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:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:04 pm

I largely agree that a military coup is highly unlikely, which makes the argument that we need a heavily armed populous to defend against it rather weak.
Krell
level2
level2
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 2:23 am
Contact:

Postby Krell » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:42 pm

Feud wrote:I'm sure most people know my stance on the issue, but I'll reiterate it.

Guns aren't the problem, it's irresponsible people. While I agree that there needs to be some measure of gun control, I feel it should be limited to prevention of guns from reaching those with violent histories. Something that Penn and Teller once mentioned that I feel is applicable is that most of these shootings occur in so called "Gun Free Zones". Notice, you virtually never hear of a shooting at a gun show or NRA convention, and gun shops have incredibly low occurrences of crime, yet these are the places that have guns in the most abundance. Public places that ban guns only prohibit responsible citizens from protecting themselves, and unless we want strip searches at every school and mall entrance there isn't a way to prevent criminals from getting the guns in there in the first place.

Now, I'm very aware of the danger of gun crimes. I've had loaded guns pointed at my face on at least two different occasions (I hope there weren't others), one of which in the process of a crime being committed (they were freedom fighters, liberating my captive wallet :roll: ). I've lived in places where I went to sleep to the sound of gunfire. I wold love to see violence go down, but I feel that punishing the honest citizens isn't the way to go about it. One may say that a criminal wouldn't take a gun if they didn't think that they would face an armed citizen, but the mass shootings that inspired this thread were all carried out in places where the criminal wouldn't expect to encounter armed resistance, which is exactly why they chose them.

I don't really see an option up there that fits my vein of gun ownership, I have two right now with the goal of purchasing at least one a year (hard while in college).


Since I'm feeling too lazy to type anything profound right now, all I'm saying is...ditto.
InterNIC: Created to save agents everywhere
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:50 pm

Feud wrote:I'm sure most people know my stance on the issue, but I'll reiterate it.
Notice, you virtually never hear of a shooting at a gun show or NRA convention, and gun shops have incredibly low occurrences of crime, yet these are the places that have guns in the most abundance.


And suicide bombings never happen in terrorist training camps, so clearly suicide bombs should be legal too!
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:57 pm

Feud wrote: I have two right now with the goal of purchasing at least one a year (hard while in college).


Just wondering...if you are arming yourself for protection why do you need more than one :?:
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:22 am

ynbniar wrote:
Feud wrote: I have two right now with the goal of purchasing at least one a year (hard while in college).


Just wondering...if you are arming yourself for protection why do you need more than one :?:


It isn't only for protection. I enjoy shooting at a recreational level, and just as any self respecting golfer wouldn't show up to play with only a driver, I would like a selection to choose from depending on the occasion.

For example, my next purchase will likely be either a Ruger Mk. III or a Browning Buck Mark. They are both small .22 caliber pistols, and the reason why I would like one is that they are cheap to shoot, little recoil, and you can thus practice the basic mechanics and skills needed to fire hand guns proficiently without using a larger caliber which would provide more kick, and cost significantly more to fire. I can spend most of the day shooting a .22 for the same price as what my 9mm costs for an hour or two, and then when I do use my 9mm I'll be a much better shot with it.

Later on I would like to get a shotguns for skeet shooting and rifles for target. Also, if I'm out with friends or family I then have some for them to use.
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:47 am

Feud wrote:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
This is doubtful. In Iraq the US Army is hamstrung by the need to avoid civilian casualties. In a civil war this need is largely nonexistent.


They would have to. Were there to be wholesale slaughter of civilians then they would risk losing what ever popular support they may have and splintering the military. If we are talking about a sudden power grab we must remember that it would be working against he social conditioning on the majority of Americans, and a movement too quickly risks alienating those that they need to support it. Further, while the U.S. military is strong it requires a lot of support, and an all out war without regards to the civilian population, either in lives or opinion, risks destroying the vital logistical and structural support the military needs to run on.

An American dictatorship would require the significant support of the people in it's early days, the country is too large and the military too small to effectively rule without popular support of some kind, and they need the manufacturing facilities of the mid west just as much as the high tech corridor of California and the bread basket of the plains, and that's only if they wanted to maintain the military much less the nation. If they started bombing suburbs or strafing crowds of people they risk losing control, and until a stable authoritarian system was in place they would be forced to do things as delicately or more so then they have in Iraq.

It would be in this early time that a revolution would have it's greatest chance to succeed, and it's goal wouldn't be to win as it would be to delay things long enough to win support of those in the military still loyal to the American ideal and those foreign powers who would not like to see a dictatorial America to get involved with their greater access to resources.


What I am wondering is how something so drastic as a absolute dictatorship arising in America would ever get popular support. We have already agree the military isn't going to be able to rule, the president is kept in check by congress and the courts can stop law passing which would lead to America under total authoritarian control. Short of power grab for the courts, congress and the military at once any of those branches can stop the others from taking power if they have popular backing (which we assume they would if a dictatorship was trying to get in power).

