Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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.

You are completely off your rocker. Nukeless WWIII might have taken some time to start, maybe even as much as 20 years (much like the gap between the two world wars that actually happened), but it would have happened. NATO and Warsaw weren't capable of anything but a forced, skin-deep peace even with a Sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's heads. Their goals for the world were diametrically opposed to one another.

How it would have played out is arguable, but whether or not it would have happened? Not at all.

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.

The major difference here is that drugs have an effect that doesn't take human choice into any action but ingesting them. Guns can be used in a number of ways, and most guns aren't used to murder people. A lot of guns don't end up used at all. The minority that use guns for murder are the arbiter in their decision to do so, they don't have to murder anyone.

Drugs are only bought to take drugs, and when the drugs are taken their effects are out of even the user's hands.

Yet someone who sells beer to an underage teen is directly responsible for the outcome of said teen's drunken behavior.

I would disagree with that notion. Being drunk doesn't rob someone of all ability to function and make decisions.

[Kilroy the Grand]

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.

Actually most western towns had homicide rates that would just about match ours today. It just so happens that history remembers the coolest events.

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.

You. You are just hilarious. I'd boop your nose if I was able too.

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.

I don't believe that there has been a lot of people going around with automatic weapons killing people, Why? they are quite hard to obtain, and for good reason. I believe it should be more difficult to obtain those, but not banned. Want to know one way to get around 30-round magazines? Carrying several 10-round ones.

Your whole argument boils down to "you don't need that, you might do something dangerous with it, so ban everything" No one needs SUVs, yet they cause more deaths that most other cars, should they be banned? When britain imposed it's gun laws want to know what happened? Knife crime spiked, and they have a high higher rate of violent crime than in the USA

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.
[/quote]
Although if those people didn't sell at the gun show they could always just take an add out in their local paper, or hold an auction. I wouldn't call myself a libertarian, but I believe in personal freedoms, I don't think we can ban our way to safety

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.

Countries like Sweden, where everyone has a gun and is required to use it have incredibly low crime rates. Criminals are deterred if they know people around them have guns. Or Switzerland, in 2001 they had about 420,000 assault rifles in the hands of civilians, yet they don't even have 100 homicides a year. Have those countries become mad-maxesque hellscapes filled with biker gangs? No, no they have not.

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.

I agree with you, someone fucked up. Where I live the mentally ill can't purchase firearms. What I was saying is that he didn't get the help he needed, either his psychiatrist or his school fucked up. If he passed the background check it wasn't the gun stores fault.

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.

Want to know how easy it is to make a shiv? A piece of metal and rock, something you can literally make in 10 minutes.
 

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.

We do have legal frameworks in place, They generally work, sometimes they fail.

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.

You can hold them to be anything you want.

[G-Flex]

Countries like Sweden, where everyone has a gun and is required to use it have incredibly low crime rates.

I really, really don't think you're getting the right country here, but what the hell does "required to use it" mean? What does it mean to be required to use a gun?

Also, you... aren't really responding to what I said there. Switzerland is not the United States, socially or culturally or economically. You can't say that something being okay in one country means it's okay for another country; you need different policy for different situations. Also, my argument wasn't that an armed society can't be polite, but that being armed doesn't make society polite, at least not in any meaningful way.

[RedKing]

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.

Then you don't understand the point of the analogy. Small arms may be a "personal threat" to you, but they're an existential threat to the individual being shot. The logic is the same: mutual nuclear deterrence works (in theory) because no rational actor will engage in their use because the consequences would be annhilation.

The NRA's vaunted "if only everyone had been armed" utopia invokes the same logic: no one will dare start shooting at people because to do so is to invite personal annhilation by the scores of trained, responsible citizens nearby who will pop a cap in their ass and totally not freak out when they hear gunfire and see everyone around them pulling out a gun.

The problem is the same: irrational actors who do not care about their continued survival. Not to mention instances of mistaken intent causing "retaliation fire" when there was no actual aggression to begin with. I hate to say it, but just once I'd like to see a mass shooting event someplace where there's a bunch of armed average citizens and see just how much of a clusterfuck it turns into.

The major difference here is that drugs have an effect that doesn't take human choice into any action but ingesting them. Guns can be used in a number of ways, and most guns aren't used to murder people. A lot of guns don't end up used at all. The minority that use guns for murder are the arbiter in their decision to do so, they don't have to murder anyone.

