Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[GreatOak]

Scroesec what do you think of this blog post? All of the liberals on the Internet are pissed about it, but its worth reading.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...dle-of-the-gun

[Grizzly Willy]

Scroesec what do you think of this blog post? All of the liberals on the Internet are pissed about it, but its worth reading.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...dle-of-the-gun

I think the answer is obvious. Sam Harris is just another gun toting barbaric numskull, clinging to his ego-stroking, power tripping, blood fueled hobby.

Right?

[Sicarus]

Did you just adovcate Nullification?

Uh, yeah, you realize that the United States is supposed to get it's power from the states, and not the federal government, right?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. It's probably a duck. Widespread gunownership makes these failed states inherently more dangerous.

Don't believe me? Go ask the US Military how much of their time was spent confiscating the private arsenals of every day Iraqis and Afghans so they didn't get shot at.

Except they're not even remotely the same. OF COURSE THEY DID THAT, we're in their country! We're basically invading them, don't be completely misleading.

And you've been to these places?

No, but I can guarantee RICH hasn't been in America, and he thinks we're a shithole. I can reasonably make an assumption, due to their higher crime rate.

I'd look into how "Shithole" United Kingdom and Germany deals with maternity leave compared to the United States.

Actually I was referring to the Middle East, and, so what? If you're not working, why should you be getting paid?

I have you completely figured out man. Completely.

You like your guns because they're your hobby. You like to shoot things. Maybe you're a little paranoid and want them for protection too, but its mostly because you like them the way Josh Richardson, an 11th grader from Kansas City, likes collecting Magic The Gathering Cards. It's just a hobby.

And you dont want the hobby to go away so you'll say anything, do anything, use any justification, to keep your guns.

How silly. It be funny if it weren't sad. All that energy could go into something productive, like the Google Science Fair you're not taking part in, or an internship at the State Department. But no. You choose guns.

Actually I like my guns because I realize that we exist as a free society completely based on the fact that we're #1 in gun ownership, you may not think so, but it's true, there are over 277 million guns in the United States, nobody, not even our own government, would want to combat us.

I keep them for protection, too, it has absolutely nothing to do with being paranoid, it's preparation in case something happens, do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home? Why? Are you paranoid a fire is going to happen? Why keep one if you can just call the fire department?

No, it's not just a hobby, it's a lot of more things.

It's not a hobby, it's a right, and I'm not saying anything, or doing anything, I'm saying and doing what is right, and what is legitimately justified.

And you're wasting time about a fundamental unalienable right that you just want to destroy, even though you live in this great country which is based upon freedom, why do you want to destroy it, are you mentally ill? You could have a job, you could be participating in charities or the Google Science Fair, but no, you choose to argue on the internet, thinking you're proving some point, but you're not.

[Garnier Fructis]

Yeah dude, that was called the Red Scare, where people were afraid of "teh communisms!"

And by the way, the first person who did limit speech, or, the Sedition Act of 1918, was a democrat. Woodrow Wilson.


This all comes down to taking responsibility for your actions, of course you're going to be against freedom, seeing as no one takes responsibility and expects the nanny-state to hold their junk while they pee.

Why does Woodrow Wilson being a democrat have any relevance? Seems like a bad attempt to vilify a whole party. Also, you're wrong about 1918. The first limitations on free speech were the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

I'm really loving how you paint me as a person against freedom. I didn't know freedom was an all or nothing proposal. This world isn't black and white, there's no valid reason for you to have the "freedom" to own bombs or the "freedom" to incite panic and cause harm to others.

[Biske]

Scroesec what do you think of this blog post? All of the liberals on the Internet are pissed about it, but its worth reading.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...dle-of-the-gun

I'm a liberal and I didn't see anything to be pissed about there. Then again, I'm not anti-gun. There is a safely stored and hidden handgun in my house in case anyone were to break in. Fortunately, it has never been used and I hope it never needs to be used. It is well maintained, though.

[Sicarus]

Double standards between discussions? If you can say anything you want without consequence and buy anything you want without consequence and slap this under the protection of an amendment no matter what harm it could cause... you are very distinctly trying to avoid any responsibility.

I never said there weren't consequences, please, tell me where I said there were consequences.

What consequence would come out of buying a grenade launcher, if I bought a grenade launcher, tell me the consequences.

If somebody yelled Fire! in a theater, it's the right to free speech, but if somebody gets hurt because of their actions, they're liable.

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 04:38 PM ----------

What Kas meant was that every citizen is a potential criminal, so all the laws need to apply to everyone. A criminal isn't a criminal until they commit a crime, and unless you're psychic or have a time machine, you don't know who it will be or when it will happen. Even someone who seems perfectly stable can one day commit some atrocity. Since it's a potential danger, you can either take reactive measures and punish that criminal after he has killed 20, or proactive measures and make a law that would make it impossible for any potential criminal to kill 20.

Alright, how about this, you live in a house, with 5 other children, because one could potentially become lazy, you remove the T.V.

However one becomes lazy anyway.

