Gun Control

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Gun Control

Postby Satya » Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:47 pm

Since it was suggested, I will gladly oblige.

We'll start slow. I know you guys are rusty.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I don't believe we should have willy-nilly access to high-powered, fully-automatic weapons. I don't believe we should be restricted from obtaining permits to carry arms in public. See: Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Fort Hood massacres. Gun control laws only apply to people who obey the law.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:52 pm

I might be mistaken about this one, but with Fort Hood being a military facility, i was assuming most people in there were carrying weapons?

My point about beign against the right to carry weapons is: law-abiding citizens are law abiding until they stop being so. Someone who has a perfectly legal weapon, what's keeping them from going postal at any moment? If i have to gamble my life on the stability of human mind... i rather not. They don't need guns to go postal, yes, but if they use non-firearms, at least i can escape running.

Also, with gun-ban, if i see someone with a gun and wearing a uniform, i know he's one of the good guys. If he carries a weapon but doesn't wear uniform, he's a bad guy. But without ban, the later case is going to be an undetermined threat. For me, living in society serves, among other purpouses, to keep the amount potential lethal threats low. Without gun prohibition, society is less of a society and more of a jungle where you have to fear for your life at any moment.

Yes, yes, i know that eventually you get used to it. Same as gazelles eventually get used to drink in the river just a few metres away from the lions. Otherwise they'd die of a heart attack.
Image

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:02 pm

My point about beign against the right to carry weapons is: law-abiding citizens are law abiding until they stop being so. Someone who has a perfectly legal weapon, what's keeping them from going postal at any moment? If i have to gamble my life on the stability of human mind... i rather not. They don't need guns to go postal, yes, but if they use non-firearms, at least i can escape running.
I don't want to gamble on other's either. That's why I want to be able to carry my firearm. If "running" is your choice when something goes down, well, so be it. I don't want to take that risk. And if something does happen, and a law-abiding, armed citizen is there, things might be better off.
Also, with gun-ban, if i see someone with a gun and wearing a uniform, i know he's one of the good guys. If he carries a weapon but doesn't wear uniform, he's a bad guy. But without ban, the later case is going to be an undetermined threat.
Guys in uniforms are the good guys - for now. The right to keep and bear arms is the last line of defense against tyranny. Also, you cannot rely solely on police for your protection. It takes an average of at least 5 minutes for emergency services to respond (assuming you even GET to a phone and have TIME to dial.) Do you realize how many times you can be killed in 5 minutes? It only takes once.

[/quote]
Discord ID: AJ#0001

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby elfprince13 » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:02 pm

Someone who has a perfectly legal weapon, what's keeping them from going postal at any moment?
What's to stop them from getting a gun? I don't know where you're from that you don't understand this, but it's really not that hard to acquire even what should be illegal assault weapons. It's not even really that hard to make a projectile-dispenser that will kill and maim with similar capabilities. If all the law abiding citizens are lacking in guns, no one is going to stop them when they do go postal. It's a shame that more people don't carry guns.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:05 pm

Preach it, elfprince.

You touched on the ease of acquiring weapons. Even people who AREN'T law abiding, and who are not legally allowed to own or carry weapons, can EASILY acquire one. You don't have to be law-abiding to have a weapon.

Once more, with feeling - gun control LAWS only apply to people who OBEY the law.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:25 pm

What's to stop them from getting a gun? I don't know where you're from that you don't understand this, but it's really not that hard to acquire even what should be illegal assault weapons.
We have this terrorist group in Spain, called ETA. When they needed to resupply themselves with guns, they had to go steal a cache from a police office in France.
That's how rare they are, and how tight security is.

Most killings in Spain happen with bladed or blunt weapons. Even with bare fists. Assassinations with firearms are commonly commited by ex-members of the security forces or people with hunting licence.

As for the right to carry arms being the last line of defense against tyranny... well. I'd like to see a militia standing up to a regular army.

I know my security is my responsability. So is my education, my health, my food and shelter... but if i have to do research on my own starting from zero previous knowledge, if i have to learn medical skills to treat myself, then build my home and grow my food...
Also, at this point, chances are that whoever criminal that comes against me is a lot more skilled in the use of weapons than i could ever be: after all, they are professionals, they live off using weapons, and i would be an amater in the best of cases. Guess who would win?

