Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kilroy the Grand]

No one in this clip favors gun control except for the CRIMINAL SCUM

An armed society, is a polite society.

[RedKing]

No one in this clip favors gun control except for the CRIMINAL SCUM

An armed society, is a polite society.

Yes, the Old West was known for its genteel ways and lack of arguments amongst armed men. That's why we tell stories of the Cupcake Fight at the OK Corral.

[darkrider2]

I personally approve of gun control in most cases, but have a different philosophy on how we should be doing it. Restricting the types of guns is all good and fine but probably won't be the most effective at stopping this kind of stuff.

What needs to happen are procedures that help to detect or at least warm of the possibility of a shooting before it happens.

A good starting one would be an outright limit on the number of rounds you can be in possession of at any given time, and a requirement to provide information about what your spent rounds were used on (hunting is okay, target practice at a firing range is okay), and providing information on what you intend to use purchased rounds for.

[nenjin]

The fact that the guy had relativly easy acces to guns made it so much worse (or much easier to carry out) than it would be if he had heavily resticted or no access to firearms.

So? Every few months some guy in china stabs more people to death than him, in 1955 Elifasi Msomi killed 15 with a hatchet, should we ban knives and blades because someone might abuse them? Should everyone be forced to use public transportation to eliminate deaths related to automobiles? Or should you concentrate on the root of the problem, which is that he was insane, and he was ignored by everyone that should have helped him?

So let's double down and make it easier. In your example, you'd basically be saying that since it's acceptable to sell knives that kill people, it's acceptable sell knives that can kill MANY people with the same amount of effort. The logic being, I guess, that one is just the same as the other.

Again, why is it necessary to have an assault weapon when a pistol is perfectly legal? On the off-chance you're going to have to shoot 30 people? In what realistic scenario is that even likely? The only scenario it's proven true in has applied to sociopaths going on killing sprees.

I'm all for people having the right to own firearms. That's not what's debatable. What is debatable is what kind of guns people should be allowed to carry. And in all the years I've ever debated gun ownership, not one person has ever been able to offer up a reasonable, society-wide justification for assault weapons. It always comes down to "because I can" "because they're fun" "because the government might try to kill me" or "don't tread on me."

None of those justify possession of an assault weapon IMO, least of all needing to gun down many of your own countrymen or political authorities at a moment's notice.

The same laws that apply to gun stores apply to gun shows

And yet even your own link admits that unlicensed firearms sellers at gun shows do exist, even though "they're the minority." (Which they provide exactly zero substantive evidence to prove.)

Gunshows are self-policing, that's the issue. If the owner of the gunshow doesn't want to make an issue of it, they can let unlicensed firearms sellers do business there if they want. And as the current tone of this thread shows, clearly, gun owners, non-gun owners and gun enthusiats view personal responsibility very differently.

[G-Flex]

No one in this clip favors gun control except for the CRIMINAL SCUM

An armed society, is a polite society.

If you're only acting polite because you're afraid of getting shot, I highly doubt you're actually a polite person. If threat of violent death from their fellow citizens is the only thing keeping people from acting horrible to each other, then 1) There is a much deeper problem at hand, and 2) It's going to fall the fuck apart once someone has an edge over the other in terms of that firepower, like if someone on one side happens to be unarmed.

Personally, I don't really want to encourage a society where people are itching to do awful things to each other and only don't because they're afraid of getting shot. That's not a polite society, it's a scared-senseless society.

[RedKing]

No one in this clip favors gun control except for the CRIMINAL SCUM

An armed society, is a polite society.

If you're only acting polite because you're afraid of getting shot, I highly doubt you're actually a polite person. If threat of violent death from their fellow citizens is the only thing keeping people from acting horrible to each other, then 1) There is a much deeper problem at hand, and 2) It's going to fall the fuck apart once someone has an edge over the other in terms of that firepower, like if someone on one side happens to be unarmed.