Is it because the T.V. was removed? Obviously not.

[Grizzly Willy]

I never said there weren't consequences, please, tell me where I said there were consequences.

What consequence would come out of buying a grenade launcher, if I bought a grenade launcher, tell me the consequences.

If somebody yelled Fire! in a theater, it's the right to free speech, but if somebody gets hurt because of their actions, they're liable.

Suppose the consequences would be that if your weapon goes off then you, regardless of you intending it to, would be liable for it. But then, it going off and you owning it aren't necessarily the same.

[Svifnymr]

Until 1969, we did have a law that placed restraints on speech that would cause harm to the public. Now, we have restraints against speech that incites imminent lawless action. Again, the point of my post was not to draw a direct connection between owning guns and inciting panic.

The point of my post was to address how silly it is to have completely unrestrained rights, as Sicarus is advocating.

My point is that a law saying "you can't yell fire in a theater" is silly. If you yell fire, you should be charged with whatever the consequences of the action are, obviously. If you yell fire and nothing happens, and everyone just looks at you like you're an idiot, you're "disturbing the peace".

There's no need, again, IMO, to specifically say "you can't yell fire!", as it were. And while I understand how the US system works, with the supreme court judging whether something is constitutional or not in a legal sense, it doesn't mean I agree with their decisions or think they're correct all the time.

[Biske]

Actually I was referring to the Middle East, and, so what? If you're not working, why should you be getting paid?

Because in the case of maternity leave, how would a single mother or a household where money is already scarce and both parents have to work, how else would they be able to afford to care for her child? Unless you're implying that a pregnant mother should work, in which case, you should be ashamed and go apologize to your mother.

[Kasierith]

What? What the fuck?

When did I say laws aren't universal?

When you said

Wait, wait, what?

So law-abiding citizens and criminals SHOULD be treated the same?

Criminals and Law-abiding citizens are not the same.

They are from the same population: People inside the United States. And because of the positive negative nature of following the law, you can't even differentiate between them. Have you ever gone over the speed limit? You're a criminal. Ever jaywalked where you aren't supposed to? Criminal. Drink while under 21 without the supervision of a parent or guardian? Criminal. I understand that this may be a difficult thing to comprehend.... but there are such things as shades of gray.

When you become a criminal, you lose the right to vote, the right to bear arms, the right to hold public office, and the right to travel abroad.

They don't lose all of their rights, but they sure do lose some of them. I never said anything that they aren't applicable under protection for unreasonable search and siezure, fair and speedy trials, or the protection from unreasonable jail sentences. You did. And you're putting those words in my mouth, as well.

For rights to vote, the vast majority of criminals do have that right. There are criminals who have the right to bear arms, and to hold public office, and to travel abroad. As for the other protections, they are examples of how the law is universal and applies to everyone equally. What's more, the examples where certain otherwise inalienable rights are restricted in order to protect the interests of the populace. I don't think you see how the restriction of criminals having guns pretty much destroys your entire viewpoint that certain rights should not be restricted even if it would be beneficial to society to do so.

Even in the instance of restricting certain rights for certain crimes, the application is universal as there is no legal discrimination between individuals who have done the same crime. For example, just because you're already a "criminal" does not not mean that if you steal a car, you'll be treated worse off than a "law abiding citizen" who steals a car. The exception is, of course, the three strikes rule, which is a system that a number of public bodies and entities have decried as highly unethical and counterproductive to the rational and righteous application of the law.

I put words in your mouth? Please, either review what you say before you post or cry me a river and put a ward in it.

I thought we were always supposed to question the law/authority? What happened to that?

Sure there are plenty of ways, but it's a right, it doesn't need to be defended, or attacked.

It's sad... you can't even keep your own arguments straight anymore. As for the universality of law, of course it can be questioned. That has nothing to do with the law being applied to everyone equally.

[Svifnymr]

It's a statistically significant study. They are unarguably scientific methods.

Sorry if you don't like the fact. 1906 respondents is many hundreds more than enough.

1906 respondents with no idea how many guns there are is not representative. 15 incidents is the actual sample of "had a gun, was it good or was it bad" which is the nature of the study. The margin of error on this tiny study would cover most of their results.

"In 15 incidents, we found that 13 were intidimated by a gun while 2 used it defensively" is what the "study" shows.

[Biske]

I never said there weren't consequences, please, tell me where I said there were consequences.

What consequence would come out of buying a grenade launcher, if I bought a grenade launcher, tell me the consequences.

If somebody yelled Fire! in a theater, it's the right to free speech, but if somebody gets hurt because of their actions, they're liable.

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 04:38 PM ----------



Alright, how about this, you live in a house, with 5 other children, because one could potentially become lazy, you remove the T.V.

However one becomes lazy anyway.

Is it because the T.V. was removed? Obviously not.

Your example makes no sense because 1. I don't advocate banning guns. and 2. Poor parenting is what causes laziness, not the TV. Poor gun control and education is what causes crime, not guns. New laws need to be made to address the issue that people have retarded views about guns. You don't need to ban guns to do that. You need control. Control != ban.

