Export thread
Obama calling for more gun control
#1
strawman
strawman
So apparently Obama is taking this opportunity to use public outrage and sentiment to encourage people to support more oppressive gun legislation.
Here is an excellent post that goes over nearly every argument gun control nuts use, and has taught me a number of things I didn't know before.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
He covers arming teachers, gun free zones, assault weapons, large capacity clips, and even the tired "why don't we allow citizen nukes" regarding the 2nd amendment. He steps through the most popular gun control suggestions.
It's long, but if Obama think it's important we have a discussion on it then let's have a discussion.
Here is an excellent post that goes over nearly every argument gun control nuts use, and has taught me a number of things I didn't know before.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
He covers arming teachers, gun free zones, assault weapons, large capacity clips, and even the tired "why don't we allow citizen nukes" regarding the 2nd amendment. He steps through the most popular gun control suggestions.
It's long, but if Obama think it's important we have a discussion on it then let's have a discussion.
#2
Bubble181
Bubble181
Fair enough. Too bad about 85% of his article can be summarized as: "putting any legal limits on guns or gun-related items or behaviour is useless, since criminals will just break the law anyway".
True, but besides the point, and been responded to a hundred times over. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about uns (hah!) or people (hah!) or, well, aything at all, really. I do know that simply saying "thatl aw won't work because criminals will just do it anyway" is an argument to legalise theft, rape, murder and slavery - because criminals will just do it anyway.
Mind you, he has some good arguments (and I'm not entirely against guns - we've been over this). There's no simple quick "solution" to mass killings. Especially in a country where guns are as prevalent as they are in the US. Doesn't mean people can't deplore the situation.
There's only two good ways to deal with guns;
A) make sure nobody has guns legally except for a select few (and yes, it's proven to work, no matter how much "gun lovers" (hey, if he can say "gun control nuts" I can use funny-but-inaccurate monickers too!) like to claim it doesn't)
B) make sure everyone has a gun, is allowed to carry concealed, and is instructed in its use, and hope for the best (and that sort-of works too, as is shown all over the world with that other implement of mass death - the car).
True, but besides the point, and been responded to a hundred times over. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about uns (hah!) or people (hah!) or, well, aything at all, really. I do know that simply saying "thatl aw won't work because criminals will just do it anyway" is an argument to legalise theft, rape, murder and slavery - because criminals will just do it anyway.
Mind you, he has some good arguments (and I'm not entirely against guns - we've been over this). There's no simple quick "solution" to mass killings. Especially in a country where guns are as prevalent as they are in the US. Doesn't mean people can't deplore the situation.
There's only two good ways to deal with guns;
A) make sure nobody has guns legally except for a select few (and yes, it's proven to work, no matter how much "gun lovers" (hey, if he can say "gun control nuts" I can use funny-but-inaccurate monickers too!) like to claim it doesn't)
B) make sure everyone has a gun, is allowed to carry concealed, and is instructed in its use, and hope for the best (and that sort-of works too, as is shown all over the world with that other implement of mass death - the car).
#3
strawman
strawman
Looks like you didn't read the article. He never used the term "gun control nuts" - I did. Further, he addresses your valid points quite well.
The invalid point (legalizing guns is like legalizing rape - buh, what?) doesn't make sense to me, so I'm ignoring it, but perhaps you can expand on it in a way that makes more sense and I can better understand what you're saying. In short, we're talking about a tool not a crime. Making a tool illegal is not the same as making a crime illegal. So perhaps you can modify your argument to better explain why making guns illegal is the same as making rape illegal.
The invalid point (legalizing guns is like legalizing rape - buh, what?) doesn't make sense to me, so I'm ignoring it, but perhaps you can expand on it in a way that makes more sense and I can better understand what you're saying. In short, we're talking about a tool not a crime. Making a tool illegal is not the same as making a crime illegal. So perhaps you can modify your argument to better explain why making guns illegal is the same as making rape illegal.
#4
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Yeah, I can't really take that article seriously. He cites almost nothing except for name-dropping two academics (Lott and Kleck) whose work has been highly criticized for methodology, poor sampling and dubious conclusions, and two-thirds of his article is him making up emotional arguments by "the other side" to argue against. I, for one, don't equate gun control with outright banning guns.
He's basically concern trolling the Brady bunch.
Much of the recent crime stat info he links to was collected by David Hemenway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hemenway), who specifically disagrees with most of what the author of that article claims. (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html).
Also, though overall a much smaller claim, it's a bit silly to bring up the stabbings in China as proof that restricting gun ownership doesn't work, seeing as how no one was fatally injured when the guy used a knife instead of a gun.
He's basically concern trolling the Brady bunch.
Much of the recent crime stat info he links to was collected by David Hemenway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hemenway), who specifically disagrees with most of what the author of that article claims. (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html).
Also, though overall a much smaller claim, it's a bit silly to bring up the stabbings in China as proof that restricting gun ownership doesn't work, seeing as how no one was fatally injured when the guy used a knife instead of a gun.
#5
Espy
Espy
I say we arm the schoolchildren. All of them. BAM. Problem solved. Your move liberal idiots.
#6
Necronic
Necronic
My problem with the "Criminals will get guns anyways" is that it's provably false in Europe. Sure, a very limited number of them do, but VERY FEW criminals can get their hands on guns. Interestingly, it's also legal for a civilian to get a gun there as well (UK at least), it's just a lot more regulated.
I didn't read the entire 30 pages of this article, because lets be honest, it's not a genuine attempt at an argument. His argument for High Cap Magazines is literally "But I can't reliably kill someone with a 10 round clip". Uhm. Yeah. Exactly. Most of his arguments about the inneffectiveness of the Brady Bill (which I agree was inneffective) ignore talking about the "grandfather" provision, and what would happen if we didn't grandfather.
But you know what really bothers me? I would love to see someone on the Pro-Gun side (which I myself am on) have the balls to say this:
"School shootings are statistically insignificant and legislation that affects the entire nation should not be designed around 30-60 deaths a year. There are thousands of people who die from guns each year, or who use guns to defend themselves, or who safely use guns for sport or hutning. That is the conversation. While this incident had large significance to the families involved, it, like the Oklahoma City bombing are not systemic trends that we can design legislation around to manage"
I didn't read the entire 30 pages of this article, because lets be honest, it's not a genuine attempt at an argument. His argument for High Cap Magazines is literally "But I can't reliably kill someone with a 10 round clip". Uhm. Yeah. Exactly. Most of his arguments about the inneffectiveness of the Brady Bill (which I agree was inneffective) ignore talking about the "grandfather" provision, and what would happen if we didn't grandfather.
But you know what really bothers me? I would love to see someone on the Pro-Gun side (which I myself am on) have the balls to say this:
"School shootings are statistically insignificant and legislation that affects the entire nation should not be designed around 30-60 deaths a year. There are thousands of people who die from guns each year, or who use guns to defend themselves, or who safely use guns for sport or hutning. That is the conversation. While this incident had large significance to the families involved, it, like the Oklahoma City bombing are not systemic trends that we can design legislation around to manage"
#7
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Which actually brings to mind something else. It wasn't too long ago that the prevailing right wing narrative was that school teachers were government union thugs that weren't fit to teach children and examples of communist-style socialism taking over the country.
And now that same narrative thinks we should be arming them...
And now that same narrative thinks we should be arming them...
#8
strawman
Also, please avoid using EU generically regarding handgun laws since it's hardly uniform. It's very confusing.
strawman
The astoundingly large borders, both sea and land facing, of the US and the fact that we haven't been able to ban drugs would seem to be better indicators of whether a handgun ban would work than how things work in, for instance, the island of the UK.My problem with the "Criminals will get guns anyways" is that it's provably false in Europe. Sure, a very limited number of them do, but VERY FEW criminals can get their hands on guns. Interestingly, it's also legal for a civilian to get a gun there as well (UK at least), it's just a lot more regulated.
Also, please avoid using EU generically regarding handgun laws since it's hardly uniform. It's very confusing.
#9
Dave
Dave
I can't grow guns in my basement.
#10
Necronic
Necronic
True enough. How about Germany then, since it has lots of borders, some with some pretty sketchy countries, and had a lot of potential for guns to hang around after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They also have a strict licensing system that does not ban the ownership of guns, just makes it more regulated.
They have ~0.2 deaths by gun per 100k, and a homicide rate by all means of ~1. Then you have the US, which has roughly 5.5 per 100k of homicides by gun, and roughly 6.5 per 100k by all means. % wise the gun deaths in Germany are lower/the deaths by other means are higher, but the overall murder rate is still much much lower.
They have ~0.2 deaths by gun per 100k, and a homicide rate by all means of ~1. Then you have the US, which has roughly 5.5 per 100k of homicides by gun, and roughly 6.5 per 100k by all means. % wise the gun deaths in Germany are lower/the deaths by other means are higher, but the overall murder rate is still much much lower.
#11
strawman
Same with guns. You can, with instructions on the internet, build a rudimentary single shot firearm in your garage right now without special tools, buying common materials from the hardware store. You can invest in a few machining tools and for under $1,000 start building simple semi-automatic weapons.
It's not rocket science.
strawman
I can. And it's no more expensive than a good hydroponic system. And even then, you would still have a hard time growing more than pot - the harder drugs require much more effort (cost, expertise) than pot.I can't grow guns in my basement.
Same with guns. You can, with instructions on the internet, build a rudimentary single shot firearm in your garage right now without special tools, buying common materials from the hardware store. You can invest in a few machining tools and for under $1,000 start building simple semi-automatic weapons.
It's not rocket science.
#12
Necronic
Necronic
I guess my view overall is that I like guns, and I would like to own a gun (even a particularly funky won like that FN pistol everyone hates on), but I'm totally ok with some really strict regulation of them (as well as ammunition), and I don't think any kind of regulation works with a grandfather system.
#13
Dave
Dave
A single shot gun will not cause a mass shooting.I can. And it's no more expensive than a good hydroponic system. And even then, you would still have a hard time growing more than pot - the harder drugs require much more effort (cost, expertise) than pot.
Same with guns. You can, with instructions on the internet, build a rudimentary single shot firearm in your garage right now without special tools, buying common materials from the hardware store. You can invest in a few machining tools and for under $1,000 start building simple semi-automatic weapons.
It's not rocket science.
#14
strawman
For instance, the US has 4 times the length of land border than germany has, and that's before we even get to sea borders.[DOUBLEPOST=1356103428][/DOUBLEPOST]
strawman
Somalia has gun licensing too. I don't know that you can control for enough factors to make a straight up comparison.True enough. How about Germany then, since it has lots of borders, some with some pretty sketchy countries, and had a lot of potential for guns to hang around after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They also have a strict licensing system that does not ban the ownership of guns, just makes it more regulated.
They have ~0.2 deaths by gun per 100k, and a homicide rate by all means of ~1. Then you have the US, which has roughly 5.5 per 100k of homicides by gun, and roughly 6.5 per 100k by all means. % wise the gun deaths in Germany are lower/the deaths by other means are higher, but the overall murder rate is still much much lower.
For instance, the US has 4 times the length of land border than germany has, and that's before we even get to sea borders.[DOUBLEPOST=1356103428][/DOUBLEPOST]
That's true. In countries where handguns are more difficult to get people more frequently use explosives.A single shot gun will not cause a mass shooting.
#15
Dave
Dave
Explosives, which have protections against it because buying the stuff for it is basically watched. Plus, it takes a higher level of knowledge to make viable bombs. So...Somalia has gun licensing too. I don't know that you can control for enough factors to make a straight up comparison.
For instance, the US has 4 times the length of land border than germany has, and that's before we even get to sea borders.[DOUBLEPOST=1356103428][/DOUBLEPOST]
That's true. In countries where handguns are more difficult to get people more frequently use explosives.
#16
Necronic
As for the border size, think of it in terms relative to population size and police force size. I don't think it's that different of a situation. I mean, Baltimore has a tiny border compared to Germany. That doesn't mean its safer.
Necronic
Oh come on, the Somalia example is completely disengenious. I would like to think that the US is stlightly better at actually enforcing it's laws than Somalia. I mean really, when the US can be directly compared to Somalia in it's laws and enforcement I think we have bigger problems than gun control.Somalia has gun licensing too. I don't know that you can control for enough factors to make a straight up comparison.
For instance, the US has 4 times the length of land border than germany has, and that's before we even get to sea borders.
As for the border size, think of it in terms relative to population size and police force size. I don't think it's that different of a situation. I mean, Baltimore has a tiny border compared to Germany. That doesn't mean its safer.
#17
strawman
I could probably find relevant differences between the US and any other nation you might point to where gun control is "working" that might account for the difference, but the biggest in any case is cultural. The US was founded and grown differently from nearly any other nation. The entertainment alone is enough to point to the fact that we're so different that we could account for almost anything, violence especially.
At any rate, I don't think arguments saying, "The US should do X because it works in nation A" are any more valid than the reverse.
I don't agree, but I don't think I'm going to try to prove that the german borders are better guarded than the US borders - it's a lot of trouble, and it means I'd have to step up to the plate for every nation you might point out has better gun control with the same border issues as the US.
strawman
It's a convenient placeholder for the concept that you can't compare two nations in a vacuum.Oh come on, the Somalia example is completely disengenious. I would like to think that the US is stlightly better at actually enforcing it's laws than Somalia. I mean really, when the US can be directly compared to Somalia in it's laws and enforcement I think we have bigger problems than gun control.
I could probably find relevant differences between the US and any other nation you might point to where gun control is "working" that might account for the difference, but the biggest in any case is cultural. The US was founded and grown differently from nearly any other nation. The entertainment alone is enough to point to the fact that we're so different that we could account for almost anything, violence especially.
At any rate, I don't think arguments saying, "The US should do X because it works in nation A" are any more valid than the reverse.
You are suggesting that it's as easy to smuggle a gun or a crate of guns into Germany as it is to do so in the US.As for the border size, think of it in terms relative to population size and police force size. I don't think it's that different of a situation. I mean, Baltimore has a tiny border compared to Germany. That doesn't mean its safer.
I don't agree, but I don't think I'm going to try to prove that the german borders are better guarded than the US borders - it's a lot of trouble, and it means I'd have to step up to the plate for every nation you might point out has better gun control with the same border issues as the US.
#18
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Switzerland is actually a very interesting case.
By American standards, the gun control laws are quite restrictive, but everyone still has them.
By American standards, the gun control laws are quite restrictive, but everyone still has them.
#19
Dave
Dave
They also have mandatory armed forces service.Switzerland is actually a very interesting case.
By American standards, the gun control laws are quite restrictive, but everyone still has them.
#20
strawman
strawman
I suspect that if the US had mandatory military service the dynamic would be different here too. The indoctrination of boot camp changes a person much more than public school does.Switzerland is actually a very interesting case.
By American standards, the gun control laws are quite restrictive, but everyone still has them.
#21
Bubble181
Bubble181
My argument is not that legalizing guns is like legalizing rape. My point is that HIS argument is - against most gun laws, and if you really want I'll go quote happy and quote half his article here - is "making this sort of law is pointless, because criminals will ignore the law anyway". THAT is a ridiculous reasoning, that I simply slippery-sloped to its logical conclusion. Making anything illegal is useless, because criminals will ignore that law anyway. He simply and blatantly ignores that far and away most gun deaths aren't from criminals, but from heat of passion, accidents or people who shouldn't have access to guns (mentally disabled, children, convicted felons,...) getting access to guns because their care and keep isn't as strictly controlled as it could be (keeping guns and clips in the same closet, keeping guns loaded, improper maintenance leading to faults, putting guns in holster with the safety off, and so on and so forth). A lot of those deaths could be prevented by proper gun control.The invalid point (legalizing guns is like legalizing rape - buh, what?) doesn't make sense to me, so I'm ignoring it, but perhaps you can expand on it in a way that makes more sense and I can better understand what you're saying. In short, we're talking about a tool not a crime. Making a tool illegal is not the same as making a crime illegal. So perhaps you can modify your argument to better explain why making guns illegal is the same as making rape illegal.
#22
SpecialKO
They also have universal healthcare, heavily-financed public schools, a deep social net, and extremely high standard of living.
Funny how that sort of thing has an effect.
SpecialKO
Not so much armed forces service as militia training for 30% of the country (And the 100 guys who get to serve in their Air Force and fly F-18s at high speeds over Lake Geneva). The rest of the country doesn't get training or issued weaponry, but many of them still have guns.They also have mandatory armed forces service.
They also have universal healthcare, heavily-financed public schools, a deep social net, and extremely high standard of living.
Funny how that sort of thing has an effect.
#23
Shakey
Shakey
I found this part of his post incredibly sad.
I guess I'd like to wait and see what Obama actually does before I freak out about it. I doubt he'll ban anything, and if he tries to they'll be a lot of opposition. I would like to see the gun show loophole closed along with more of a background check when buying guns, but that's about it. I don't think that's too horribly unreasonable.
This is why non gun owners get freaked out and think people who have guns are crazy gun nuts. What legislation has Obama tried to get passed that would ban or limit guns? He wasn't even running on a platform of gun reform and the idea of him getting re-elected caused gun sales to surge. It's not Obama that's responsible for those sales. It's the ignorance and fear on the part of these people who think Obama's going to take away their guns.Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.
I guess I'd like to wait and see what Obama actually does before I freak out about it. I doubt he'll ban anything, and if he tries to they'll be a lot of opposition. I would like to see the gun show loophole closed along with more of a background check when buying guns, but that's about it. I don't think that's too horribly unreasonable.
#24
strawman
Heat of passion is handled by the brady bill as much as it can be. There's a waiting period, and only if you are suddenly passionate about killing someone during a gun show will you be easily able to get a gun same day without interacting with criminals. Sure, you can probably find a valid independent seller reasonably quickly, but if you are going to that much effort it's hardly a crime of passion any longer.
We do restrict guns to people who shouldn't have them. That system is faulty due to process, not due to legislation. I don't see how additional legislation is going to make it better.
I don't think a lot of deaths are due to people storing guns and ammo in the same closet, or improper gun care and storage. This is one where I'd like to see citation before we start discussing laws that would make it a felony to not keep a gun in a gun safe, separate from ammunition in another separate safe on the other side of the house, and arrest people for having a gun with safety off in their holster.
strawman
I'd say citation required, but let's assume you are correct and that if we took all the guns away from all the criminals then firearm homicide wouldn't budge.most gun deaths aren't from criminals, but from heat of passion, accidents or people who shouldn't have access to guns (mentally disabled, children, convicted felons,...) getting access to guns because their care and keep isn't as strictly controlled as it could be (keeping guns and clips in the same closet, keeping guns loaded, improper maintenance leading to faults, putting guns in holster with the safety off, and so on and so forth). A lot of those deaths could be prevented by proper gun control.
Heat of passion is handled by the brady bill as much as it can be. There's a waiting period, and only if you are suddenly passionate about killing someone during a gun show will you be easily able to get a gun same day without interacting with criminals. Sure, you can probably find a valid independent seller reasonably quickly, but if you are going to that much effort it's hardly a crime of passion any longer.
We do restrict guns to people who shouldn't have them. That system is faulty due to process, not due to legislation. I don't see how additional legislation is going to make it better.
I don't think a lot of deaths are due to people storing guns and ammo in the same closet, or improper gun care and storage. This is one where I'd like to see citation before we start discussing laws that would make it a felony to not keep a gun in a gun safe, separate from ammunition in another separate safe on the other side of the house, and arrest people for having a gun with safety off in their holster.
#25
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Boo this guy really hates his strawmen. Wonder why he bothered to set them up in the first place.
#26
Dave
Dave
He's coming at it as a GUN SHOP OWNER! His arguments are slanted towards that end. He wants a dialogue, but only if they agree with him.
#27
strawman
strawman
If that's the case, then his arguments should be easy to knock down.He's coming at it as a GUN SHOP OWNER! His arguments are slanted towards that end. He wants a dialogue, but only if they agree with him.
#28
Wahad
(not my image)
Wahad
But you can make them in your kitchen!I can't grow guns in my basement.
(not my image)
#29
GasBandit
GasBandit
Last year more than 400 school-age children were killed by gun crime in chicago - the city with the heaviest gun control laws in the US (outright banned, 2nd amendment be damned, supreme court be damned). Where was the outcry? Where were the calls for even more gun control (if that were possible)? The truth of the matter is gun control advocates wait around for a headline-grabbing tragedy to use as the spearpoint on their next thrust against the 2nd amendment, counting on emotions to carry through where facts and logic do not.
#30
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
I have been fairly pro-gun my whole life, but this recent incident has really shaken my stance. My immediate family is staunchly pro-military, pro-gun, knee-jerk conservatives. I can tell you first hand that it seems to me that they are listening/watching some idiot talking head that is scaring them. Out of this ridiculous fear, they have bought weapons. I imagine it's the same across the nation. Since Obama has been elected, I have seen my family transform from what I thought were patriotic conservatives to paranoid, closed-minded zealots.
I don't know what the answer is. It seems like an impossible task. I would honestly like to see less guns available, and make it extraordinarily difficult to buy a gun, as well as a limit.
I also think that people are the problem. The U.S. is full of people who beat their chests when it comes to 'rights'. As well, it's full of inconsiderate entitled jerks. I don't mean to knock down all of the U.S., but every time I go to the grocery store, mall, theater, or just about any public place I see mean people.
I don't know what the answer is. It seems like an impossible task. I would honestly like to see less guns available, and make it extraordinarily difficult to buy a gun, as well as a limit.
I also think that people are the problem. The U.S. is full of people who beat their chests when it comes to 'rights'. As well, it's full of inconsiderate entitled jerks. I don't mean to knock down all of the U.S., but every time I go to the grocery store, mall, theater, or just about any public place I see mean people.
#31
Dave
Haven't bothered. You'll notice I have indicated what side I'm on but haven't gone on a rant. That's because this is one of those topics that I think needs a dialogue, but nobody is willing to go past their line in the sand. Should teachers be armed? Hell no. Should everyone be able to carry? Hell no. Does making guns illegal keep them out of the hands of criminals? Yes. Maybe not at first, but over time it certainly would. The drug & alcohol analogies are terrible, but that's the main argument against. You can't easily make a gun at home in your basement. not everyone has that kind of knowledge.
So, you argue, banning guns will affect legal gun ownership. Yup. And most of these rampages are from using weapons purchased legally. So take away that avenue and their rampage goes away.
So, you argue, banning guns means they'll use bombs. I've already delved into that.
So they'll use other weapons! Should we ban them? Yes, if those weapons have no other purpose. Guns serve no other purpose than killing. None. You want to hunt? Cool. Rifles with limited clips or shotguns. It's really hard to do rampages with these weapons. Knives, cars, sporks...whatever spurious reasoning you want to try and attribute to their banning if used in a murder is just that - spurious.
But what about the second amendment?!? The CONSTITUTION!! Well, are you a part of a well regulated militia? No? Didn't think so. It doesn't fucking apply to you!
Gun owners use all sorts of mental gymnastics to get around the fact that their toys are nothing more than killing machines designed for one purpose only, and that's the ending of lives.
Are they fun to shoot? Hell yeah! I love shooting guns! I qualified expert in the Marine Corps - which is the highest level you could get. Out of 350 possible points I was consistently in the high 330's / low 340's. I have hunted (haven't done it in about 20 years, but I have indulged). I have fired .50 cal mounted on a tripod at night with tracer rounds. I have fired uzis at the rifle range where I was stationed. I have fired soap bullets at cats....don't ask. I fucking love to shoot weapons! They are a blast. But I don't own any. I got rid of them when I had kids. Why? Because they are dangerous to kids, even ones who have been trained. Kids just don't have the ability to think through their actions.
Gun free zones? I agree they don't work. Because when you have an armed populace that glorifies weapons, these places will get targeted. But if EVERY PLACE was a gun free zone because the guns didn't exist? Moot point.
But none of these points will change your mind. Or the mind of the guy who wrote the article. His mind is made up and there's no give & take. No concessions. Everyone needs to have guns because more guns = more safety from the evil boogy man. Kinda like the argument that the more places have nukes the safer we'll be as a world. Just doesn't cut the mustard of a logical mind.
Dave
If that's the case, then his arguments should be easy to knock down.
Haven't bothered. You'll notice I have indicated what side I'm on but haven't gone on a rant. That's because this is one of those topics that I think needs a dialogue, but nobody is willing to go past their line in the sand. Should teachers be armed? Hell no. Should everyone be able to carry? Hell no. Does making guns illegal keep them out of the hands of criminals? Yes. Maybe not at first, but over time it certainly would. The drug & alcohol analogies are terrible, but that's the main argument against. You can't easily make a gun at home in your basement. not everyone has that kind of knowledge.
So, you argue, banning guns will affect legal gun ownership. Yup. And most of these rampages are from using weapons purchased legally. So take away that avenue and their rampage goes away.
So, you argue, banning guns means they'll use bombs. I've already delved into that.
So they'll use other weapons! Should we ban them? Yes, if those weapons have no other purpose. Guns serve no other purpose than killing. None. You want to hunt? Cool. Rifles with limited clips or shotguns. It's really hard to do rampages with these weapons. Knives, cars, sporks...whatever spurious reasoning you want to try and attribute to their banning if used in a murder is just that - spurious.
But what about the second amendment?!? The CONSTITUTION!! Well, are you a part of a well regulated militia? No? Didn't think so. It doesn't fucking apply to you!
Gun owners use all sorts of mental gymnastics to get around the fact that their toys are nothing more than killing machines designed for one purpose only, and that's the ending of lives.
Are they fun to shoot? Hell yeah! I love shooting guns! I qualified expert in the Marine Corps - which is the highest level you could get. Out of 350 possible points I was consistently in the high 330's / low 340's. I have hunted (haven't done it in about 20 years, but I have indulged). I have fired .50 cal mounted on a tripod at night with tracer rounds. I have fired uzis at the rifle range where I was stationed. I have fired soap bullets at cats....don't ask. I fucking love to shoot weapons! They are a blast. But I don't own any. I got rid of them when I had kids. Why? Because they are dangerous to kids, even ones who have been trained. Kids just don't have the ability to think through their actions.
Gun free zones? I agree they don't work. Because when you have an armed populace that glorifies weapons, these places will get targeted. But if EVERY PLACE was a gun free zone because the guns didn't exist? Moot point.
But none of these points will change your mind. Or the mind of the guy who wrote the article. His mind is made up and there's no give & take. No concessions. Everyone needs to have guns because more guns = more safety from the evil boogy man. Kinda like the argument that the more places have nukes the safer we'll be as a world. Just doesn't cut the mustard of a logical mind.
#32
GasBandit
Of course guns are "nothing but killing machines designed to end lives." But you can't uninvent them. They're not going away. And the surest way to oppression and injustice is to make sure that one group has them and another does not. Then, even in a democracy, it just becomes 3 wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Too many people blaming the tools, not blaming the killers. As a happy bonus to the second amendment, guns stop 2.5 million crimes per year. [source 2]
But for the record, I don't think forcing teachers to be armed would help, either.
GasBandit
BZZT. That's one that's been shot down before as well. "Well regulated" does not mean "explicitly controlled by government." Using the 18th century term "well regulated" means "up to standard." Well working. Made regular. "A militia" is not an organized body that falls under government control. A lot of people mistakenly think of a militia as something akin to the national guard. It's not. It simply means a group of armed civilians acting in their own defense. And being that a well regulated (meaning equipped to the standards of actual soldiers) militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.But what about the second amendment?!? The CONSTITUTION!! Well, are you a part of a well regulated militia? No? Didn't think so. It doesn't fucking apply to you!
Of course guns are "nothing but killing machines designed to end lives." But you can't uninvent them. They're not going away. And the surest way to oppression and injustice is to make sure that one group has them and another does not. Then, even in a democracy, it just becomes 3 wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Too many people blaming the tools, not blaming the killers. As a happy bonus to the second amendment, guns stop 2.5 million crimes per year. [source 2]
But for the record, I don't think forcing teachers to be armed would help, either.
#33
MindDetective
MindDetective
That still doesn't seem to apply to an individual keeping guns in his living room. It doesn't quite conform to the idea of a militia to me, civilian controlled or otherwise.BZZT. That's one that's been shot down before as well. "Well regulated" does not mean "explicitly controlled by government." Using the 18th century term "well regulated" means "up to standard." Well working. Made regular. "A militia" is not an organized body that falls under government control. A lot of people mistakenly think of a militia as something akin to the national guard. It's not. It simply means a group of armed civilians acting in their own defense. And being that a well regulated (meaning equipped to the standards of actual soldiers) militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Of course guns are "nothing but killing machines designed to end lives." But you can't uninvent them. They're not going away. And the surest way to oppression and injustice is to make sure that one group has them and another does not. Then, even in a democracy, it just becomes 3 wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Too many people blaming the tools, not blaming the killers. As a happy bonus to the second amendment, guns stop 2.5 million crimes per year. [source 2]
But for the record, I don't think forcing teachers to be armed would help, either.
#34
Dave
Dave
Gas quoting a terrible resource like Kleck? Color me surprised. Next he's going to quote Jenny McCarthy as proof vaccinations are bad. Kleck has been discredited by other scholars such as David Hemenway, Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.
Just so you know, Kleck in that paper says that armed women prevented 40% of all sexual assaults. I'm not kidding.
Just so you know, Kleck in that paper says that armed women prevented 40% of all sexual assaults. I'm not kidding.
#35
GasBandit
Incidentally, that 2008 decision, which ended the gun ban in Washington DC? Yeah, murder and violent crime rates plummeted since, not raised.
GasBandit
Yes, a PHD criminologist, at the University of Florida, who was presented the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology, and whose research was good enough for the Supreme Court to cite as recently as 2008 when they found that the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear. What a horrible, horrible source for information gun-crime-related.Gas quoting a terrible resource like Kleck? Color me surprised. Next he's going to quote Jenny McCarthy as proof vaccinations are bad. Kleck has been discredited by other scholars such as David Hemenway, Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.
Just so you know, Kleck in that paper says that armed women prevented 40% of all sexual assaults. I'm not kidding.
Incidentally, that 2008 decision, which ended the gun ban in Washington DC? Yeah, murder and violent crime rates plummeted since, not raised.
What does "keep and bear" mean to you? Have in a collective armory? It means to own and carry. A militia is armed by what they themselves own, they are not provided arms by the armed forces. It's pretty plain common sense - because the people have to be able to credibly defend a free state themselves if necessary, their right to own and carry firearms must be guaranteed. If someone doesn't posess the guns themselves, they can't be expected unfettered access to them.That still doesn't seem to apply to an individual keeping guns in his living room. It doesn't quite conform to the idea of a militia to me, civilian controlled or otherwise.
#36
Espy
Espy
More liberal propaganda happened today during the NRA's press conference: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/21/4-dead-including-gunman-in-rural-pennsylvania-shooting/
Way to go liberal media, just trying to distract us from the real threat that the NRA dude pointed out: VIDEO GAMES.
Way to go liberal media, just trying to distract us from the real threat that the NRA dude pointed out: VIDEO GAMES.