Personally, I don't really want to encourage a society where people are itching to do awful things to each other and only don't because they're afraid of getting shot. That's not a polite society, it's a scared-senseless society.

Not to mention the logical extension of it is the argument that EVERY country should have nuclear weapons, and we'd have world peace.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A good starting one would be an outright limit on the number of rounds you can be in possession of at any given time, and a requirement to provide information about what your spent rounds were used on (hunting is okay, target practice at a firing range is okay), and providing information on what you intend to use purchased rounds for.

That is the most bureaucratic, working to create an Administrative Hell approach to gun control I've heard in a long time. Tracking guns is one thing, but tracking rounds? Glorious Zombie Tom Cruse, it would be a nightmare! The system would get backed up as soon as it was implemented. There are just way too many rounds.

Plus, you could just lie about what you were going to use the rounds for or what you used them for.

Not to mention the logical extension of it is the argument that EVERY country should have nuclear weapons, and we'd have world peace.

Firstly, not everything has to be taken to the logical extreme.

Secondly, nukes are not guns.

Thirdly, if every country was armed with nuclear weapons we probably would have world peace, just a much higher chance of nuclear holocaust or some use of nukes at some point in the future.

[Eagle_eye]

Going back to what Kilroy said about "overthrowing a corrupt government": the PRC was the result of a violent revolution, as is Iran. Hitler came to power through violence. The soviet union was created in a violent revolution. The french revolution devolved into a dictatorship within a few years. The only violent revolution I can think of that didn't mess things up horribly at some point was the American Revolution. Generally speaking, violence is a terrible way to effect change.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The French Revolution itself went badly, but it is responsible for the modern world's existence. It changed how people though about government the world over, and it still is.

The American Revolution went well because unlike most revolutions, the American Revolution is what one could dub a "moderate revolution". Most revolutions are reactionary or radical in nature and attempt to redefine the society they were created within. The American Revolution didn't majorly change the lives of most Americans, it changed the tariffs and flags. (Also, the first government created by the American Revolution did fail, because it was given too little power, which really sets the tone about how that was all going. Most revolutions give the new government massive power.)

[G-Flex]

Firstly, not everything has to be taken to the logical extreme.

Actually, yes, the logical conclusions of something should be considered, and if two things operate via the same logic but you reach different conclusions anyway, something is wrong.

Thirdly, if every country was armed with nuclear weapons we probably would have world peace, just a much higher chance of nuclear holocaust or some use of nukes at some point in the future.

Was the Cold War your idea of "peace"?

[MonkeyHead]

The fact that the guy had relativly easy acces to guns made it so much worse (or much easier to carry out) than it would be if he had heavily resticted or no access to firearms.

So? Every few months some guy in china stabs more people to death than him, in 1955 Elifasi Msomi killed 15 with a hatchet, should we ban knives and blades because someone might abuse them? Should everyone be forced to use public transportation to eliminate deaths related to automobiles? Or should you concentrate on the root of the problem, which is that he was insane, and he was ignored by everyone that should have helped him?

Insane people should not have access to guns. If someone who is insane had easy access to firearms (as they seemed to have in the Aurora case), then clearly they were not controlled well enough, by the state, federal bodies or individual(s) responsible for selling them. The knife comparison does not stack up - imagine how many people could have been killed in such instances if you replace the knife for a semi automatic handgun.

Here in the UK, knives and blades are banned for the reasons you describe, in the same manner as which we control guns. This came into law in the last dcade as people were using them to kill at a worryingly high rate. To me this seems logical and rational. Whilst it is hard to legislate law that takes into account or controls the behavoiur of people (or even justify such legislation), who in most cases are unpredicatable, if you can have legal frameworks in place that can minimise the impact of extreme behaviours that protects people you are doing a good job. We too have our shootking/killing sprees, but far less regularly and in general on a smaller scale than you as it is far harder for someone who is likley to commit such an act to gain access to weaponary.

As for an armed society is a polite society? C'mon, you gotta be kidding me.

