Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

I agree, but you can't condemn people as being irresponsible without evidence, even just speaking statistically. Sure, there are surely gun owners out there who are irresponsible, but claiming that "They can be used responsibly but that's not the world we live in" implicates the majority of gun owners as being irresponsible, which has no backing.

I'm not condemning them as being irresponsible. I'm simply challenging the unsubstantiated notion that '99.999%' of gun owners are law-abiding/responsible.

[Tinykong]

I can only tell you what I've seen until someone provides some sort of statistics to analyze. In my experience, most gun owners are not irresponsible. Some of them are irresponsible. If you have statistics to make a definitive declaration, then post it and stop badgering me about it. Why do you suddenly think my opinion is so important?

There are, and will never be, any statistics. Why so hostile? FFS.

Just wondering what people think about the overall landscape of ownership.

[NineSpine]

There are, and will never be, any statistics. Why so hostile? FFS.

Just wondering what people think about the overall landscape of ownership.

I told you my experience and you wanted more lol and I wouldn't be so hostile if your whole tone in this thread hasn't been insane amounts of hostility. Remember when I said I wasn't going to make the mistake of being courteous with you anymore because you just shit on the board and declare victory? This is what that looks like.

[Tinykong]

I told you my experience and you wanted more lol and I wouldn't be so hostile if your whole tone in this thread hasn't been insane amounts of hostility.

Your experience is not the overall landscape, which is why I refined my question.

Remember when I said I wasn't going to make the mistake of being courteous with you anymore because you just shit on the board and declare victory? This is what that looks like.

I generally don't remember what happens on these boards, since I couldn't give a shit less what happens here while I'm not at work.

[NineSpine]

Your experience is not the overall landscape, which is why I refined my question.

I generally don't remember what happens on these boards, since I couldn't give a shit less what happens here while I'm not at work.

I think my experience is reasonable to extrapolate onto the general public, as I come from a family and place where guns are moderately restricted but plentiful.

[Tinykong]

I think my experience is reasonable to extrapolate onto the general public, as I come from a family and place where guns are moderately restricted but plentiful.

I'll buy that.

[NineSpine]

I'll buy that.

But I also don't think we should base policy on how the majority of people act. For example, most people would not intentionally misuse anthrax but I'm happy to keep it a highly restricted substance.

[rhandric]

But I also don't think we should base policy on how the majority of people act. For example, most people would not intentionally misuse anthrax but I'm happy to keep it a highly restricted substance.

But the actions of the minority should not be the basis of policy, either.

[NineSpine]

But the actions of the minority should not be the basis of policy, either.

That's illogical. A minority of people commit all crimes. Majorities aren't killing people and stealing cars. Those things are illegal because of the small fraction that do it.

[Tinykong]

But I also don't think we should base policy on how the majority of people act. For example, most people would not intentionally misuse anthrax but I'm happy to keep it a highly restricted substance.

Anthrax doesn't have any valid purpose other than as a weapon of mass destruction.

- - - Updated - - -

That's illogical. A minority of people commit all crimes. Majorities aren't killing people and stealing cars. Those things are illegal because of the small fraction that do it.

Laws don't deter crime.

[NineSpine]

Anthrax doesn't have any valid purpose other than as a weapon of mass destruction.

It has very valid use in scientific research, both in developing ways to combat it as a threat and in possible treatments for other diseases.

- - - Updated - - -

Anthrax doesn't have any valid purpose other than as a weapon of mass destruction.

Laws don't deter crime.

That point, even if you backed it up, has no effect on my point.

[Tinykong]

It has very valid use in scientific research, both in developing ways to combat it as a threat and in possible treatments for other diseases.

I didn't realize private people were conducting the same research as USAMRID.

That point, even if you backed it up, has no effect on my point.

It completely invalidates your point. We don't enact laws to deter crime, and it's been shown that they don't impact the decision of a criminal during the commission of a crime.

[rhandric]

That's illogical. A minority of people commit all crimes. Majorities aren't killing people and stealing cars. Those things are illegal because of the small fraction that do it.

Right, but murder and the like are immoral. Owning a gun is not an immoral act. Using the gun to commit murder, however, is. To note, when I speak of morality, I don't speak of that preached by any religion, but shit that's common sense (to wit, morality, as I'm using it, can be defined as the infringement of others' rights. Your rights end where mine begin, as the saying goes).

[NineSpine]

I didn't realize private people were conducting the same research as USAMRID.

It completely invalidates your point. We don't enact laws to deter crime, and it's been shown that they don't impact the decision of a criminal during the commission of a crime.

I never said anything about deterrence.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, but murder and the like are immoral. Owning a gun is not an immoral act. Using the gun to commit murder, however, is. To note, when I speak of morality, I don't speak of that preached by any religion, but shit that's common sense (to wit, morality, as I'm using it, can be defined as the infringement of others' rights. Your rights end where mine begin, as the saying goes).

Lot's of things that are not necessarily immoral are illegal.

[rhandric]

Lot's of things that are not necessarily immoral are illegal.

Doesn't mean they should be.

[NineSpine]

Doesn't mean they should be.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't be. It depends on the issue, and that's wholly irrelevant to my point: We do in fact decide policy based on how the minority act, and to not do so would be foolish.

[Tinykong]

I never said anything about deterrence.

You implied it when you said:

But the actions of the minority should not be the basis of policy, either.

That's illogical. A minority of people commit all crimes. Majorities aren't killing people and stealing cars. Those things are illegal because of the small fraction that do it.

They are illegal because the governing body says so. That's it. You're implying that laws are based on the actions of the minority, which they are not.

[NineSpine]

You implied it when you said:

They are illegal because the governing body says so. That's it. You're implying that laws are based on the actions of the minority, which they are not.

That has nothing to do with deterrence. Murder is illegal because a very small number of people commit murder, not because a majority commit murder. Whether murder laws deter murder is totally besides the point.

[Rukentuts]

So much for gay marriage then.

[Tinykong]

That has nothing to do with deterrence. Murder is illegal because a very small number of people commit murder, not because a majority commit murder. Whether murder laws deter murder is totally besides the point.

Murder is illegal because the governing body says so, it has nothing to do with the number of people who commit it.

- - - Updated - - -

So much for gay marriage then.

The majority of people under the age of 40 already support this. Just waiting for all the baby boomers to get the hell out of the work force (and government) to replace their authoritarian nonsense.