[Svifnymr]

What Kas meant was that every citizen is a potential criminal, so all the laws need to apply to everyone. A criminal isn't a criminal until they commit a crime, and unless you're psychic or have a time machine, you don't know who it will be or when it will happen. Even someone who seems perfectly stable can one day commit some atrocity. Since it's a potential danger, you can either take reactive measures and punish that criminal after he has killed 20, or proactive measures and make a law that would make it impossible for any potential criminal to kill 20.

"Innocent until proven guilty".

But, really it will always come down to the odds. Do you restrict 100's of millions because of the actions of thousands. And if so, when do you draw the line? The 4th, 5th or 6th amendments? You see how they take shots at freedom of speech in the name of "reasonable restrictions", when does it end?

[Kasierith]

I never said there weren't consequences, please, tell me where I said there were consequences.

What consequence would come out of buying a grenade launcher, if I bought a grenade launcher, tell me the consequences.

If somebody yelled Fire! in a theater, it's the right to free speech, but if somebody gets hurt because of their actions, they're liable.

I can see you're struggling with this entire aspect of the legal system. I hope that reading through this will allow you to understand it better, seeing as the law is primarily based on the acts instead of the consequences.

http://enthusiasms.org/post/146260884

[Sicarus]

Why does Woodrow Wilson being a democrat have any relevance? Seems like a bad attempt to vilify a whole party. Also, you're wrong about 1918. The first limitations on free speech were the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

I'm really loving how you paint me as a person against freedom. I didn't know freedom was an all or nothing proposal. This world isn't black and white, there's no valid reason for you to have the "freedom" to own bombs or the "freedom" to incite panic and cause harm to others.

SEE, RIGHT THERE.

What does the NRA, or Ronald Reagan, or anyone else being a republican, or democrat, have anything to do with anything?

Exactly the point being made a while ago.

Alien and Sedition Acts? Gonna read up on those, didn't know about them.

After reading up on them, they still were supported by people on the modern day left side, so I don't know why people keep bringing up, "if absolute freedom, why restrictions on speech?", because, the people on "my side" didn't and never did support it.

As Patrick Henry said it best, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" He is/was right, I'd rather die free, than live enslaved.

There is valid reason for me to own bombs, or yell absolutely stupid shit, it's called, freedom, and you'll say, well that's not valid!!!, well, yes it is, because I'm not doing anything to harm anyone, and once I do, depending on the severity of my conduct, I may or may not lose those rights, because then I would be a felon.

[Biske]

"Innocent until proven guilty".

But, really it will always come down to the odds. Do you restrict 100's of millions because of the actions of thousands. And if so, when do you draw the line? The 4th, 5th or 6th amendments? You see how they take shots at freedom of speech in the name of "reasonable restrictions", when does it end?

You can't be guilty of anything if laws don't exist. And you're not being accused of being guilty of anything whenever a new law is made, so that doesn't apply. I'm also not looking to get rid of any amendment, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[Sicarus]

Suppose the consequences would be that if your weapon goes off then you, regardless of you intending it to, would be liable for it. But then, it going off and you owning it aren't necessarily the same.

It would depend if harm did indeed come onto others, there are a lot of endings to this situation, and it would take a while to post, so just use that thing not a lot of people seem to have anymore, an imagination.

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 04:53 PM ----------

Because in the case of maternity leave, how would a single mother or a household where money is already scarce and both parents have to work, how else would they be able to afford to care for her child? Unless you're implying that a pregnant mother should work, in which case, you should be ashamed and go apologize to your mother.

Actually, my mother worked when she was pregnant, she even worked when she was pregnant with my older brother.

It boils down to responsibility, if the single mother had a child, it's her responsibility, if both parents had a child knowing money is scarce, their responsibility.

This isn't a nanny-state, survival of the fittest, it's how the world works, whether you see it or not.

[Garnier Fructis]

SEE, RIGHT THERE.

What does the NRA, or Ronald Reagan, or anyone else being a republican, or democrat, have anything to do with anything?

Exactly the point being made a while ago.

Perhaps this would have been better directed at someone else.

[Kasierith]

This isn't a nanny-state, survival of the fittest, it's how the world works, whether you see it or not.

Our species have benefited from rejecting "survival of the fittest" since before our modern species came into being, as can be seen from observing other primates - http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...&brand=ucpress

[Dillon]

I'm a liberal and I didn't see anything to be pissed about there. Then again, I'm not anti-gun. There is a safely stored and hidden handgun in my house in case anyone were to break in. Fortunately, it has never been used and I hope it never needs to be used. It is well maintained, though.

This is the ballad of American gun owners, forever maintaining and preparing, loathing the day they might need to turn their instruments of destruction on others just to survive.

It's the best we can really get.

This isn't a nanny-state, survival of the fittest, it's how the world works, whether you see it or not.

A Darwinian society is not a good place to live. It's dark, terrifying, cold, and without mercy. Rising above our wretchedness is essential, but to do that you need to be able to protect yourself along the way.