There is also the pressure other countries would put on America if they tried to become a dictatorship, with one of the strongest militaries in the world and a large store of nuclear weapons no country is going to stand by idlely whether they are a democracy or not. And I know there have been many changes made which deprive individuals of some of their rights like the patriot act and the removal of Habeas corpus but you don't need a people's militia to change those things, you need protests, you need petitions, a cry to impeach the president, there are still plenty of non-violent, more effective ways of changing the government, voting for one everyone on America could be bothered.

The other problem with a small revolutionary force when a government starts abusing their power is the fact that you legitimize their cause. While some may see them as freedom fighters the government calls them terrorists and in order to protect Americans they want to pass a few more laws giving them more powers to combat them and before you know it you have a government who have the people following the government under the fear of an internal terrorist attack under another government, you already see this process in a lesser extent currently all over the world over the "war on terror". It's much easier for the government to make violent revolutionaries the enemy and almost impossible to make non-violent revolutionaries the enemy.
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:54 am

Feud wrote:It isn't only for protection.

Ruger Mk. III
Browning Buck Mark.
my 9mm
shotguns
rifles


Apologies for the snip but wow that's a lot of guns (to someone in the UK :wink:)

Do you think there are folk out there kidding themselves that they need a gun for protection when in fact they just like shooting them...the self protection excuse is quite convenient after all..."Hey I'm not a gun nut :!: I'm just protecting myself :!: "

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

Postby Feud » Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:51 am

vanarbulax wrote:
What I am wondering is how something so drastic as a absolute dictatorship arising in America would ever get popular support. We have already agree the military isn't going to be able to rule, the president is kept in check by congress and the courts can stop law passing which would lead to America under total authoritarian control. Short of power grab for the courts, congress and the military at once any of those branches can stop the others from taking power if they have popular backing (which we assume they would if a dictatorship was trying to get in power).


What happens when the President disobeys the courts, and he had military backing? Congress and the Courts can only use their checks so long as the voting populace wants them to. In theory in 1775 Americans, as British citizens living on British land, should have had the same rights and privileges as those in England (as well as the responsibilities), but it was decided that we should not be allowed a vote, that we should not have representative taxation, that we should not enjoy the rights as those living on the other side of the ocean. Were there courts and checks meant to protect us? Yes, but they didn't. If such a time were to ever arise in America, the people should have the means by which, after all other options are expended, to rise up and change things. That was the whole reason we wrote the Declaration of Independence, to set forth the moral justification for armed rebellion once all other options fail.

vanarbulax wrote:There is also the pressure other countries would put on America if they tried to become a dictatorship, with one of the strongest militaries in the world and a large store of nuclear weapons no country is going to stand by idlely whether they are a democracy or not. And I know there have been many changes made which deprive individuals of some of their rights like the patriot act and the removal of Habeas corpus but you don't need a people's militia to change those things, you need protests, you need petitions, a cry to impeach the president, there are still plenty of non-violent, more effective ways of changing the government, voting for one everyone on America could be bothered.


I agree, the Patriot Act should not be resisted by violent means, nor do I think that any of our government's current policies deserve such drastic measures. The taking up of arms should only be the very last resort, after all other options have been expended, and during our revolution it only really began once the government began using military force to deprive the citizens of their civil liberties. Please don't think that I am, in any fashion, advocating an armed revolt so long as representative government exists. So long as freedom of speech and the power of the vote exist they are our best weapons against tyranny and should not be abandoned at anytime. So long as the votes are being counted, and the people allowed to speak, let them be the means of change.

ynbniar wrote:
Do you think there are folk out there kidding themselves that they need a gun for protection when in fact they just like shooting them...the self protection excuse is quite convenient after all..."Hey I'm not a gun nut :!: I'm just protecting myself :!: "

:?:


Sure, there are probably those out there. I admit that the primary use of my guns are recreational, defense is a nice bonus though.
User avatar
Tripper
level4
level4
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:05 am
Location: Freeeeeeee

Postby Tripper » Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:32 am

Feud wrote: I admit that the primary use of my guns are recreational, defense is a nice bonus though.


[stir]

Compare and contrast:

Code: Select all

Guns:
Physical effect:  Deploy concentrated enery per unit area at distance
Principal intended use:  Killing things (at distance)
Alternative use:  knocking down targets at a distance, when things to kill aren't available

Knives:
Physical effect:  Deploy concentrated force per unit area under hand control
Principal intended use:  Cutting material e.g. cooking, craft
Alternative use:  Cutting people (or self, for that matter.  Not to mention hijacking aircraft)


Note that in both cases, the Alternative use is not the most plausible utility for the physical effect.

Also note that in the UK at least, it's illegal for children to buy knives ... (bit of a shame for all those budding Jamie Olivers out there)

[/stir]

Cheers, Tripper
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:44 pm

Ye ole Google brought this one up first, so I'm posting it it.

Bob Costas, quoting Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock wrote:"Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?"

"But here," wrote Jason Whitlock," is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."