Of course, my views on this are influenced strongly by personal circumstances - I have had a family member murdered by someone breaking and entering her home who used a firearm kept for personal self defence by her husband.

I know that in the US there exists a state of mind that guns are tied in with freedom and liberty. In a modern day context, I hold them to be anything but. The large numbers of guns in the USA is not what makes it a powerful/great/importnat nation, nor is it anymore what protects that freedom.

[RedKing]

Plus, you could just lie about what you were going to use the rounds for or what you used them for.

Not to mention the logical extension of it is the argument that EVERY country should have nuclear weapons, and we'd have world peace.

Firstly, not everything has to be taken to the logical extreme.

Secondly, nukes are not guns.

Thirdly, if every country was armed with nuclear weapons we probably would have world peace, just a much higher chance of nuclear holocaust or some use of nukes at some point in the future.

The "everybody should have nukes" is in fact, a topic that gets debated in legitimate arms control conferences and IR theory courses.
I agree with your third point, however you seem to miss the fact that you can make the analogy back and say that if everyone's packing heat, you probably will have less crime initially (and a lot more accidental shootings), just a much higher chance of mass shootings at some point in the future.

Mutual deterrence only works if all parties are rational actors. When you get a Jared Loughner or a James Holmes -- clearly NOT a rational actor.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, yes, the logical conclusions of something should be considered, and if two things operate via the same logic but you reach different conclusions anyway, something is wrong.

You can't destroy human civilization with guns. Small arms are a personal threat, large arms are a societal threat, modern nukes are an existential threat (or at the very least the largest possible societal threat, as it threatens all societies at once). It therefore follows that we cannot use the same logic concerning them all, as the threat they pose is inherently different.

Was the Cold War your idea of "peace"?

There are more nations with nukes now than there were in the Cold War. Less nukes overall, though.

Anyway, my point is that if not for nukes and MAD the mid to late 20th century would have been one massive conventional war between NATO and Warsaw. Don't even try to tell me they wouldn't have fought each other if not for nuclear weapons. The Cold War was just that- Cold. A Hot War would have been inevitable and cost many millions of lives on all sides if not for the creation of nuclear weapons.

The "everybody should have nukes" is in fact, a topic that gets debated in legitimate arms control conferences and IR theory courses.
I agree with your third point, however you seem to miss the fact that you can make the analogy back and say that if everyone's packing heat, you probably will have less crime initially (and a lot more accidental shootings), just a much higher chance of mass shootings at some point in the future.

Mutual deterrence only works if all parties are rational actors. When you get a Jared Loughner or a James Holmes -- clearly NOT a rational actor.

I understand that the analogy can be reversed on me, but there are two reasons why that doesn't bother me:

A. As above, nukes and guns pose a different kind of threat from one another.

B. I feel that owning weapons that do not constitute an existential threat to humanity is a freedom people should be allowed, a self-evident truth if I'm going to start quoting the Founders.

[Loud Whispers]

Yeah it's Texas. Apparently just using insecticide makes the bees go crazy and kill everyone.

Please tell me you did not just link to Weekly World News unironically. D:

Just so you know, they're basically The Onion of tabloids; and from whence 'bat boy' came.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_World_News

I just needed to know which state the bees in my anecdote were from
Point and case

[nenjin]

Don't even try to tell me they wouldn't have fought each other if not for nuclear weapons.

Considering the cost of conventional warfare, and the USSR going bankrupt at the time....I'll make that argument.

I'd also like to point out that if a drug dealer sells someone a product that kills them or someone else, they're considered at fault in our country. In the view on drugs, drugs kill people, not people taking drugs kill people.

Yet somehow the same rationale doesn't apply to gun sales. Gun sellers can sell to the highest bidder the product they crave and disavow any personal responsibility for the outcome. Yet someone who sells beer to an underage teen is directly responsible for the outcome of said teen's drunken behavior.

There are so many double standards that gun ownership seems to sit firmly in the middle of, with the motivation being that profit and the freedom to sell death trumps all else.