You can have your gun. But that's only going to intimidate the people who are less likely to attack you. Scaredy cats like me. People who mean to hurt you probably have already thought you could be carrying a weapon and know how to disable you before you can use it. So it's just carrying a dead weight.
Image

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:32 pm

No, actually, it's not. People who get guns to commit crimes do so because they are too cowardly or unable to do so without that weapon. If they were actually trained in how to disable someone who has a weapon, they wouldn't need a weapon. They wouldn't need to be afraid of police either, would they?

Most criminals are amateurs. And fools. That's why they're criminals and not contributing members of society.

And you don't HAVE to be an amateur. Even the most basic self-defense training, which doesn't have to take a lot of time, could save your life. Is your life so unimportant to you that it's not worth it?
Discord ID: AJ#0001

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:56 am

No, actually, it's not. People who get guns to commit crimes do so because they are too cowardly or unable to do so without that weapon.
People who carry concealed weapons without the intent to commit crimes are probably much more eager to use their gun in a situation than a trained police officer--and are therefore more likely to use it more carelessly and recklessly. a criminal with a gun has no need to fire, but seeing an armed civilian about to shoot him may may generate a firefight in desperation. The likelyhood of increased casualties of bystanders seems greater if you have people ready and willing to pop off with their sidearm if they see something they think is a crime.


and jotabe has a good point about a milita standing up to a regular army. Luckily at least, we don't have to fear a police state from one side of the american political spectrum because the extreme left is tiny and unmilitary for the past four decades, and our majority left party is conservative enough to be considered moderate-conservatives in most any other country in the world. That's not a situation that gives rise to police states. Our extreme right is quite a bit larger and more vocal than the extreme left--they also tend towards the militant, tend to horde weapons and occasionally engage in acts of terror. Luckily after many years of trending in this direction, we seem to be heading away from it, and the news has been filled with the spittle spewing imprecations of the extreme right as become increasingly angry at the trending away from them--that's a much more dangerous situation, in my opinion, one that could very well lead to a police state. We've already had one publication calling for a military coup of Obama's administration as a way to 'save the country.' I expect there will be more. Ironically, Obama is increasing military spending and continuing Bush's policies in both wars rather than electing to 'Lose' the wars and withdrawl unilaterally. It seems the problem is not that he has the wrong military philosophy, so it must be some problem with him, like maybe his party affiliation or skin color. :rolleyes:
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:06 am

No, actually, it's not. People who get guns to commit crimes do so because they are too cowardly or unable to do so without that weapon.
People who carry concealed weapons without the intent to commit crimes are probably much more eager to use their gun in a situation than a trained police officer--and are therefore more likely to use it more carelessly and recklessly. a criminal with a gun has no need to fire, but seeing an armed civilian about to shoot him may may generate a firefight in desperation. The likelyhood of increased casualties of bystanders seems greater if you have people ready and willing to pop off with their sidearm if they see something they think is a crime.
Proof. Because seriously. We ALL want the hassle and trouble of a year-long investigative and court process to determine if we were justified in opening fire in public. Not to mention your assumption that police are reticent to use their weapons. See: ANY recent news. And the likelihood of innocent bystanders being hurt is just as great when they do - I remember the story of the guy from the NY club after his wedding being shot a dozen times - and the police fired a hundred rounds (hitting bystanders.) I've had this discussion here before about Police Brutality and their poor training and tactics. It's no laughing matter. But your opinions are. :roll:
Luckily at least, we don't have to fear a police state
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Everyone should fear a police state. Everywhere. At all times. Regardless of how close or far away you think you are.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:48 pm

fwiw, I don't really agree with gun control, though I think reasonable limitations are perfectly in order.

and I think that a willingness to carry a weapon bespeaks an inherent willingness to use it.

As for police training, this is a case of seeing what you expect. there are certainly cases of police brutality and poor police response. we tend to hone in on the exceptions because its inherently uninteresting to talk about what does not or did not happen in tens of thousands of police responses across the country in a given day. Does the granting of authority have a distorting affect on decision making ability? you bet your ass it does, so police officers can and often do make questionable judgment, but by and large the system works better than an anarchic one in which an armed citizenry regularly settles disputes like Tybalt and Mercutio.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:34 pm

Meh. I'm pretty well a moderate on the issue. Comes of growing up in the midwest and Texas.

I'm against banning weapons. I'm for regulating them, within reason. (I do think that "within reason" includes "not in a venue where the president is speaking.") I'm anti-people being able to, in a moment of anger or despair, go into Wal-Mart and walk out with a gun the same hour. If you want a gun for legitimate purposes - target shooting, hunting, protection, whatever, plan ahead. Not a big deal. I'm also pro-gun safety classes.