#37
strawman
I guess it does make logical sense. As long as there are criminals out there with guns, then I should be able to similarly arm myself if I so choose.
strawman
So you agree that as long as there's one country with nukes, then we should be similarly armed? Or are you suggesting we get rid of our nukes, regardless of the status of nukes elsewhere?Kinda like the argument that the more places have nukes the safer we'll be as a world. Just doesn't cut the mustard of a logical mind.
I guess it does make logical sense. As long as there are criminals out there with guns, then I should be able to similarly arm myself if I so choose.
#38
Necronic
It's the same thing with psychology or polling. You can't account for every variable in the different people you are asking questions to, but you try to properly account for obvious demographics. Otherwise you could have a gun-control poll that just asked 5 year olds and victims of gun violence and excuse it by throwing up your hands and saying "WE CANT CONTROL VARIABLES"!
Edit: As for looking at other countries as a way to think about our own policies I don't see the problem with it as long as you don't just look at it in a vacuum (like using Somalia as an example of anything). It's really the only data we have about other possible systems. It would be foolish NOT to consider them if we were evaluating our own systems.
But if you take into account to border/area ratio of Baltimore it's much clearer why it's easier to get guns in (large border relative to size). My point is that it's not fair to just look at border size, you have to take into account the area, and I think you would have to consider population (demand) and police (deterrent) as well, but I'm not certain.
Necronic
That's one of the most unscientific things I have ever heard from you. Can you control for all variables? Of course not, but you can recognize the obvious ones and still try to do a fair analysis. Clearly there is far more in common with Germany and the US than there is with the US and Somalia.It's a convenient placeholder for the concept that you can't compare two nations in a vacuum.
I could probably find relevant differences between the US and any other nation you might point to where gun control is "working" that might account for the difference, but the biggest in any case is cultural. The US was founded and grown differently from nearly any other nation. The entertainment alone is enough to point to the fact that we're so different that we could account for almost anything, violence especially.
At any rate, I don't think arguments saying, "The US should do X because it works in nation A" are any more valid than the reverse.
It's the same thing with psychology or polling. You can't account for every variable in the different people you are asking questions to, but you try to properly account for obvious demographics. Otherwise you could have a gun-control poll that just asked 5 year olds and victims of gun violence and excuse it by throwing up your hands and saying "WE CANT CONTROL VARIABLES"!
Edit: As for looking at other countries as a way to think about our own policies I don't see the problem with it as long as you don't just look at it in a vacuum (like using Somalia as an example of anything). It's really the only data we have about other possible systems. It would be foolish NOT to consider them if we were evaluating our own systems.
To be honest I'm not exactly sure what I'm suggesting, I have to think about it more. I think it's easier to smuggle a crate of guns into Baltimore than it is to get them into Germany, and Baltimore has a smaller border, so if we're thinking purely in terms of border then you can see the problem with your justification of the differences in gun violence based purely on border size.You are suggesting that it's as easy to smuggle a gun or a crate of guns into Germany as it is to do so in the US.
But if you take into account to border/area ratio of Baltimore it's much clearer why it's easier to get guns in (large border relative to size). My point is that it's not fair to just look at border size, you have to take into account the area, and I think you would have to consider population (demand) and police (deterrent) as well, but I'm not certain.
#39
strawman
strawman
VIDJA GAEMES!More liberal propaganda happened today during the NRA's press conference: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/21/4-dead-including-gunman-in-rural-pennsylvania-shooting/
Way to go liberal media, just trying to distract us from the real threat that the NRA dude pointed out: VIDEO GAMES.
#40
Dave
Dave
I think it's already been shown that the whole nuclear proliferation thing is bad. Which is why countries are taking steps to rid themselves of these weapons and making sure others don't get them. So the analogy is apt.So you agree that as long as there's one country with nukes, then we should be similarly armed? Or are you suggesting we get rid of our nukes, regardless of the status of nukes elsewhere?
I guess it does make logical sense. As long as there are criminals out there with guns, then I should be able to similarly arm myself if I so choose.
#41
Necronic
Necronic
Wait isn't that like the intro to Walking Dead?More liberal propaganda happened today during the NRA's press conference: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/21/4-dead-including-gunman-in-rural-pennsylvania-shooting/
Way to go liberal media, just trying to distract us from the real threat that the NRA dude pointed out: VIDEO GAMES.
#42
GasBandit
GasBandit
I said it in the other thread, and I'll say it in this one - the real problem here is we've raised a generation of people incapable of personal responsibility or dealing with failure. Nothing is their fault, and they should be given a prize even if they don't win. How is someone of limited mental stability going to react when the real world charges in, where there are really mean people who will hurt you every day, and there are no prizes for participation?
I have vivid personal memories of this problem rising, even in my own childhood. A certain year, my elementary school had a field day with competitive events. There were blue ribbons for first place in these events, red ribbons for second, yellow for 3rd, and white ribbons for everything below. It was a lot of fun.
The next year's field day... everybody got blue ribbons no matter the outcome of the event. Even at that age we all could plainly see what was going on, and agreed it was absolutely stupid.
When a child who has been given metaphorical blue ribbons for everything he ever has done (or failed to do) becomes an adult, where results matter and everything has consequences, is it really so surprising that he is absolutely incapable of dealing with the shattering of his comfortable world?
I have vivid personal memories of this problem rising, even in my own childhood. A certain year, my elementary school had a field day with competitive events. There were blue ribbons for first place in these events, red ribbons for second, yellow for 3rd, and white ribbons for everything below. It was a lot of fun.
The next year's field day... everybody got blue ribbons no matter the outcome of the event. Even at that age we all could plainly see what was going on, and agreed it was absolutely stupid.
When a child who has been given metaphorical blue ribbons for everything he ever has done (or failed to do) becomes an adult, where results matter and everything has consequences, is it really so surprising that he is absolutely incapable of dealing with the shattering of his comfortable world?
#43
Espy
Where the hell is Tipper Gore to fix all of this mess?
Espy
This man's mind is so weakened by all those video games and movies that he enjoys that he can't even tell the difference between reality and a tv show.Wait isn't that like the intro to Walking Dead?
Where the hell is Tipper Gore to fix all of this mess?
#44
Necronic
Necronic
wtf does this have to do with anything being said in this thread? If anything it supports the pro-gun control argument because you're saying that there is a generation of people out there with zero sense of responsibility that are going to be running around wtih guns.I said it in the other thread, and I'll say it in this one - the real problem here is we've raised a generation of people incapable of personal responsibility or dealing with failure. Nothing is their fault, and they should be given a prize even if they don't win. How is someone of limited mental stability going to react when the real world charges in, where there are really mean people who will hurt you every day, and there are no prizes for participation?
I have vivid personal memories of this problem rising, even in my own childhood. A certain year, my elementary school had a field day with competitive events. There were blue ribbons for first place in these events, red ribbons for second, yellow for 3rd, and white ribbons for everything below. It was a lot of fun.
The next year's field day... everybody got blue ribbons no matter the outcome of the event. Even at that age we all could plainly see what was going on, and agreed it was absolutely stupid.
When a child who has been given metaphorical blue ribbons for everything he ever has done (or failed to do) becomes an adult, where results matter and everything has consequences, is it really so surprising that he is absolutely incapable of dealing with the shattering of his comfortable world?
#45
Dave
Dave
What he means is that we need a multi-faceted approach that includes mental health and gun control. Right, Gas?
*crickets*
*crickets*
#46
strawman
strawman
I thought he said that humankind itself is an illness and must be eliminated.
#47
Necronic
Necronic
As a person who likes guns and would like to be able to own an AR-15 for no other reason than they are awesome, I am curious what other pro-gun folks think about increasing regulations on guns as well as on ammunition? I hate the false dichotomy of either being pro-tons of regulations or pro-zero regulation/current regulations/
Personally I support the following regulations:
- All guns should be registered and you should have to get a license for any gun ownership, not just a concealed carry.
- All gun sales should be through a registered dealer, no more of the person to person nonsense (at least not without a registered dealer involved as a 3rd party).
- Ammunition sales should be registered and require a license.
Beyond that I believe that
-Machineguns should be legal to manufacture and sell with an advanced/high end licensing certification
I mean lets be real, the damage that can be done with a gun is negligible compared what can be done with clearance to classified data, something that people get regularly after extensive background checks.
Personally I support the following regulations:
- All guns should be registered and you should have to get a license for any gun ownership, not just a concealed carry.
- All gun sales should be through a registered dealer, no more of the person to person nonsense (at least not without a registered dealer involved as a 3rd party).
- Ammunition sales should be registered and require a license.
Beyond that I believe that
-Machineguns should be legal to manufacture and sell with an advanced/high end licensing certification
I mean lets be real, the damage that can be done with a gun is negligible compared what can be done with clearance to classified data, something that people get regularly after extensive background checks.
#48
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
At least we can agree about the baby boomers.I said it in the other thread, and I'll say it in this one - the real problem here is we've raised a generation of people incapable of personal responsibility or dealing with failure.
#49
strawman
strawman
My main problem with such reasonable gun control is basically a slippery slope argument. Once you've got licensing and registration in place, it's not going to stop mass murders such as we've seen in recent years. The assailants, most of them anyway, would have obtained a gun or several guns and ammo even under the proposed licensing and registration.
What it does accomplish is make it easier to place additional minor restrictions and regulations over and on top of the licensing at both the state and federal level, and these all add up. If you thought the tax code was complex...
Right now if you are convicted of a misdemeanor in Michigan of reckless driving, you aren't allowed a concealed carry permit. Eventually, even though it isn't a felony, they might decide you can't get a gun license at all.
Regardless, the Supreme Court has already ruled in ways that show that such licensing would require an amendment to the US constitution. This isn't just a question of legislation any longer, but changing the second amendment.
What it does accomplish is make it easier to place additional minor restrictions and regulations over and on top of the licensing at both the state and federal level, and these all add up. If you thought the tax code was complex...
Right now if you are convicted of a misdemeanor in Michigan of reckless driving, you aren't allowed a concealed carry permit. Eventually, even though it isn't a felony, they might decide you can't get a gun license at all.
Regardless, the Supreme Court has already ruled in ways that show that such licensing would require an amendment to the US constitution. This isn't just a question of legislation any longer, but changing the second amendment.
#50
Necronic
Necronic
Well, like I said before, mass murders are pretty much irrelevant to the conversation. Since teh shooting in Newtown there have already been over 100 gun deaths
And I don't really buy the slippery slope argument. That's another "let's throw up our hands and quit because nothing works" argument. If reasonable legislation could be passed (yes I appreciate the irony) that isn't the patched together crap that the congress usually puts out due to its complete inability to agree on anything, we could see a clear/concise system of laws that control/regulate gun ownership.
As for the Supreme court argument, I don't get it (although you're right it may take an ammendment). Concealed Carry requires a license. How is that not against the right to bear arms? For that matter, removing someones right to concealed carry is pretty meaningless since almost anyone can just open carry legally.
And I don't really buy the slippery slope argument. That's another "let's throw up our hands and quit because nothing works" argument. If reasonable legislation could be passed (yes I appreciate the irony) that isn't the patched together crap that the congress usually puts out due to its complete inability to agree on anything, we could see a clear/concise system of laws that control/regulate gun ownership.
As for the Supreme court argument, I don't get it (although you're right it may take an ammendment). Concealed Carry requires a license. How is that not against the right to bear arms? For that matter, removing someones right to concealed carry is pretty meaningless since almost anyone can just open carry legally.
#51
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I'm not going to entertain Gas' nonsense anymore but holy shit, did anyone see that NRA press conference? I don't know how anyone with a conscience can rally behind the NRA at this point.
#52
Dave
Dave
Armed guards in every school and it's because of the VIDJA GAMES!!! EVIL VIDJA GAMES!!
#53
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
A bunch of the developer mailing lists I'm on are super, super annoyed, even the anti-control folks.
#54
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
also, re the thread title: good
#55
papachronos
papachronos
I don't see what's so wrong with ensuring that a person has the knowledge, physical and mental capability, and personal and social responsibility to understand the consequences of their choices before they are allowed to do something that could cause massive disaster and destruction, like own a gun, drive a car, fly a plane, or vote in a federal election.
This is not a drive-by troll, either - I really don't understand why those who thump their chests and scream "RIGHTS" are so opposed to enforcing "RESPONSIBILITY" - whether the rights in question be gun ownership or voting. Liberty without personal responsibility is anarchy, after all. As I see it, a lot of the personal rights guaranteed in the Constitution are irrelevant today, because I don't think that the Founders could foresee the phenomenon of people clinging to their rights when it suits them but wanting someone else to deal with the consequences.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with GB here - but I'm willing to apply it equally to both sides of the aisle. We shouldn't have a proliferation of guns anymore - not because society has progressed past the need, but because society has regressed past the ability to handle it maturely.
This is not a drive-by troll, either - I really don't understand why those who thump their chests and scream "RIGHTS" are so opposed to enforcing "RESPONSIBILITY" - whether the rights in question be gun ownership or voting. Liberty without personal responsibility is anarchy, after all. As I see it, a lot of the personal rights guaranteed in the Constitution are irrelevant today, because I don't think that the Founders could foresee the phenomenon of people clinging to their rights when it suits them but wanting someone else to deal with the consequences.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with GB here - but I'm willing to apply it equally to both sides of the aisle. We shouldn't have a proliferation of guns anymore - not because society has progressed past the need, but because society has regressed past the ability to handle it maturely.
#56
GasBandit
GasBandit
I said, people are blaming guns instead of people. And now I'm saying the people who made the people to blame the way they are are the ones blaming guns instead.[DOUBLEPOST=1356120282][/DOUBLEPOST]wtf does this have to do with anything being said in this thread? If anything it supports the pro-gun control argument because you're saying that there is a generation of people out there with zero sense of responsibility that are going to be running around wtih guns.
You have a point there about maturity... do you agree with me that manditory gun safety courses in high school curriculum would be a good idea?So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with GB here - but I'm willing to apply it equally to both sides of the aisle. We shouldn't have a proliferation of guns anymore - not because society has progressed past the need, but because society has regressed past the ability to handle it maturely.
#57
papachronos
papachronos
We have mandatory drivers education, and nobody demonizes cars. I would say that gun safety classes in high school would go a long way towards restoring firearms to the status of a tool, rather than the objects of demonization AND glorification that they currently are.You have a point there about maturity... do you agree with me that manditory gun safety courses in high school curriculum would be a good idea?
#58
Azurephoenix
This is extremely close to what it's like in Canada with a few minor differences (non-restricted weapons don't need to be registered anymore, civilians can not obtain concealed carry authorization).
Azurephoenix
- All guns should be registered and you should have to get a license for any gun ownership, not just a concealed carry.
- All gun sales should be through a registered dealer, no more of the person to person nonsense (at least not without a registered dealer involved as a 3rd party).
- Ammunition sales should be registered and require a license.
This is extremely close to what it's like in Canada with a few minor differences (non-restricted weapons don't need to be registered anymore, civilians can not obtain concealed carry authorization).
#59
papachronos
papachronos
The problem lies in "mandatory" though. Driver's ed classes are mandatory because you basically have to know how to drive a car in order to make a living nowadays. Nobody is forced to own a gun. However, those who choose not to learn about gun safety and use, and then choose not to own a firearm, should have the personal responsibilityto know that they cannot contribute meaningfully to a conversation regarding gun regulation.
Edit: I'm never fast enough to do the "autocombine post" thing - I always get ninja'd. Lrn2type?
Edit: I'm never fast enough to do the "autocombine post" thing - I always get ninja'd. Lrn2type?
#60
strawman
strawman
If you use your vehicle, airplane, etc on your property, you are not required to be licensed or educated. Licensing is only required for use in public spaces. You can transport them, sell, buy, disassemble, destroy, or modify them, and as long as you aren't on the road or us airspace you can use them without any sort of license or certification.
Complicating things is that in law your body is considered your property, and items you are carrying cannot be taken from you without court order or by law enforcement u nder certain circumstances. You simply can't treat guns the way you treat cars.
Complicating things is that in law your body is considered your property, and items you are carrying cannot be taken from you without court order or by law enforcement u nder certain circumstances. You simply can't treat guns the way you treat cars.
#61
Necronic
Necronic
Anyone else find it ironic that you need a license to shoot a deer, but not to shoot a gun?
#62
papachronos
papachronos
I understand this, but my point was more to illustrate the point that education is the antidote to fear than to draw a direct correlation between cars and guns.If you use your vehicle, airplane, etc on your property, you are not required to be licensed or educated. Licensing is only required for use in public spaces. You can transport them, sell, buy, disassemble, destroy, or modify them, and as long as you aren't on the road or us airspace you can use them without any sort of license or certification.
Complicating things is that in law your body is considered your property, and items you are carrying cannot be taken from you without court order or by law enforcement u nder certain circumstances. You simply can't treat guns the way you treat cars.
#63
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Deer are a protected animal, a gun is not.Anyone else find it ironic that you need a license to shoot a deer, but not to shoot a gun?
#64
Krisken
Krisken
I would argue the gun is more protected than the deer.Deer are a protected animal, a gun is not.
#65
Frank
On the topic of the NRA video game shit.
Frank
On the topic of the NRA video game shit.
#66
Zappit
Zappit
Let's take a look at what these things do.
Video games: Playthings that do indeed create a fantasy world, but it is roughly understood that the actions in games are not to be replicated in real life. Hence no mass turtle-stompings.
Guns: A tool literally designed for nothing else than killing living things, with no secondary function such as playing MP3s.
Now in the hands of an angry person, the gamer is more apt to troll in online games or yell moronic things into his/her headset. An angry person with a gun is more likely to MURDER people in real life.
Let's just let the NRA keep going, until they are completely irrelevant to the conversation here, because this blame-everybody-but-us stance is really going to work out well.
Video games: Playthings that do indeed create a fantasy world, but it is roughly understood that the actions in games are not to be replicated in real life. Hence no mass turtle-stompings.
Guns: A tool literally designed for nothing else than killing living things, with no secondary function such as playing MP3s.
Now in the hands of an angry person, the gamer is more apt to troll in online games or yell moronic things into his/her headset. An angry person with a gun is more likely to MURDER people in real life.
Let's just let the NRA keep going, until they are completely irrelevant to the conversation here, because this blame-everybody-but-us stance is really going to work out well.
#67
Krisken
Krisken
Remember when pen and paper rpg's were the work of the devil? I sorta miss those days.
#68
GasBandit
GasBandit
Yeah. D&D isn't the problem, sadistic DMs are the problem.Remember when pen and paper rpg's were the work of the devil? I sorta miss those days.
#69
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Those fucking DMs. Someone should ban them.
#70
GasBandit
GasBandit
Better access to mental health services for dungeon masters.Those fucking DMs. Someone should ban them.
#71
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
"Doc, I was the fairest, most understanding DM you could imagine...and then I took an arrow to the knee."
#72
GasBandit
GasBandit
I don't care what anybody says, Arrow to the Knee never stopped being funny. It even still cracks up the little woman every time.
#73
Espy
Espy
I'm sure, what with all this blaming of video games by people on the left and the right that there must be just a TON of scientific evidence that supports this theory of theirs? Right?
#74
Krisken
Krisken
Who needs evidence, we've got GUT POWAH.
#75
Covar
Covar
I used to find it funny, but then I took an arrow to the knee.I don't care what anybody says, Arrow to the Knee never stopped being funny. It even still cracks up the little woman every time.
#76
Krisken
Krisken
Damn you Espy for posting this on Facebook. This should make the arguments more interesting.
#77
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
Not true Dave. One of the links I posted in the other thread was a mass shooting with a deer rifle at a school. That one was stopped by the vice principal with a gunA single shot gun will not cause a mass shooting.
#78
MindDetective
MindDetective
I know you're gone for the day, so note this whenever. The point wasn't where one keeps them but that "militia" is not recognizable as part of the equation. Why not allow gun ownership only to those that actually ARE a part of a properly trained militia?Yes, a PHD criminologist, at the University of Florida, who was presented the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology, and whose research was good enough for the Supreme Court to cite as recently as 2008 when they found that the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear. What a horrible, horrible source for information gun-crime-related.
Incidentally, that 2008 decision, which ended the gun ban in Washington DC? Yeah, murder and violent crime rates plummeted since, not raised.
What does "keep and bear" mean to you? Have in a collective armory? It means to own and carry. A militia is armed by what they themselves own, they are not provided arms by the armed forces. It's pretty plain common sense - because the people have to be able to credibly defend a free state themselves if necessary, their right to own and carry firearms must be guaranteed. If someone doesn't posess the guns themselves, they can't be expected unfettered access to them.
#79
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
The USA constitution defines the USA militia as every male between 18 and I think 65I know you're gone for the day, so note this whenever. The point wasn't where one keeps them but that "militia" is not recognizable as part of the equation. Why not allow gun ownership only to those that actually ARE a part of a properly trained militia?
#80
MindDetective
MindDetective
My understanding is that it is not defined in the Constitution at all.The USA constitution defines the USA militia as every male between 18 and I think 65
#81
Krisken
Krisken
Does that mean women shouldn't be allowed to own firearms? Waiting for Scalia to chime in.
#82
MindDetective
MindDetective
I haven't read it all yet, but this appears to be a fairly academic historical review on a pro-gun site: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy.html
#83
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311My understanding is that it is not defined in the Constitution at all.
#84
MindDetective
MindDetective
Is the US Code the same as the constitution? I am not a lawyer, of course.
#85
Krisken
Krisken
Wow. I stopped reading in the first paragraph. I can't stand anachronistic arguments, and this starts out with the tired 'the framers meant'. I' m sorry, were you there? Plus, we could never know . what someone who lived in an era where even flight was unthinkable would do to approach weapons which fire at the speed of todays weapons. Completely irrelevant and pointless in addressing today.
#86
MindDetective
MindDetective
I actually agree to a great extent.what someone who lived in an era where even flight was unthinkable would do to approach weapons which fire at the speed of todays weapons. Completely irrelevant and pointless in addressing today.
#87
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
No it is not. Not at ALL. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that.Is the US Code the same as the constitution? I am not a lawyer, of course.
#88
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
In that era they even allowed ordinary folks to have artillery capable of killing and maiming many people with a single shot so...Wow. I stopped reading in the first paragraph. I can't stand anachronistic arguments, and this starts out with the tired 'the framers meant'. I' m sorry, were you there? Plus, we could never know . what someone who lived in an era where even flight was unthinkable would do to approach weapons which fire at the speed of todays weapons. Completely irrelevant and pointless in addressing today.
#89
Krisken
Krisken
That artillery required multiple men to move, aim, and load along with many minutes to prepare, load, and fire, so I guess I don't see that as the same as carrying a firearm with a clip of 20 to 30 round clips which are easily changed.In that era they even allowed ordinary folks to have artillery capable of killing and maiming many people with a single shot so...
#90
MindDetective
MindDetective
I was being somewhat facetious.No it is not. Not at ALL. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that.
#91
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
I apologize. But regardless it's how the government defines the militiaI was being somewhat facetious.
#92
MindDetective
MindDetective
Thankfully, it could be easier to change than the constitution.I apologize. But regardless it's how the government defines the militia
#93
Krisken
Krisken
Interesting investigative series from ABC News on the effectiveness of conceal and carry-
#94
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
Is this the one where the gunman comes in and immediately attacks the person concealed carrying like they are telepathic? I'm at work and can't watch it right nowInteresting investigative series from ABC News on the effectiveness of conceal and carry-
#95
Krisken
Krisken
Maybe that is how you interpreted it, but from what I saw the conceal carry had a good 3 seconds to pull their firearm and shoot the assailant.
#96
Frank
Frank
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
A study from a few years ago that came to the conclusion that people trying to use guns defensively were 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those that didn't.
A study from a few years ago that came to the conclusion that people trying to use guns defensively were 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those that didn't.
#97
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
Excellent study. Did they take gang violence out of this study because both the victim and the assailant were carrying illegally? Did they take violence from drug deals out of this study for the same reason? There are a lot of unknowns, they just took people that were shot when they had a gun, but they didn't take into account whether or not the victims were themselves in the middle of a criminal act, they just accounted for people that had guns on them when shot. If it looks like a fish and smells like a fish....http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
A study from a few years ago that came to the conclusion that people trying to use guns defensively were 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those that didn't.
#98
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
The bad part is that the define as mass shooting as 4 or more people, but when an armed citizen stops them the casualty rate is under 4 victims so is doesn't count as a mass shooting[DOUBLEPOST=1356197561][/DOUBLEPOST]http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html[DOUBLEPOST=1356197730][/DOUBLEPOST]here's a study on gun free zones [DOUBLEPOST=1356197906][/DOUBLEPOST]
#99
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
lol I just remembered the half hour news hour exists
edit: existed
edit: existed
#100
strawman
strawman
#101
Bowielee
Bowielee
There seems to be so much black or white thinking involved in these sorts of debates.
Ban all guns, ban all violent media, people should never be allowed to have their guns taken away, people should never be responsible for the negative effects of violent media.
I'm of the mind that absolutism in thinking is a pretty dangerous thing.
Ban all guns, ban all violent media, people should never be allowed to have their guns taken away, people should never be responsible for the negative effects of violent media.
I'm of the mind that absolutism in thinking is a pretty dangerous thing.
#102
Krisken
Krisken
And in those cases it's always fear and ignorance which is used to further their agenda.
#103
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
so you're saying....the answer..... is somewhere...... in the middle????There seems to be so much black or white thinking involved in these sorts of debates.
Ban all guns, ban all violent media, people should never be allowed to have their guns taken away, people should never be responsible for the negative effects of violent media.
I'm of the mind that absolutism in thinking is a pretty dangerous thing.
#105
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Coming from a couple of people who rely on the freedom of media for their livelihood, that seems like a perfectly valid opinion for them to hold.*groan*
#106
Adam
Adam
It's a valid (and incredibly unoriginally put) opinion, presented in a fashion trying to evoke some kind of "Oh, we're being serious here for a second." Fourth panel could have been Lilah's miscarriage and it would have been more useful.Coming from a couple of people who rely on the freedom of media for their livelihood, that seems like a perfectly valid opinion for them to hold.
#107
Krisken
Krisken
Yeah, fucking funny-men, stop being serious and BE FUNNY.
#108
Adam
Adam
It needed a starving African child swimming in a polluted oil tailings pool swarming with ducks with plastic baggies around their neck to really hit home its desperation to be serious.Yeah, fucking funny-men, stop being serious and BE FUNNY.
#109
Krisken
Krisken
Nope, still don't get it. I have no idea why you see desperation in the comic.
#110
Adam
I may be crazy though.
Schmaltzy! That's the word I'm looking for.
Adam
It's the political comic equivalent toNope, still don't get it. I have no idea why you see desperation in the comic.
I may be crazy though.
Schmaltzy! That's the word I'm looking for.
#111
Krisken
Krisken
Would you have preferred something where Gabe and Tycho are bitching about it and draw the characters blowing a gasket instead of the way it was presented? Is that where your disgust stems from on this?
#112
Adam
Adam
I would have preferred something clever, yes.Would you have preferred something where Gabe and Tycho are bitching about it and draw the characters blowing a gasket instead of the way it was presented? Is that where your disgust stems from on this?
#113
strawman
strawman
Profound and original would have been better, yes.
It's not a bad point. Simply overwrought. Those pictures don't tell a thousand words - in fact the visual detracts from the message IMO, but the visual is all they've got. Only a fraction of their regular readers read and pay attention to the blog posts.
However, they are preaching to the choir - their audience is bristling at the NRA's attempt to shift blame to their preferred form of entertainment. This isn't anything different than what they've said before, and with Obama's call to arms (heh heh heh) they felt compelled to give their audience a voice on this particular topic.
It's not a bad point. Simply overwrought. Those pictures don't tell a thousand words - in fact the visual detracts from the message IMO, but the visual is all they've got. Only a fraction of their regular readers read and pay attention to the blog posts.
However, they are preaching to the choir - their audience is bristling at the NRA's attempt to shift blame to their preferred form of entertainment. This isn't anything different than what they've said before, and with Obama's call to arms (heh heh heh) they felt compelled to give their audience a voice on this particular topic.
#114
Krisken
Krisken
And that's kinda why I didn't have a problem with it. The only thing the comic does is sum up the blog posts, really. Half the time you can't follow the damn comic without reading it first anyways.Profound and original would have been better, yes.
It's not a bad point. Simply overwrought. Those pictures don't tell a thousand words - in fact the visual detracts from the message IMO, but the visual is all they've got. Only a fraction of their regular readers read and pay attention to the blog posts.
However, they are preaching to the choir - their audience is bristling at the NRA's attempt to shift blame to their preferred form of entertainment. This isn't anything different than what they've said before, and with Obama's call to arms (heh heh heh) they felt compelled to give their audience a voice on this particular topic.
#115
Adam
Adam
As I said before, I don't have a problem with the message. It's the cloying sentimentality that grates. And it's going to show up all over now because PA's 'message' gets spread to the typical nerd haunts and everyone will all be HUR HUR I AGREE WID DIS.And that's kinda why I didn't have a problem with it. The only thing the comic does is sum up the blog posts, really. Half the time you can't follow the damn comic without reading it first anyways.
#116
Krisken
Krisken
This is my only nerd haunt.
#117
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Being a level 10 nerd, I haunt everywhere I go.
#118
Bowielee
Bowielee
As the person on the board who thinks the most in terms of moral absolutism, i find however you intended that post to be taken hilaious.[DOUBLEPOST=1356387242][/DOUBLEPOST]so you're saying....the answer..... is somewhere...... in the middle????
It does have a very "next time on a very special episode of Blossom" feel to it.As I said before, I don't have a problem with the message. It's the cloying sentimentality that grates. And it's going to show up all over now because PA's 'message' gets spread to the typical nerd haunts and everyone will all be HUR HUR I AGREE WID DIS.
#119
T
The_Khan
T
The_Khan
Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if there might be a little too much violence in our entertainment these days. It's one of the reasons I really like the tenant and before seasons of Dr Who...
I've been watching Arrow recently and really, there is nothing heroic about the main character, he is a criminal pure and simple. I still enjoy the show but...
I've been watching Arrow recently and really, there is nothing heroic about the main character, he is a criminal pure and simple. I still enjoy the show but...
#121
Dave
Dave
With a gun?
#123
GasBandit
(Sorry, forgot to tell you guys I'd be out of town from the 22nd-30th)
GasBandit
While not defined in the constitution, "the militia" was defined in the late 18th century as anyone capable of using a weapon who is not already in the military. IE, every single able-bodied person is potentially militia. Also, pay close attention to the wording of the amendment - it is not a single militia who is granted the right to keep and bear arms, it is the people, all of them, who retain the right, because if it were otherwise it would not be possible to have well regulated (well equipped and smoothly operating) militia.I know you're gone for the day, so note this whenever. The point wasn't where one keeps them but that "militia" is not recognizable as part of the equation. Why not allow gun ownership only to those that actually ARE a part of a properly trained militia?
(Sorry, forgot to tell you guys I'd be out of town from the 22nd-30th)
#124
Terrik
Terrik
Now that you're back, the balance is restored.