Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

And I'm being specific that AR-15s are type of gun. It fits into the subset of "gun" that we're discussing. He's trying to muddy the waters, a classic logical fallacy.

Ah, misread your earlier post as "How often are guns the primary weapon of choice used in school shootings". Was wondering wtf you meant.

[Daelak]

I'm a left leaning libertarian. I'm against any sort of bans or heavy regulation. I just don't see an issue with implementing things that will work that don't infringe on anyone's rights. Switzerland does many of those things and they have almost no violent crime. We should use their laws minus conscription and ammo restrictions. I'd even get rid of Gun Free zones since there is literally no reason for them but to attract bad guys looking for victims. I want good people to be armed and knowledgeable. You would think more people would support things like background checks, mandatory training, safes, and eliminating loopholes. Those are all proven to keep guns out of bad guys hands and in good guys hands.

If you believe in the true nature of the second amendment, which is to prevent tyranny, wouldn't you want people to be more trained, responsible, and knowledgeable?

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 06:20 PM ----------



Depends on the gun really...

Are we talking about gun technology in general where a device fires a projectile? Then you could mention flare guns, glue guns, nail guns...

Firearms can be used to shoot and harm targets in practice. What you shoot is really up to you.

He says there are multiple uses for a gun that fires gun-powder bullets, however other than being hung on a wall or in a display case, they are pretty fucking useless.

He is skirting around the fact that all guns are only created to kill and maim. There is no other point to them.

Humans are irrational. The only reason we are having this conversation is because of the adherence and conditioning and reinforcement of people on this board have towards a document and a piece of metal. Think about how "crazy" that is. Look at how weak the human brain is. Always dependent on the reinforcement of others, always has to find the source that keeps their belief system in check, because they don't want the reality, they just want their construct.

[GreatOak]

I agree with your position, just acting as devil's advocate.

I don't "believe" in anything, especially the obsessive worship of a 200 year old document.

2nd amendment was made during a time where local communities had a chance against national armies because of fire-power parity. There is no parity now, only absolute advantage.

The reason there is such a large proliferation of guns in this country is due to the fact that no one really gives a shit who dies by firearms, but the entire debate is wholly owned by gun rights advocates.

It can be babies, children, blacks, women, it doesn't matter, we as a people don't give two shits.

When you look at the text rationally, you can tell it has nothing to do with you owning and storing tens of thousands of rounds, an arsenal of semi-auto and pistols. They are fetishing history, like humans always do with ancient texts. Males hero worshiping like we have always done.

Our small chance of self-defense against the government is not a reason to abandon the second amendment. I'd rather fight an 800 lb gorilla with a slingshot than my bare hands. As long as bullets hurt people this will remain the case. Besides, the constitution isn't any old document. It's the oldest one in the world, and can be changed whenever the people will it to be.

[Ghostpanther]

Yea that's the point of target practice, to hone your precision and accuracy to kill or maim a target.

I like guns, and me nor any person in government want to destroy them. Guns are used to kill and maim.

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 06:11 PM ----------



Ok you liberal.

Ok, I misjudged you some. I apologize. A more accurate discription of your stance of your opinion of the "only" purpose of a gun is to kill or main living creatures is a narrow minded and wrong perception.

And there are most certainly members of government if they had full control, would band private ownership of guns. But thankfully, so far atleast, we have many of those in government who understand and want to protect the consitutional rights of gun ownership of private citizens.

If you think this is wrong about some in government wanting to band ownership of guns...I point you to Chicago which had such a law until the Supreme Court overturned it.

[GreatOak]

He says there are multiple uses for a gun that fires gun-powder bullets, however other than being hung on a wall or in a display case, they are pretty fucking useless.

He is skirting around the fact that all guns are only created to kill and maim. There is no other point to them.

Humans are irrational. The only reason we are having this conversation is because of the adherence and conditioning and reinforcement of people on this board have towards a document and a piece of metal. Think about how "crazy" that is. Look at how weak the human brain is. Always dependent on the reinforcement of others, always has to find the source that keeps their belief system in check, because they don't want the reality, they just want their construct.

Sure, they are tools designed to harm or kill. The context matters, though. To me, they are tools of self-defense that will always be needed in this world. To deny that is to deny human nature. The world is still a naturally violent place (relatively speaking), and as long as that remains the case, guns (and weapons in general) will be required.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...dle-of-the-gun

[Zhangfei]

Ok, I misjudged you some. I apologize. A more accurate discription of your stance of your opinion of the "only" purpose of a gun is to kill or main living creatures is a narrow minded and wrong perception.

And there are most certainly members of government if they had full control, would band private ownership of guns. But thankfully, so far atleast, we have many of those in government who understand and want to protect the consitutional rights of gun ownership of private citizens.

If you think this is wrong about some in government wanting to band ownership of guns...I point you to Chicago which had such a law until the Supreme Court overturned it.