Yes, I understand the whole point that gun control only works for people who obey the law -- sort of. My concern is more about people with high emotions and poor impulse control, who maybe don't have a criminal history who, if they have to go through the trouble of filling out forms and/or making connections to obtain a gun illegally, might think twice. Passionate emotions only last for so long. Thanks be to God.

Can you stop the hard core criminals from getting their hands on weapons? No. But can you lower the number of people who really just need a couple of days to think it over from impulsively committing suicide/homicide? Yes. I think so. (Note that I said "lower." I did not say "eliminate.")

(Also, it's not actually true that a person who wants to kill themselves - or someone else - with a gun, when deprived of that method will necessarily find a way. I mean, it's sort of true. They will find a way of attempting it, sure. However, the "success" rate is a hell of a lot lower with any other method than it is with guns. Given the literally dozens to hundreds of people I've talked to who are just as glad their attempts didn't work, I'm rather glad they didn't have a gun handy. Just saying. But that's not the issue most people think of when gun control is mentioned.)

So, yay for regulation.

My fiance was a rifle expert when he was in the Marines. Eventually, he wants a gun and a safe to go with it. If/when we have kids, he wants to teach them to shoot (and he wants to teach me). I'm fine with that, on a couple of conditions. One, that only we have means of getting into the safe, and two, that if our kids ever go through any kind of serious phase of mental illness growing up, we get it the hell out of the house, at least for a while.

I was a screwed up teenager. Very self-destructive. And I assume there's a likely genetic component to it. No, I never actually attempted suicide. But I'm just as glad there were no guns in the house.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:34 pm

Okay, here's my take.

The premises for banning firearms are pretty faulty, particularly those dealing with a desire to reduce crime. The argument typically goes as follows:

1) Firearms increase crime rates.
2) Banning firearms will stop people from legally obtaining them.
3) Therefore, without legal access to firearms, crime rates (or at least those involving gun violence) will decrease.

This is absurd. The vast majority of guns used in criminal acts are not obtained legally. (Something like eighty percent were obtained illegally.) Moreover, the vast majority of guns sold are never used in crime. (Something like one percent of all guns sold end up being used in a criminal act.)

So, by banning firearms, you're not even trying to do what you're supposedly setting out to do. It's not just ineffective, it's downright counter-productive, because you're limiting the freedom of people wholly unrelated to the situation.

You can't stop crime by banning firearms because those using firearms in criminal acts aren't obtaining them legally to begin with. The people obtaining them illegally certainly don't mind that they're unable to obtain them legally, anymore, since that's never how they were getting them in the first place.

Beyond that, access to guns isn't what causes crime, nor does it make the situation worse. Switzerland requires most males to own a firearm and they take great pride in their firearm use. Yet, Great Britian (a nation with huge restrictions on firearms) has higher crime rates (including homicide) than the Swiss. The same can be said of ethnic groups within the United States. Immigrant populations of the first few generations have the same access to guns as the rest of us -- yet, in a large percentage of cases, the homicide rate of their population is much smaller than that of their home nation (in the case of Japanese Americans, it's half that of Japan).

Meanwhile, in Kennesaw, GA, every household is required to own a gun and have been required for more than twenty-five years. Their crime rate, as a result, has dropped dramatically (and is much lower than their neighboring towns), despite the fact that their population has continually increased. In fact, not a single firearm related homicide has occurred since the ordinance was passed in 1982. And the only homicides that have occurred happened to be committed by people who were passing through the town.

So, yeah, I'm a strong supporter of the right to own and possess firearms (and happen to live in the state with the most restrictive regulations in the nation). I also happen to believe in the Constitution, which, you know, guarantees that right not be infringed (despite what the crazy 39% of Democrats happen to believe).
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

Rodaka
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby Rodaka » Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:44 pm

I understand most of you who are for the right bear arms are using the argument that most crimes are committed by illegally obtained guns.

Yes, they were illegally obtained, but by lying and faking records, and buying them from places where any law-abiding citizen could also get them. If guns were banned, then there would no longer be a need for such places, there for a large decline in illegally obtained weapons. At this point, police would have to make many raids to get all the gun stashes gangs and other renegade groups have stockpiled, and force citizens to give their arms up to the police.