Drugs are only bought to take drugs, and when the drugs are taken their effects are out of even the user's hands.

Dude...what? That's like saying "I did not kill that man, I merely manipulated a small piece of metal which triggered a sequence of events which lead to a metal projectile impacting him at high velocity and resulting in massive soft tissue trauma. It was out of my hands. In short, I didn't kill him -- physics and biology did."

If you take drugs, you're legally and morally responsible for their effects because it's not deterministic. It's not "I have a 50% chance of getting high if I smoke weed". Generally, legal defenses of "Sorry bout that, Your Honor, I was too drunk and high to know what I was doing" don't work.

Anyways, we're getting way off-rail here. Bottom line is that this California law isn't some new, breathtakingly bold step. It's duplicating a Federal law that was in effect for several years before Congress made it irrelevant.

[Frumple]

The mentally ill can purchase firearms in any state of the union. It's only those who have been diagnosed that can't. I know at least a couple of clinical-in-all-but-the-paperwork paranoiacs that are quite well armed, all over the table.

Of course, it's difficult to manage anything better than that, I guess, but so far as I know the states don't even make the attempt at it. Certainly Florida doesn't.

[G-Flex]

The problem is the same: irrational actors who do not care about their continued survival.

Also: Ostensibly-rational actors who simply don't have the wherewithal, training, skill, or whatever other ability to handle the situation well. A person can totally have their own protection in mind, and/or the protection of others, but freak out simply because most people aren't used to being in situations like that. People panic, and anybody who's worked with the general public understands that people can be pretty ridiculous even in non-stressful situations, and I personally wouldn't trust the average guy to act rationally, calmly, and with ability in a situation like, say, the recent theater shooting.

[nenjin]

How it would have played out is arguable, but whether or not it would have happened? Not at all.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that at all. It's inevitable in your mind. To me nukes are not what stopped war from happening, world war is what stopped world war from happening, and continues to stop it from happening today. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

Want to know one way to get around 30-round magazines? Carrying several 10-round ones.

For someone that is claiming to be gun savvy, that's an almost willfully stupid thing to say. You do realize the difference between a 30 round clip fed into an automatic weapon, and swapping out three 10 round clips in a semi-automatic weapon.....right?

Your whole argument boils down to "you don't need that, you might do something dangerous with it, so ban everything" No one needs SUVs, yet they cause more deaths that most other cars, should they be banned? When britain imposed it's gun laws want to know what happened? Knife crime spiked, and they have a high higher rate of violent crime than in the USA

1. SUVs are a perfect example of Americans embracing something stupid, harmful, wasteful and in most cases, completely fucking pointless, on the basis of "freedom" and "fun." So yeah, if it was up to me, SUVs would have been discontinued for everyone but fucking Park Rangers and the State Police, who actually use them for their intended purpose instead of just trying to look tuff on the streets.

2. Your argument again treats all things as the same. You know what the difference between a knife and a gun is? It's harder to kill mass amounts of people with a knife in a few seconds. Substitute "rock" for "knife" in your example. It's now 3x as ridiculous. As opposed to only 2x when talking about a knife.

One thing being possible does not automatically validate the other. Being able to choke the fuck out of someone with your hands doesn't mean a fully automatic weapon is the same thing. If you think so, you should have your firearms license revoked.

Although if those people didn't sell at the gun show they could always just take an add out in their local paper, or hold an auction.

So it's the old "if you can't beat em, join em" argument? People that take out an ad or hold an auction are not anonymous. They don't have a gun show to hide their identity behind and have to personally handle all the details with local authorities themselves. That doesn't track to me at all. They go to gunshows to avoid all that rigamarole.

[MonkeyHead]

There doesnt have to be a lot of people going around with any kind of firearm killing people - the point is that AFAIK the USA has most lax gun control laws of western states, and the most firearm related deaths.

My argument in no way suggests that because things are dangerous they should be banned. The point I am making is that weapons are used to kill and have no place being carried by the general populace.

When Britain imposed its gun laws...