Unless the law is universal, then localised bans don't mean anything. The illegal importing of weapons from just outside the city environs make it an exercise in futility. The police commissioner of NYC said that on the Daily Show and I definitely disagree with these localised bans.

If one is arguing for a ban, then I assume they mean it nationwide at a federal level.

[Svifnymr]

He says there are multiple uses for a gun that fires gun-powder bullets, however other than being hung on a wall or in a display case, they are pretty fucking useless.

He is skirting around the fact that all guns are only created to kill and maim. There is no other point to them.

I've repeatedly posted about guns that are designed for other purposes, you ignore them, so what's your point?

If a gun is designed as a collectible (example I have, engraved single action army), that does not mean you mount it on a wall. They might be useless to you, certainly, since you only see guns as a weapon with which to kill or maim. That's my point, you only see things through your narrow minded view and then assume everyone else operates in the same vein.

There are guns designed for long range shooting that are not designed to be used in killing anything, but you only see target shooting as practice for killing or maiming, and you project that view on to others and assume that their recreational activity is purely for kill-training.

You also still say guns are designed for maiming, which is just out there on many levels. I would say if you maim with a firearm it's because you're not using it correctly, while you believe it to be a feature.

Humans are irrational. The only reason we are having this conversation is because of the adherence and conditioning and reinforcement of people on this board have towards a document and a piece of metal. Think about how "crazy" that is. Look at how weak the human brain is. Always dependent on the reinforcement of others, always has to find the source that keeps their belief system in check, because they don't want the reality, they just want their construct.

You really don't think much of people in the conversation, do you?

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 01:50 PM ----------

Unless the law is universal, then localised bans don't mean anything. The illegal importing of weapons from just outside the city environs make it an exercise in futility. The police commissioner of NYC said that on the Daily Show and I definitely disagree with these localised bans.

If one is arguing for a ban, then I assume they mean it nationwide at a federal level.

There are limitations on a localized ban, certainly, but there ARE laws about buying elsewhere too. So yeah, breaking one law to break another, as it were.

[Zhangfei]

There are limitations on a localized ban, certainly, but there ARE laws about buying elsewhere too. So yeah, breaking one law to break another, as it were.

That's the problem. It's not going to be effective if you have a massive variation in local laws. It has to be all or nothing if a ban is the solution, just like it has to be extensive workshops and annual training and secure storage if gun ownership is the solution.

[Ghostpanther]

Unless the law is universal, then localised bans don't mean anything. The illegal importing of weapons from just outside the city environs make it an exercise in futility. The police commissioner of NYC said that on the Daily Show and I definitely disagree with these localised bans.

If one is arguing for a ban, then I assume they mean it nationwide at a federal level.

It mattered to the ones living in Chicago. And it mattered enough the Supreme Court decided it was worthly enough to rule on it. But yeah..I do get your point. Federal level ban would most certainly have a much greater impact on a national level. But for those who have no plans on ever moving, a localized ban is just as important as national one. Those who wish to be law abiding I mean.

[Zhangfei]

It mattered to the ones living in Chicago. And it mattered enough the Supreme Court decided it was worthly enough to rule on it. But yeah..I do get your point. Federal level ban would most certainly have a much greater impact on a national level. But for those who have no plans on ever moving, a localized ban is just as important as national one. Those who wish to be law abiding I mean.

Obviously it affects the people locally. The point I'm making is that localised bans are not effective because of the importing of weapons - mostly from the South where the rules are a joke.

[Ghostpanther]

Obviously it affects the people locally. The point I'm making is that localised bans are not effective because of the importing of weapons - mostly from the South where the rules are a joke.

Good point. And I agree. Even with a national ban however, the black market of importing guns from other countries would florish. As the cocain flow into the US still does.

[Zhangfei]

Good point. And I agree. Even with a national ban however, the black market of importing guns from other countries would florish. As the cocain flow into the US still does.

Possibly. It depends on if its policed like now (barely and with too many restrictions) or like Australia/Britain (harshly, with few restrictions.) Smuggling weapons is not particularly easy compared to powders.

Edit: If there was a ban put in place tomorrow (theoretically) then you'd have a crapton of weapons already in society too. You'd need much more policy to correct that before worrying about smuggling.

[Svifnymr]

Possibly. It depends on if its policed like now (barely and with too many restrictions) or like Australia/Britain (harshly, with few restrictions.) Smuggling weapons is not particularly easy compared to powders.

While the drugs individually are small, they're not importing small amounts at a time by any means. The USA has some pretty big open borders. While we do have a lot of gun-makers, most of the world-market of guns such as AK47's and FAL's/ G3s are not from here. M16's on the black market are generally due to us giving them to mexico, columbia, et cetera. Brazil is a major arms maker, as is Venezuela and a few others. Not to make a claim that the USA doesn't have weapons smuggled out or whatnot, just saying the networks are already well in place.

Edit: If there was a ban put in place tomorrow (theoretically) then you'd have a crapton of weapons already in society too. You'd need much more policy to correct that before worrying about smuggling.

It was the old joke, when they ban guns, everyone will just bury them and say "I sold it at a gunshow" since the press was always saying gunshows are the source of all evil. From a USA perspective, the issue is taking away the guns from all the law abiding folks that have done nothing wrong, because of the actions of a small percentage of folks that did something.

You also have "different classes" of gun owners, the guys with their $50,000 shotguns that skeet shoot in between golf games and don't understand why "commoners" need pistols/ rifles. Or the hunters that use their guns to feed their families and wouldn't care if other stuff got banned. Feinstein does a wonderful job of rallying all these people by giving them a gun-banner to rally against.

[Zhangfei]

While the drugs individually are small, they're not importing small amounts at a time by any means. The USA has some pretty big open borders. While we do have a lot of gun-makers, most of the world-market of guns such as AK47's and FAL's/ G3s are not from here. M16's on the black market are generally due to us giving them to mexico, columbia, et cetera. Brazil is a major arms maker, as is Venezuela and a few others. Not to make a claim that the USA doesn't have weapons smuggled out or whatnot, just saying the networks are already well in place.

I know - but the police have been absolutely crippled in terms of chasing certain leads because of some creative work in Congress. Laws that help prevent these sorts of things - such as strict oversight of gun shops and individuals who own weapons - are not allowed. Hell, 50% of weapons in crimes are stolen from legal owners, let alone smuggled. There are far too many weapons out there that cannot be traced easily.

It's still far easier to smuggle drugs in general though.

It was the old joke, when they ban guns, everyone will just bury them and say "I sold it at a gunshow" since the press was always saying gunshows are the source of all evil. From a USA perspective, the issue is taking away the guns from all the law abiding folks that have done nothing wrong, because of the actions of a small percentage of folks that did something.

I understand that fear. I'm not saying it's irrelevant. The point is utilitarian to my mind; the small joy millions of legal owners have do not outweigh the hundreds of thousands of people who died at the hands of gun owners. It is not a "right" when the "right" is misused and abuse to kill 11,000 people a year, create a society of extreme tension and worry and perpetuates extreme violence as a solution to extreme violence. I never give any credit to "guns prevent crime" because guns equally cause it, just like a gun used in protecting a family could be the same gun used to burgle a house and threaten a family.

As I said before, I know there are responsible gun owners - but I cannot let 11,000 homicides a year be passed off as some glitch in the system, a bit of a "whoops, oh dear" kind of thing. People' lives mean a lot more to me than that.

You also have "different classes" of gun owners, the guys with their $50,000 shotguns that skeet shoot in between golf games and don't understand why "commoners" need pistols/ rifles. Or the hunters that use their guns to feed their families and wouldn't care if other stuff got banned. Feinstein does a wonderful job of rallying all these people by giving them a gun-banner to rally against.

The NRA is one of the most well-funded, well-backed lobbying organisations in America. It dominates discussion and Congress. I don't think the "pro-gun" crowd needs a rally-around

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned clay pigeon shooting. Guns have non-lethal purposes in the field of sport/recreation.

[mistuhbull]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned clay pigeon shooting. Guns have non-lethal purposes in the field of sport/recreation.

didn't you hear, that's just practicing for when you go out on your murder sprees

[Grizzly Willy]

didn't you hear, that's just practicing for when you go out on your murder sprees

I know you're being sarcastic, but I would like to address this point. If that were the case, then we should ban video games.

[Zhangfei]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I would like to address this point. If that were the case, then we should ban video games.

What skills does using a controller give for going on a shooting spree? Seriously? Thumb dexterity?

Clay pigeon shooting (seriously, read the name) is practice for - and this might blow your mind - bird shooting.

[Grizzly Willy]

What skills does using a controller give for going on a shooting spree? Seriously? Thumb dexterity?

Clay pigeon shooting (seriously, read the name) is practice for - and this might blow your mind - bird shooting.

I take it the Olympic event is training for killing as well?

[ugotownd]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I would like to address this point. If that were the case, then we should ban video games.

Actually he isn't being sarcastic. Several people in the thread said that clay shooting or any target shooting is just to practice for your spree.

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 08:33 PM ----------

What skills does using a controller give for going on a shooting spree? Seriously? Thumb dexterity?

Clay pigeon shooting (seriously, read the name) is practice for - and this might blow your mind - bird shooting.

In that case we can say hitting a nail with a hammer is practice for smashing a skull.
Video games have been proven to increase you hand and eye coordination. Being able to acquire targets and fire faster is a definite perk to a better killing spree so I say we can blame video games.