(Bob Costas, discussing the murder-suicide of NFL's Jovan Belcher)

Do you agree? Belcher apparently killed his girlfriend, then drove to his boss to say some final words, then killed himself. Seems like he was (at least) intent on killing himself regardless of guns or no guns.
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:03 pm

What I find disturbing about the Belcher case is not that it was gun violence, that it was a murder-suicide, that no-one around him seems to understand what happened or anything like that. I'm most disturbed by the fact he (supposedly) shot his girlfriend in front of her mother and leaves a kid of three months. With that context, it suddenly becomes seriously fucked up.

And with that background, I don't believe the gun being available was the final straw. It may have sped up the process, but it didn't play a critical role.

Also: holy shit batman necrobump.

Jelco
Last edited by jelco on Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."
- Douglas Adams
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:04 pm

There was another murder suicide that day in Wyoming, at a college that a friend of mine works at. Though, in that case, the guy actually killed two people and then himself.

Bob Costas didn't mention that one, maybe he hadn't even heard of it. Who's to say? The Wyoming attack was a bit different though, the killer stabbed one person to death, went onto the school campus with a bow and arrow, shot another person with it, then stabbed him and himself to death. Two murders, suicide, no gun involved.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of gun control, Costas' assertion that if it weren't for a handgun that Belcher and Perkins would be alive is absurd. The guy's profession is to be large, strong, fast, and aggressive. Saying that he could not, or would not, have been able to kill her unless aided by a gun lacks both evidence and reason. And if Costas really wants to go there, the flip side of that coin is that if Perkins had been armed she might be alive today, or at least would have had a better chance against a large, violent aggressor.

The question he wasn't going to ask was whether a sport that promotes aggression and frequently results in head injuries might have contributed to the behavior. Don't get me wrong, I like football and I'm not blaming the sport. But before he goes blaming the tools that someone uses he should be asking about how, why, and what contributed to them making the decision in the first place.

*Fun fact: Having owned handguns for years, I've yet to shot or even aim any of them at anybody!
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:27 pm

jelco wrote:Also: holy shit batman necrobump.

Didn't want to start a new thread just for a quick comment/question. :P

Also

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:43 pm (xander)
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:15 pm (111none)
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:46 pm

User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:20 am

Feud wrote:There was another murder suicide that day in Wyoming, at a college that a friend of mine works at. Though, in that case, the guy actually killed two people and then himself.

Bob Costas didn't mention that one, maybe he hadn't even heard of it. Who's to say? The Wyoming attack was a bit different though, the killer stabbed one person to death, went onto the school campus with a bow and arrow, shot another person with it, then stabbed him and himself to death. Two murders, suicide, no gun involved.

The two cases are utterly unrelated and Bob Costas is a sports commentator discussing an event that involved professional athletics, so I don't see why you would expect him to comment on this story.

Feud wrote:Regardless of where you stand on the issue of gun control, Costas' assertion that if it weren't for a handgun that Belcher and Perkins would be alive is absurd. The guy's profession is to be large, strong, fast, and aggressive. Saying that he could not, or would not, have been able to kill her unless aided by a gun lacks both evidence and reason. And if Costas really wants to go there, the flip side of that coin is that if Perkins had been armed she might be alive today, or at least would have had a better chance against a large, violent aggressor.

Maybe, maybe not. In many socio-economic classes, there is a great deal of external pressure for men to take care of their spouses/partners and children (i.e. entirely provide for them---this is particularly true among groups where women are discouraged from working). When a man feels that he is failing, or will fail, to provide for his family, it sometimes occurs that he will choose to commit suicide, and kill his partner and/or children as an act of "mercy." This is a fairly well documented phenomenon that you can probably read up on by searching the sociological or anthropological literature.

The point is that in such cases, the killing is not an act of aggression, but an act of mercy (from the killer's point of view). The aggressor is more likely to be depressed than angry, and generally wants to make things quick and painless. The superior speed and strength are less likely to be a factor, as beating or choking a person to death fails to meet the quick and painless criteria. Assuming that the football player fell into this rationale, it is entirely possible that his partner would still be alive if not for the gun. It is, unfortunately, unknowable, but perfectly reasonable to make the claim.

Feud wrote:The question he wasn't going to ask was whether a sport that promotes aggression and frequently results in head injuries might have contributed to the behavior. Don't get me wrong, I like football and I'm not blaming the sport. But before he goes blaming the tools that someone uses he should be asking about how, why, and what contributed to them making the decision in the first place.

This question should be answered, as well. Understanding the motivation of a killer is important. Perhaps his football playing led to diminished capacity, which would have rendered him ineligible to legally own a firearm.

Feud wrote:*Fun fact: Having owned handguns for years, I've yet to shot or even aim any of them at anybody!

Irrelevant. The argument of people in favor of increased gun control is not that all owners of firearms are killers, but that it is too easy for killers to gain access to firearms. The goal is not to minimize the number of people who own firearms, but to minimize the number of people who are likely to kill who have access to firearms. Most veterinarians are not murderers, but every once in a while a vet grabs some prescription horse tranquilizers and offs his wife. We limit access of horse tranquilizers to those that have a need for them in the hopes of preventing such murders and abuse. I don't understand why firearms should be any different (aside from the constitutional argument---laws, even constitutional ones, should be discussed, debated, and potentially changed).

xander

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests