Print

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

[Kilroy the Grand]

But hey, what do I know? Maybe I'm just crazy for refusing to give up personal liberties for momentary safety.

If only because it was Jason Alexander saying it, I feel this is worth a read, just as something to read.


I'd also appreciate turning down the hyperbole before it gets out of hand.

I'll have you know my father was 87% hyperbole, thank you very much!

[Leafsnail]

I just specifically said that we can, should and do control bomb making materials, so "You'll allow people to make bombs hmm??" is a bizarre strawman.  The Unabomber was certainly a shocking case but it should be noted his casualty count over a period of 20 years was nowhere near that of the Aurora shooting.  Maybe this strange homemade weapon you're talking about exists, but from the fact that noone ever uses it it's pretty clear that it's either not really up to standard or harder to obtain than you're making it out to be.

I... don't think there have been any "kicked down the wrong door, shot someone" incidents in the UK.  But even if you include all the unjustified police shootings the number will be a heck of a lot lower than other shootings.  I'm not sure why you've added the bizarre extra condition of "gun enthusiast", it's not like I'll be comforted by knowing the man who gunned me down didn't really like guns.

[Owlbread]

I'm just saying that if you ban guns, people will acquire guns illegally or use knives and other bladed weapons. If you ban knives and other bladed weapons (which is basically impossible without constant frisking on the streets) people will use blunt objects and so on and so forth.

You will be gradually making it harder and harder for criminals to hurt, rob or kill people, which reduces crime considerably, but it won't get rid of the criminals completely, and will make life much harder for people who use guns and bladed objects responsibly. In the case of the UK our olympic handgun shooting team has to go and train in Switzerland because all handguns are completely illegal in this country (save for black powder pistols), yet you still get handgun shootings from people who have recomissioned decomissioned guns or bought their guns illegally. They are rarer, but still common enough to be a problem. In this country, if you carry a small pocket knife for use as a farmer, you will be arrested and charged for carrying such a weapon - even letting the police know you are carrying it or that you accidentally left it in your pocket and you just want them to know, then handing it over - can get you arrested.

And furthermore, despite our ban on all automatic weapons, all military grade semi automatic weapons, all handguns, we still have shooters like Derek Bird who manage to go on killing sprees - killing 13 and injuring 11 - using purely legal weaponry. As soon as people like Mr. Hamilton shot up that school in Dunblane with his pistols, people were asking to ban handguns, but they weren't asking the question "How the flying fuck did a guy that obviously mentally unstable with a history of sexual offense against children get those guns?" The answer is regulating "who gets the guns" more effectively, not banning the guns themselves.

[Zangi]

What do you mean? The obvious thing to do is respond by calling to ban everything related to the most visible cause of the offense, while ignoring every other possible reason and cause.

Nothing illogical about that... 

[kaijyuu]

See, I'll accept a "sure it'd help, but not enough to justify the expense" argument much more than a "it doesn't matter what we ban, criminals will always have guns" one.


I will now be That Guy and say that going into specifics about what regulations are justified and which ones are too ineffectual to use is outside the scope of the American Election thread, and should be relegated to a new thread if people want to continue discussing it.

[Leafsnail]

They are rarer, but still common enough to be a problem.

Banning murder made it rarer, sure, but it's still a problem, therefore banning murder was pointless and we should legalize it

[Owlbread]

They are rarer, but still common enough to be a problem.

Banning murder made it rarer, sure, but it's still a problem, therefore banning murder was pointless and we should legalize it

Now now I'm not saying we should legalize handgun crime (which is the thing that is now "rarer" that you are referring to), I am saying we should legalize the guns themselves and be infinitely more careful about who gets the guns, because the present approach does not work very efficiently and, as my post went on to state, makes life a lot harder for people who use guns legitimately - like sportsmen.

[Kogan Loloklam]

There are people going into space without taking other people's money to do so, and with safety standards far better than those of NASA.

Like who? Richard? I pay him lots of my money and still have yet to recieve any virgins. Seems false advertising to me. I guess I'll just to be content that he burns my money on long plumes of fire instead. And all I got out of it was a strong technological base that made my military #1 in the world. Wait, wrong people and organizations. I think I got a crappy electronic device out of it? Though that may be from NASA too. Hard to tell who deserves credit for what. Either way they both are getting money from me.

[Eagle_eye]

...safety standards better than NASA? Do you have any source for that, or is it just "oh, they haven't had any private spaceflight accidents"? Because NASA has a pretty good record considering that it shoots people thousands of miles with controlled explosives. The problem with private spaceflight is that if a company can't be cheaper than its competitors, it goes out of business. Private companies can and will cut down on safety expenses before going bankrupt, and the public won't really know until it's too late, and an accident happens. Government has no incentive to place money ahead of human lives, since it's not their livelihood at stake. If NASA launches fewer missions for a higher price than a private agency, the people involved still get to keep their jobs.

[Zangi]

Here is the thing... corporate speakerphones can crow about how their internal 'standards' are so rigorous... but... yea, they usually don't release such information... and who knows if they are actually enforcing those standards if they do?

Also, there are only... 2 private space programs right now?  And are the fundies to this program not sending themselves up to space sooner or later?  Yea.... considering it, right now, there is barely a market... this is the time of first impressions... the time to create that market. 
Shooting themselves in the foothead by cutting corners right now... yea... short or long term profit-wise, its suicide.

[Drunken]

His point is that distinction is not made in the argument of "the problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people." The logic presented justifies nuclear weapons just as much as small arms.

except the average thug isn't going to be able to buy a several million dollar ICBM, In fact I don't believe there has ever been a WMD sold legally on the open market at least to individuals. Nuclear weapons aren't available for purchase so it's a complete red herring.

Oh man you are trolling right? Having a giggle, see if anyone notices? Just in case you are serious, nuclear weapons are illegal. This is why they are not sold legally on the open market to private individuals. We are trying to find ways to reduce gun deaths and this is your argument against controlling access to firearms?

Edit: Maybe I should also use this post for something constructive.

In the space funding debate the private vs public funding argument is a red herring. In both models the money comes from the public. In the private model the funding comes from people who buy goods or services from the corporations that own the programme, or subsidiaries thereof. There are of course differences in who pays and how much they pay but the argument seems to be being made that if it is funded by a private corporation it is basically free. This is just not true. If this has been your argument in the past you should now change to explaining why exactly it is better that those customers pay than the general public at large. I personally think that private space programmes are great, but I also think that every government should have one too. It is like any other area of the universe, sure private yachts are nice for a cruise and privately owned container ships are a great way for companies to transport merchandise, but it is also nice to have a navy, coast guard and marine search and rescue. If the US government doesn't want to have any presence in space that is fine with me though, I notice you are moving a lot of your military activity into the private sector too, it doesn't seem to be a great idea to me but I am not an expert. Whatever floats your boat/shuttle.

[Kilroy the Grand]

His point is that distinction is not made in the argument of "the problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people." The logic presented justifies nuclear weapons just as much as small arms.

except the average thug isn't going to be able to buy a several million dollar ICBM, In fact I don't believe there has ever been a WMD sold legally on the open market at least to individuals. Nuclear weapons aren't available for purchase so it's a complete red herring.

Oh man you are trolling right? Having a giggle, see if anyone notices? Just in case you are serious, nuclear weapons are illegal. This is why they are not sold legally on the open market to private individuals. We are trying to find ways to reduce gun deaths and this is your argument against controlling access to firearms?

Edit: Maybe I should also use this post for something constructive.

Maybe a teeny tiny bit of trolling. Regardless, a few people have already make far better points than me on this subject. So It's constructive trolling.

[kaijyuu]

constructive trolling.

*brain implodes*

[Kilroy the Grand]

constructive trolling.

*brain implodes*

You have fine tastes in animated wonderment for children.

[Sirus]

Perhaps I haven't been reading the exceptionally long (and growing!) posts here lately, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder what gun control and nuclear missiles have to do with the upcoming election. So far as I know, neither candidate has even commented on current gun laws.