You might say "That's unconstitutional." You're a fool, as that part of the constitution was written purely for the Minute Men back in the days of the Civil War. We're no longer riddled with "Red coats" trying to control the "new world". That's purely from the USA standpoint of course.

This "I want a gun for self defense" argument is simply a self-justification to have a chance to shoot a gun. As locke pointed out, if you've justified holding the gun, you've already justified that the first chance you'll get, you'll use it and end up killing someone. You've also justified every criminal who's been law-abiding before committing a crime to be able to legally obtain a gun, and commit murder.

Yes, I'm for gun control. Beyond that, I'm for banning guns. Even beyond that, I'm a pacifist, and agree with everything Mahatma Gandhi stood for, so is it that unexpected for me to argue for these ideas?
"I once heard a tale of a man who split himself in two. The one part never changed at all; the other grew and grew. The changeless part was always true, the growing part was always new, and I wondered, when the tale was through, which part was me, and which was you."

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:13 am

Yes, I'm for gun control. Beyond that, I'm for banning guns. Even beyond that, I'm a pacifist, and agree with everything Mahatma Gandhi stood for, so is it that unexpected for me to argue for these ideas?
As a pacifist and follower of Gandhi, you do what you want and I'll do what I want. I want a gun. Because they exist, people who want them to use in criminal activity are always going to have them. No amount of restrictive gun law will change that. I will always have a gun, regardless of the law. Yes, I said it - I will actively defy the law (civil disobedience, Rodaka?) to be in possession of a gun.

Allow me to reiterate - GUN CONTROL LAWS ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO OBEY THE LAW. PERIOD. Criminals exempt themselves from the law; as long as I am legally able to obtain and possess a firearm, I will do so. If this nation ever becomes a place where a law abiding citizen like myself, with a clean-as-a-whistle record, cannot legally do so, then I will become a criminal myself for having one. You can live in your fascist, police-state utopia if you please, Rodaka. You can have it.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:30 pm

Yes, they were illegally obtained, but by lying and faking records, and buying them from places where any law-abiding citizen could also get them.
Evidence?
You might say "That's unconstitutional." You're a fool, as that part of the constitution was written purely for the Minute Men back in the days of the Civil War. We're no longer riddled with "Red coats" trying to control the "new world". That's purely from the USA standpoint of course.
First of all, your ignorance of history is amazing. Redcoats in the Civil War? The Second Amendment being ratified in the 1860s?

Secondly, the United States militia consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and ... under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States" (plus all female citizens who are members of the National Guard). 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

Moreover, as the Supreme Court has noted, when the Second Amendment was written, it referred to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess personal weapons for self-defense and for defense against tyranny, including the potential tyranny of their newly established government.




As an aside, it will be interesting to see how McDonald v. City of Chicago turns out. My prediction: Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy incorporate via Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause. Thomas concurs with result, but incorporates via Privileges and Immunities clause. Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissent. 5-4, Chicago's ban is ruled unconstitutional.
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:57 am

Now, half-serious, half-joking, does the right to bear arms in the US cover the right to posses explosives? Because if the point is to protect your home, i can't think of a better way to do it than planting some land-mines around it. As long as you know where they are, you'll be safe, and only people who enter without being invited will be at risk.

It would be great seeing the change of warnings in the house next-door like "beware the dog" into "beware: mined area".

In any case, if you have the right to posses arms and ammo, it isn't too hard to create some homemade explosives.
Image

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:50 am

No, it doesn't Jota.

On a related note, California through Gov. Shwarzeneggar, will be placing stringent restrictions on the purchase of ammunition for firearms

http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/20 ... -governor/
Discord ID: AJ#0001

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:25 pm

eh. that sucks.

Guns should be allowed because they are the only true power we have to defend ourselves if the government decides it wants to do things its own way.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:00 am

Most modern authorities also indicate that you can't have a spring gun (a "trap" firearm set to go off when triggered by a trespasser).
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:39 pm

I suppose I could understand that. wouldn't want a pet or curious kid to accidentally set one off... kind of like the land mine idea, lol.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:00 am

wouldn't want a pet or curious kid to accidentally set one off...
that would be the whole purpouse... damn kids! gerroff my lawn!
Image

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:29 am

rofl. I could totally see that, too: some crotchety old geezer rocking in his chair on the porch as some innocent little child is blown to a dozen bloody pieces.

so I have a macabre sense of humor. sue me
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot] and 52 guests