In the 1900 and 1910's most well off homes had a gun in the UK, probably a rifle or revolver. Govermnet considered this beneficial, and strove to get a gun in every household, probably meaning each middle class household. After WW2 many more people retained service pistols or war trophies. Up until the 60's and 70's, the only requiremenat was an inspection of the gun by a local policeman. Then in the very early 80's (or maybe late 70's), the law was signifigantly tightened up with most being banned, permits being brought in, character checks and all sorts. There was not a massive amount of motivation for this legislation, as there were not killing sprees or suchlike. It was more a tidying up of antiquated laws. Gun culture at that time was of the sawn off shotgun east end gangster type. There was no massive spike in stabbings as a reaction to this. Over time things got tighter, with incidents like the Dunblane school shooting serving as motivation to restict firearm use further. The spike in stabbings and kife crime has occured over the last decade as part of general urban decay and disenfranchisement by deprived youths in inner city areas - this is what sparked our drive for kife control. No doubt if we did not have tight gun control laws, firearms would feature prominently as part of this issue.

[Kilroy the Grand]

2. Your argument again treats all things as the same. You know what the difference between a knife and a gun is? It's harder to kill mass amounts of people with a knife in a few seconds. Substitute "rock" for "knife" in your example. It's now 3x as ridiculous. As opposed to only 2x when talking about a knife.

Yeah there is a difference, knife is almost infinity more concealable, it's quiet, never runs out of ammo, and if you're stabbed in any major organ you'll likely to bleed out before help arises. If someone wants to kill someone else, or even a group of people banning a weapon isn't going to stop it.

They don't have a gun show to hide their identity behind and have to personally handle all the details with local authorities themselves. That doesn't track to me at all. They go to gunshows to avoid all that rigamarole.

You do realize that to be a vendor, you have to fill out a form, right? They don't just let you show up and sell guns.

[EveryZig]

Your whole argument boils down to "you don't need that, you might do something dangerous with it, so ban everything" No one needs SUVs, yet they cause more deaths that most other cars, should they be banned? When Britain imposed it's gun laws want to know what happened? Knife crime spiked, and they have a high higher rate of violent crime than in the USA

It is true you can do dangerous things with practically any item, but some items are much easier to be dangerous with than others.
For example, despite its higher rate of violent crime, Britain has also has less than a third of the U.S.'s homicide rate.
(Besides, you can argue about what specific restrictions are reasonable or not, but saying that no items are dangerous enough to be banned allows absurd things like recoil-less nuclear rifles for everyone.)

[Eagle_eye]

You can't kill someone from a distance with a knife, and you can't conceal your location when you stab someone.

[nenjin]

You do realize that to be a vendor, you have to fill out a form, right? They don't just let you show up and sell guns.

I had to fill out a more demanding form to be a reporter at E3. That vendor form requires no driver's license number, no SS#, basically nothing that can't be falsified in the time it takes to write it.

That form dedicates as much space to what you're selling as it does who you are. Honestly, if that's your example of process and why it's legit, you've done more to further my point than your own. Gun shows are self-policing, and that form makes the point very clear, as it's about as rigorous as your application for a library card. Possibly even less so.

If the last decade in America has taught us anything, it's that businesses self-regulating is, by and large, a joke.

[Frumple]

Ah... yeah, re: violent crime, it's a good thing to remember that there's probably quite a tremendous amount of unreported crime going on right now in the American prison system. I'm not quite sure if the reported crime rates for the US are actually taking that into account... I know for a long while rape rates in the states weren't, just as an example.

I'd look into it a bit, but I seriously don't feel like being depressed at the moment

[RedKing]

2. Your argument again treats all things as the same. You know what the difference between a knife and a gun is? It's harder to kill mass amounts of people with a knife in a few seconds. Substitute "rock" for "knife" in your example. It's now 3x as ridiculous. As opposed to only 2x when talking about a knife.

Yeah there is a difference, knife is almost infinity more concealable, it's quiet, never runs out of ammo, and if you're stabbed in any major organ you'll likely to bleed out before help arises. If someone wants to kill someone else, or even a group of people banning a weapon isn't going to stop it.

>_< No one is claiming that gun laws will magically prevent all shootings. But arguing for the inverse of a ludicrous strawman results in an equally ludicrous strawman. By the same logic:
 
1.No amount of food inspection and regulation will prevent every single E. Coli outbreak, so we should dispense with regulation entirely.
2. There are already laws against embezzlement and fraud, and yet billions of dollars get embezzled in the corporate world every year. So we shouldn't try to enact any kind of tough financial regulation.

It's libertarianism ab reductio absurdum. Because current laws are ineffective and unwieldy, ALL laws must be, and therefore the best course of action is NO law.

[Capntastic]

Sometimes bugs get in through the holes in the screen door so I'm just gonna smash it open wider with a hammer and let whatever happens happen because the free market