crime somehow automagically makes the USA.....good?

I don't think so. Gordon Brown could well turn round and say "AT LEAST IM BETTAR THAN MUGABE LOL" but it won't wash with anybody.


I don't know that anyone is arguing that. However some people were arguing that the US was the worst in the world, which clearly isn't the case. They were also arguing that it was some particular defect of Americans, which doesn't seem to be the case either.
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:44 pm

If you look at it Russians have bigger problems than getting fired. There is far more anxiety over larger issues like politics.

Probably true.
Statistically Russia has a murder rate more than four times that of the US. You can pretend that is not the case all you want, but all your wishing isn't going to change anything.

Also probably true. But it's all about criminals which have such things as a job.
User avatar
Chimaera
level2
level2
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Behind You.

Postby Chimaera » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:13 am

We just have psychologicaly stable people here


Image

Showing his psychological stability there, with the perfectly logical and sane activity of topless hunting. In cosy Russia :P

As far as I am concerned, it is a basic civil liberty to be allowed to own a gun (we can't own them here, and they have even severely restricted the sale of AirSoft guns :() I totally agree with Feud on this matter.
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:38 am

Tripper wrote:@NeoThermic - didn't the Korean massacre use grenades as well? That's cheating ;) - I said mass "shooting" (by an individual)


Mass shootings, or "spree killings" as they are "officially" known do not care about the difference between shooting someone to death, stabbing them to death or 'nading them. The Tsuyama massacre was done with Katanas as well. The Port Arthur Massacre was also done with a knife, so if you really want to reject Woo Bum-kon's #1, then you also have to reject Martin Bryant's attempt.

NeoThermic
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:02 am

I originally voted changing the constitution but then realized that when I read the 2nd amendment it seems perfectly reasonable.

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 amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed on the people if necessary for a well regulated militia. Which I agree is fair enough, if someone had a gun for the purpose of use when their country need to call upon citizens in defense of the country, then they shouldn't be able to be arrested for carrying one. If America was under threat of possible invasion then this amendment makes perfect sense. No where do I see that you are allowed the right to bear arms outside of "A well regulated militia". As far as I know America has a strong military force for the defense of the country and is not likely to need to call upon citizens if it's military is inadequate. Can any gun owner legitimately claim their gun that they carry is for a well regulated militia. Unless America suddenly finds itself on imminent threat of invasion or lacking military power I see no constitutional reason for them to have a gun.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests