ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:01 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:20 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
RMG wrote:
Abunai! wrote:
Quote:
3) Without guns, we are powerless.

Now this, is a good reason. But, are you so cynical as to believe that the US functions just like every other backwater?

I counter with the cynicism that should you be right, there's no one with "bigger toys" to put down their citizens than the US. If they really want to do it, there's no way to put the constitution back in place after they've declared "Emergency Powers."


This is a very good point. What good is a handgun when tanks are rumbling down street?


However, just because handguns would be useless for restoring democracy, that's no reason to outlaw them and make citizens even more powerless than they would be otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:39 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Personally, I don't really have an opinion on gun control, but it always annoys me when pro-gun folks use the old "Our guns keep the gummint in check!" line.

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Logic-fault
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:37 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
IcyMonkey wrote:
However, just because handguns would be useless for restoring democracy, that's no reason to outlaw them and make citizens even more powerless than they would be otherwise.

That was not any sort of reason to ban guns. That was a sort of nullification of a reason not to ban guns.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
RMG wrote:
This is a very good point. What good is a handgun when tanks are rumbling down street?


Heavy weapons have a very hard time of defeating organized guerrila forces on a large scale. Look at what the VC did to the United States in Vietnam, or what the Afghan rebels did to the Soviet Union in the early Eighties.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:20 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Posts: 79
Police forces for the most part are a reactionary force, very rarely are they preventive. They show up after the crime has happened, or while the crime is in progress (that to is rare) so to have the general populace armed, is a good preventive measure. The best way to discourage someone who is in your house from continuing their activities is to chamber a round with a slide action shot gun, that familiar sound usually discourages people: or any other gun related sound will do the same Usually burglars will not rob a house if it means bodily injury.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:26 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 2:23 am
Posts: 34
Location: melb
Australian here.... (which is pretty much Britian)

Uh, guys, if we want to get rid of an overpowering government, we vote them out next election. We dont have enough tanks to drive down every street. Heck, we don't even have enough tanks (or manpower for that matter) to take over one major city. Not that it would matter, because the police force and army themselves aren made up of people, who generally have families in the community, and i dont think the attitude here would ever change enough for them to oppress the civilian population. Its all about the representative and responsible government.

And there are less than 100 firearm deaths a year in Australia caused by assault. Once you take out the dodgy drug dealing and crime lords then there really arent that many people shooting other people. You dont walk down a dark street and think about being shot. Sure, robbed, mugged, maybe raped, but I have very rarely feared for my life while walking through dodgy neigbourhoods. Only if you get into the really wrong circles would you even see a pistol. (rifles are fairly common out on farms though, and pistols at firing ranges).

A gross proportion of gun deaths in Australia is from suicide. Which is really going to happen with or without guns anyway.


In my opinion, the fact that people can have guns creates the problem. There would be so much more tension between people. Instead of gangs getting into fistfights, they get into shootouts. Criminals walk around with much more effective weapons. To protect yourselves, you by guns as well.
They just create more hostility, they lessen social interaction. They are not needed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:57 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Wow. Talk about your socialist propoganda. (/partially sarcastic)



Okay, let's look at this way:

You have a primitive medieval village. It's populated entirely by simple farmers and peasants. A group of armed bandits moves into the nearby woods and starts harassing the villagers for food, money, and other goods. The villagers are unarmed, so there isn't much they can do about it. The militia, based a couple miles away in the castle, does the occasional patrol and will chase the bandits off if they happen to be nearby when an attack occurs. But basically, it doesn't stop the villagers from being attacked.

Then one day a blacksmith comes through town on his way to the castle and has a lot of swords, knives, spears, etc. for sale in the back of his cart. Everyone in the village is fed up with being victimized, grabs a weapon, and the next time the bandits show up they have a fight on their hands. A few villagers get killed or injured, but no more so than when they were hapless victims. They give as good as they get, and the bandits are much more cautious about who and when they attack as now they too could be on the receiving end of things. Thus the villagers protect themselves and don't need to worry about bandit raids as much as they did before.

Voting out people you don't want is great, especially if you vote in someone you not only want, but actually holds your needs and wants in mind. But it doesn't change the laws and regulations already layed out, especially the ones that don't expire after a certain period of time, such as the high-capacity magazine law. Hopefully it isn't picked up and we can once again own guns that don't need to be reloaded every five seconds.

The German police force and military were made up of people who had families in the community. Didn't stop them from terrorizing Jews and clamping down on the rest of the populace in the 30's and 40's.

The Russian police force and military were made up of people with families in the community. Didn't stop them from informing on people or committing purges in the Soviet Union.

Add China, North Vietnam, Cuba, and a few other oppressive regimes, past or present, to the list. Heck, the US imprisoned anyone of Asian descent during WWII solely because they might be evil Axis spies. They persecuted people in the name of patriotism in the 50's.

If the government decides to betray the people, it can and will fuck you over before you even know what's going on. Even if the police and military in general don't want to oppress the people, it's going to happen anyway, for several reasons. They're forced to, for one. You're not in the military to think for yourself and do what's right, you're in the military to follow the orders of people who know what they're doing and have the physical well-being of the nation in mind. If they tell you to do something, you do it or face the consequences. For another, they can be fed any propoganda they'll believe. "Oh, those protestors are dangerous, they've got guns and bombs and are threatening to kill the governor. Move in there and chase them off, save us, save us! *snicker*"

If a government wants to become Big Brother and rule with an iron fist, the only thing that will stop it is the people fighting back.

Your little analogy that people having guns creates the problem is stupid. If the villagers have knives and swords, does that escalate the problems? I don't think so. If a gang wants a fistfight, they'll fistfight. If they want to kill each other, they'll kill each other. They're outlaws, they'll do whatever the fuck they want. Criminals have no regard for the law and know all about getting around more than you do. It isn't going to stop them from buying their guns. It's illegal for US civilians to own rocket launchers and hand grenades, but there are plenty of people that still own them. Guns create more hostility? Pah, what a joke. They lessen social interaction? I own guns, lots of people I know own guns, and I don't see any of us afraid of socializing with one another because oh teh noes, they own guns and might shoots us!!!!!1!!! Guns are, sadly, a necessity if you want control over your destiny. If you want to be the one to say what you do with your life, you have to take charge, and unfortunately violence is the purest and simplest form of power and control. More on this when I get out of class.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:21 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 2:23 am
Posts: 34
Location: melb
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Wow. Talk about your socialist propoganda. (/partially sarcastic)

Ya, may have gone a bit far there a couple of times... anyways,
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Okay, let's look at this way:

You have a primitive medieval village. It's populated entirely by simple farmers and peasants. A group of armed bandits moves into the nearby woods and starts harassing the villagers for food, money, and other goods. The villagers are unarmed, so there isn't much they can do about it. The militia, based a couple miles away in the castle, does the occasional patrol and will chase the bandits off if they happen to be nearby when an attack occurs. But basically, it doesn't stop the villagers from being attacked.

Then one day a blacksmith comes through town on his way to the castle and has a lot of swords, knives, spears, etc. for sale in the back of his cart. Everyone in the village is fed up with being victimized, grabs a weapon, and the next time the bandits show up they have a fight on their hands. A few villagers get killed or injured, but no more so than when they were hapless victims. They give as good as they get, and the bandits are much more cautious about who and when they attack as now they too could be on the receiving end of things. Thus the villagers protect themselves and don't need to worry about bandit raids as much as they did before.

Only untill the bandits develop something better, ie guns, then the cycle repeats itself. And what happens when the farmer finds out his wife sleeping with the miller? He has his trusty knife by his side to take care of the matter...

A much better way is to have a system where the 'militia' is partially stationed within the village. Have its own little 'police station' as such. Maybe made up of people from the village itself, if the militia has no men to spare. Have a constant vigilance. But have the weapons with people who know how to use them, who will not abuse their use.

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Voting out people you don't want is great, especially if you vote in someone you not only want, but actually holds your needs and wants in mind. But it doesn't change the laws and regulations already layed out, especially the ones that don't expire after a certain period of time, such as the high-capacity magazine law. Hopefully it isn't picked up and we can once again own guns that don't need to be reloaded every five seconds.

The other part of the Australian consitution is the Seperation of powers doctrine. If a law has been made that is unconstituional or so morally wrong, then the judiciary, who are an independant body, can strike it out. And if i recall correctly the only way for a law to be made in permanent form (in Australia at least) is for a referendum to be held, and for the people to vote on it. Otherwise it is unconstitutional as well. If the government is really abusing its position then there is another fail-safe, the Governor General can dismiss parliment and call for a re-election. All these procedures can and would be used before things got too far out of hand. (at least, most likely)

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
The German police force and military were made up of people who had families in the community. Didn't stop them from terrorizing Jews and clamping down on the rest of the populace in the 30's and 40's.

The Russian police force and military were made up of people with families in the community. Didn't stop them from informing on people or committing purges in the Soviet Union.

Add China, North Vietnam, Cuba, and a few other oppressive regimes, past or present, to the list. Heck, the US imprisoned anyone of Asian descent during WWII solely because they might be evil Axis spies. They persecuted people in the name of patriotism in the 50's.

Times of war bring about neccessary changes: The US imprisioning Asians during WWII could be seen as neccessary. If they saw it as unjust, would you prefer it if every Asian in America had taken up arms and attempted to have a shoot-out with local authorities?

And in Germany, as far as i know, there was a lot of hate flowing around there and hurt pride. I didn't see too many jewish people excecuting other jewish people. They may have policed their own, but they thought they were doing the right thing at the time (taken from 'the Piano', the least hollywoodised movie i have seen about the events leading to the holocaust. I must admit im not expert at all.)

Cuba, China, Russia, all had fairly oppressive regimes to start with. Without the transparency and proper representation of the people in government, a country is much more likely to succeed in applying more force than it did before. Ok, I'll admit that soldiers can shoot their own parents if they have to. Family members will dob each other in, but this only happened once the country was screwed over already.

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
If the government decides to betray the people, it can and will fuck you over before you even know what's going on. Even if the police and military in general don't want to oppress the people, it's going to happen anyway, for several reasons. They're forced to, for one. You're not in the military to think for yourself and do what's right, you're in the military to follow the orders of people who know what they're doing and have the physical well-being of the nation in mind. If they tell you to do something, you do it or face the consequences. For another, they can be fed any propoganda they'll believe. "Oh, those protestors are dangerous, they've got guns and bombs and are threatening to kill the governor. Move in there and chase them off, save us, save us! *snicker*"

If a government wants to become Big Brother and rule with an iron fist, the only thing that will stop it is the people fighting back.

Do you believe that if every Jew had a gun before the holocaust, things would have happened any differently? Every house in Iraq had a gun, did that stop Saddam? Oppressive governments can and will occur whether or not the population is armed. Occupation of other countries will occur whether or not the civilian population is armed.

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Your little analogy that people having guns creates the problem is stupid. If the villagers have knives and swords, does that escalate the problems? I don't think so. If a gang wants a fistfight, they'll fistfight. If they want to kill each other, they'll kill each other. They're outlaws, they'll do whatever the fuck they want. Criminals have no regard for the law and know all about getting around more than you do. It isn't going to stop them from buying their guns. It's illegal for US civilians to own rocket launchers and hand grenades, but there are plenty of people that still own them. Guns create more hostility? Pah, what a joke. They lessen social interaction? I own guns, lots of people I know own guns, and I don't see any of us afraid of socializing with one another because oh teh noes, they own guns and might shoots us!!!!!1!!! Guns are, sadly, a necessity if you want control over your destiny. If you want to be the one to say what you do with your life, you have to take charge, and unfortunately violence is the purest and simplest form of power and control. More on this when I get out of class.


If a gang wants to kill each other, yes, they will do it. But if they are not sure if they want to, get drunk, high, whatever, chances are that if they have in their possession firearms then it is far more likely that people will die.

About the rocket lauchers and grenades, if shit started blowing up im sure the police would know where to look. People would be reluctant to use them becuase they are illegal.

By social interaction i mean that conversing between strangers is ... ok, ill pass on this point. I was trying to say that you'ld be more cautious of offending paticular groups, but ill concede that point.

Violence is the most immediate form of power, and it says a lot, but it only creates more problems. I dont know, prehaps Israel/Palestine is a good example?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
"Only untill the bandits develop something better, ie guns, then the cycle repeats itself. And what happens when the farmer finds out his wife sleeping with the miller? He has his trusty knife by his side to take care of the matter... "

By keeping your defense up to date, you avoid being obsolete and once again defenseless. Know the medieval bandits somehow have acquired firearms of one sort or another, and the peasants are stuck with their swords and knives. Yeah, bandits have the advantage, but they're still going to be cautious because an armed opponent can still hurt you, especially if you expect them to be pushovers and they surprise you by going on the offensive. And really, if the farmer is pissed enough at his wife and the miller that he's going to kill them, it doesn't matter if he has his trusty knife, his gun, or a fricking rock, he's going to kill them. Oh look, it's the modern day where we have miracle weapons that kill people from a mile away, and HOW many murders are done the old-fashioned way: with your bare hands? Anything could be a weapon. Should we regulate piano wire because it's perfect for making a garotte to strangle people with? Sell it only to licensed musicians? After all, nobody else needs piano wire, now do they.

"A much better way is to have a system where the 'militia' is partially stationed within the village. Have its own little 'police station' as such. Maybe made up of people from the village itself, if the militia has no men to spare."

You've just described the modern police station and neighborhood watch. Guess what, it still isn't effective. The police are a reactionary force and can only respond to crimes in progress or that have already occurred. It isn't very often when they show up while the crime is taking place, and the only deterrent they offer is some thug waiting until the patrol car has driven by before holding up the liquor store. If the general populace is armed and capable of fighting back against crime, a criminal is going to be much more selective about his targets. Fewer targets of oppurtunity equals fewer crimes, essentially. There's a couple towns between Texas and Florida, I forget which state they're in. I read the article in 2000 and I have a horrible memory. I remember it was between Texas and Florida. Anyway, city law requires all citizens 18 and older to take a gun training and safety class teaching them how to safely and responsibly use a firearm. They're also required to carry a firearm with them in public except in federal or educational buildings. It's an experiment with I think a five year time limit to see what sort of effect it has on crime. So far most of the criminals have abandoned operating in those towns and crime in the nearby communities has increased dramatically. If anyone could get the names of the towns and all the details, I'd appreciate it.

"Have a constant vigilance. But have the weapons with people who know how to use them, who will not abuse their use. "

There's a reason why people organize neighborhood watches and why all hunters are required to take a hunters safety course before they can legally hunt. Doesn't stop them from getting a license, but if a game warden or police officer catches them hunting without the safety course card they go to jail for poaching. You're required to get a concealed handgun license, which requires training again, before you can carry a firearm on you in public. Guns have background checks to see if you're the sort of person who would buy a gun just to go spray the office with gunfire after getting layed off.

The major problem these days is that everyone would rather drive a nail through their dicks before ponying up responsibility for anything. A kid goes and shoots up their school, and it's the fault of video games, movies, television, and comic books. Yeah, uh, might it be the parents fault for not giving these kids a good moral background and a concept of personal responsibility? Might it be the kids fault for being evil bastards? Yeah, one has to wonder about that.

The next problem is ignorance. You've got several groups involved in the gun debate: the responsible group, like myself, who know the proper use of a gun and the responsibility inherent in owning one, the idiots who buy a gun because they think it makes them cool and can't even operate one without putting a bullet through the furniture, the ones who buy guns expressly for the purpose of committing criminal acts, the ones who fear guns and will do anything to banish them, the ignorant ones who don't see the point to owning guns and won't give anyone else a choice in the matter, and the ones who want guns taken away from the general populace to further their own goals, whatever those might be.

The idiots who buy guns to look cool are the ones we have to worry about, for the most part. These are people who should not have guns. They are either unaware of the responsibility required to possess a potentially dangerous tool or simply don't care. These are the ones who cause all the accidental shootings while playing around and being stupid. These are the winners of the yearly Darwin awards. Unfortunately, these people pass on their stupidity and lack of common sense to their children, who also want to look cool, get into their dad's gun cabinet, and cause all of sorts of excitement on the 6:00 news. These people don't understand the power they wield in their hands and the responsibility they have to use it properly. Like the sword of old, the wielder of the gun is the wielder of authority. Who has the biggest guns? The government of course, with the police and military. Back in the old days, if you didn't have a sword and the training to use it, you were fodder for anyone who did. You either knew how to stand up for yourself and your family and had the equipment to do it with, or you let everyone walk all over you.

The ignorant people who see no point to owning guns often won't listen to any argument for guns and don't care. Currently this is a problem with the issue of banning .50-caliber weapons. The argument against .50-caliber weapons is that you can shoot people from a long distance with one. Well no shit, here I thought you walked up and hit them over the head with one. My .22 is a better sniper weapon than my .50-cal (granted, my .50 is a muzzleloader) and the bullet isn't anywhere near as big. Larger bullets mean less accuracy and distance because of the weight. .50-cal is perfect for hunting large game animals at reasonable distances, but for killing people it's unwieldy and a little obvious. I did some research, and the only .50-cal weapon I could find that was used in a crime was that guy with the armored bulldozer. He had a .50-cal rifle inside the bulldozer with him and couldn't possibly have used it against anyone while he was sealed in there. It's the gun he used to committ suicide. So really, is there a legitimate, specific reason for banning a widely-used and useful bullet size? Let's look at it from another perspective. Let's say there's a bill being proposed to ban treble-hooks because they're three times as dangerous as regular hooks and serve no purpose except uneccesary cruelty to animals. The fisherman are going to argue the benefits of treble-hooks and how they aren't bad, but the ignorant people who see no point to it aren't going to listen.

Now I have no problem with people like the Quakers or Amish who are pacifists. That's how they choose to live and I can respect that. In an ideal world, the only violence we'd ever see was tackling each other in football or taking accidental falls while rock climbing. I'd love to live someplace where no one ever hurt anyone or did something they knew was wrong and immoral. But the simple fact of reality is, people prey on other people, and the only way to keep from being a victim is to oppose it.

"Chance favors a prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
"Nothing makes a man fear much more than to know little." Francis Bacon
"No man, no problem." Josef Stalin
"Those who sacrifice essential freedom for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin.
"I pity da foo'." Mr. T.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: First off, let it be known that the medieval bandit analogy just went to hell on a tangent.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Since I'm bored, a little deconstruction.
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
And really, if the farmer is pissed enough at his wife and the miller that he's going to kill them, it doesn't matter if he has his trusty knife, his gun, or a fricking rock, he's going to kill them.
Abunai! wrote:
Guns don't kill people, sure. But they sure as hell make it a whole lot easier. Just look at the gun deaths that come from accidental shootings (that just happen to outnumber the gun deaths that come from lawfully defending one's home).

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Oh look, it's the modern day where we have miracle weapons that kill people from a mile away, and HOW many murders are done the old-fashioned way: with your bare hands?

Well, gee whiz, don't keep us in suspense. Tell us tell us of the beating-deaths that far outnumber the gun deaths! C'mon, give us the raw stats!

Quote:
"Have a constant vigilance. But have the weapons with people who know how to use them, who will not abuse their use. "

There's a reason why people organize neighborhood watches and why all hunters are required to take a hunters safety course before they can legally hunt. Doesn't stop them from getting a license, but if a game warden or police officer catches them hunting without the safety course card they go to jail for poaching. You're required to get a concealed handgun license, which requires training again, before you can carry a firearm on you in public. Guns have background checks to see if you're the sort of person who would buy a gun just to go spray the office with gunfire after getting layed off.

I like the reasoning, and argument (even if I do perhaps take them out of context). However, keep in mind that most murders are first time offences.

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
The major problem these days is that everyone would rather drive a nail through their dicks before ponying up responsibility for anything. A kid goes and shoots up their school, and it's the fault of video games, movies, television, and comic books. Yeah, uh, might it be the parents fault for not giving these kids a good moral background and a concept of personal responsibility? Might it be the kids fault for being evil bastards? Yeah, one has to wonder about that.

OHMEG YUOR AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY! One has to wonder how many times this line has been used.

Instead of worrying whether the moral fiber of America is weak, might we not instead focus on whether guns contribute to the ability of immorality and idiocy to cause harm, for the sake of this debate?

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
The next problem is ignorance. You've got several groups involved in the gun debate: the responsible group, like myself, who know the proper use of a gun and the responsibility inherent in owning one, the idiots who buy a gun because they think it makes them cool and can't even operate one without putting a bullet through the furniture, the ones who buy guns expressly for the purpose of committing criminal acts, the ones who fear guns and will do anything to banish them, the ignorant ones who don't see the point to owning guns and won't give anyone else a choice in the matter, and the ones who want guns taken away from the general populace to further their own goals, whatever those might be.

Gawd, you're such a self-righteous dick. You accuse people of being ignorant and not capable of understanding that people like you (i.e. "responsible"), while admitting ignorance of the motives of others.

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
The idiots who buy guns to look cool are the ones we have to worry about, for the most part. These are people who should not have guns. They are either unaware of the responsibility required to possess a potentially dangerous tool or simply don't care. These are the ones who cause all the accidental shootings while playing around and being stupid. These are the winners of the yearly Darwin awards. Unfortunately, these people pass on their stupidity and lack of common sense to their children, who also want to look cool, get into their dad's gun cabinet, and cause all of sorts of excitement on the 6:00 news. These people don't understand the power they wield in their hands and the responsibility they have to use it properly.

Even the responsible ones have children, who by their nature are not fully aware of the realities they face when they find the gun cabinet unlocked (as this is, of course, unusual). And, frankly, who is responsible and who isn't is subjective, as well as relative.
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Like the sword of old, the wielder of the gun is the wielder of authority. Who has the biggest guns? The government of course, with the police and military. Back in the old days, if you didn't have a sword and the training to use it, you were fodder for anyone who did. You either knew how to stand up for yourself and your family and had the equipment to do it with, or you let everyone walk all over you.

Again, you really sound like an anachronism.

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
The ignorant people who see no point to owning guns often won't listen to any argument for guns and don't care. Currently this is a problem with the issue of banning .50-caliber weapons. The argument against .50-caliber weapons is that you can shoot people from a long distance with one. Well no shit, here I thought you walked up and hit them over the head with one. My .22 is a better sniper weapon than my .50-cal (granted, my .50 is a muzzleloader) and the bullet isn't anywhere near as big. Larger bullets mean less accuracy and distance because of the weight. .50-cal is perfect for hunting large game animals at reasonable distances, but for killing people it's unwieldy and a little obvious. I did some research, and the only .50-cal weapon I could find that was used in a crime was that guy with the armored bulldozer. He had a .50-cal rifle inside the bulldozer with him and couldn't possibly have used it against anyone while he was sealed in there. It's the gun he used to committ suicide. So really, is there a legitimate, specific reason for banning a widely-used and useful bullet size? Let's look at it from another perspective. Let's say there's a bill being proposed to ban treble-hooks because they're three times as dangerous as regular hooks and serve no purpose except uneccesary cruelty to animals. The fisherman are going to argue the benefits of treble-hooks and how they aren't bad, but the ignorant people who see no point to it aren't going to listen.

Again, with the stupid treble hooks, and the "ignorance" of people who think differently than you. I mean, jeez, read some Moliere or something.

On the fifty-cal in specific you make a good argument (possibly because I am, admittedly, not all that knowledgeable about it), but on the larger issue of assault-weapons and guns in general?
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Now I have no problem with people like the Quakers or Amish who are pacifists. That's how they choose to live and I can respect that. In an ideal world, the only violence we'd ever see was tackling each other in football or taking accidental falls while rock climbing. I'd love to live someplace where no one ever hurt anyone or did something they knew was wrong and immoral. But the simple fact of reality is, people prey on other people, and the only way to keep from being a victim is to oppose it.

And I'd love to live in a world where accidents didn't happen.

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Your little analogy that people having guns creates the problem is stupid. If the villagers have knives and swords, does that escalate the problems? I don't think so. If a gang wants a fistfight, they'll fistfight. If they want to kill each other, they'll kill each other. They're outlaws, they'll do whatever the fuck they want. Criminals have no regard for the law and know all about getting around more than you do. It isn't going to stop them from buying their guns. It's illegal for US civilians to own rocket launchers and hand grenades, but there are plenty of people that still own them.


Abunai! wrote:
Yet, we still have laws. To say that criminals will get around laws is saying that we might as well hope that everyone is a nice, understanding individual, and not have laws. Yes, law enforcement is not omnipotent. Get over it, and don't try to exaggerate it. Laws, generally, are more effective than not. Just look Japan, for instance. They have more sword deaths than gun deaths. Is this because everyone just prefers swords?

No, laws don't stop bad things from happening entirely. But they stop a lot of instances for so much money to be put into enforcing them.

Basically, stop being an anarchist. OMEHG LAWS DO NUTHINK BUTT OPRESS TEH INNOCENT!!!111oneoneeleven.

Seriously, I mean.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
"Well, gee whiz, don't keep us in suspense. Tell us tell us of the beating-deaths that far outnumber the gun deaths! C'mon, give us the raw stats! "

The point was that it still happens. If you think you can get a statistic, please, indulge us instead of being a dick.

"I like the reasoning, and argument (even if I do perhaps take them out of context). However, keep in mind that most murders are first time offences. "

True. No system is perfect. It's still superior to simply walking into a store and coming out five minutes later with twelve automatic weapons and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. I mean, much as I'd love to be able to do that, there are FAR more people I'd rather weren't able to do so. In fact, I wouldn't trust half of you guys with string.

"OHMEG YUOR AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY! One has to wonder how many times this line has been used. "

Until it actually sinks in.

"Instead of worrying whether the moral fiber of America is weak, might we not instead focus on whether guns contribute to the ability of immorality and idiocy to cause harm, for the sake of this debate? "

Well, I suppose if we took cars away it'd be harder for drunks and idiot drivers to cause harm, wouldn't it? Sounds ridiculous, but it's about as legitimate as saying taking the guns away would reduce the number of injuries/deaths caused by stupid or immoral people using them. Sometimes it's the people that are the problem and not the vehicle they decide to do it with. Vehicle as in the medium, not a thing with wheels you ride in. Just, you know, heading you off before you start going on an inane tangent about how cars have nothing to do with guns.

"Gawd, you're such a self-righteous dick. You accuse people of being ignorant and not capable of understanding that people like you (i.e. "responsible"), while admitting ignorance of the motives of others. "

Hm. An opportunist who jumps upon the wording of one sentence, takes it entirely out of context, and proceeds to mock the person who said it to inflate their own self-importance. Read it again. If you still don't get it, I'll explain it to you slowly and simply, as I would to a small child or presidential candidate.

"Even the responsible ones have children, who by their nature are not fully aware of the realities they face when they find the gun cabinet unlocked (as this is, of course, unusual). And, frankly, who is responsible and who isn't is subjective, as well as relative. "

This is why responsible people explain to their kids that guns are dangerous and they aren't allowed to touch them or go near them. Yes, some children are incapable of comprehending anything more complicated than Barney and others have the attention span of goldfish, but it eventually does sink in. After that, you've done what you can until they're old enough for a more thorough explanation and safety lesson. As for the last sentence, it sounds like more escapist left-wing flak thrown out to disguise the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about or have a weak argument. Which is odd, since in this case you actually had a decent point.

"Again, you really sound like an anachronism. "

Again, you really sound like a dick. Just because you'd like to pretend that people are superior and more civilized than they were fifty, a hundred, or even a thousand years ago doesn't make it true. It's funny, the anti-gun people always swing back and forth between people being more civilized and enlightened enough to not need to defend themselves to everyone is so stupid that they'd misuse anything remotely dangerous at the first oppurtunity and should be regulated 24/7.

"Again, with the stupid treble hooks, and the "ignorance" of people who think differently than you. I mean, jeez, read some Moliere or something."

Just because I use an analogy doesn't mean you get to piss and moan.

"On the fifty-cal in specific you make a good argument (possibly because I am, admittedly, not all that knowledgeable about it), but on the larger issue of assault-weapons and guns in general?"

The larger issue of assault-weapons and guns in general wasn't the point of that specific argument. Here's something: define an assault-weapon. Better yet, find the government definition of an assault-weapon.

"And I'd love to live in a world where accidents didn't happen. "

It'd be nice, wouldn't it? My car would be minus two dents from morons who can't drive and I wouldn't have even half the scars I've got covering my body. Heck, everyone I know that's died within the last five years would still be around too.

"Basically, stop being an anarchist. OMEHG LAWS DO NUTHINK BUTT OPRESS TEH INNOCENT!!!111oneoneeleven. "

Oh gosh. The stupidity of this last statement is so thick that my eyes are bleeding. Laws exist for a reason: they keep people in line and keep things running smoothly. If people just did whatever they wanted, we'd still be in the stone age flinging rocks and feces at one another. When the laws go to the other extreme though, that's when we start facing problems. If I were an anarchist, I'd be blowing up post offices and court houses. God knows I know enough to do it. The general populace needs to be more involved in politics, local government, and the enforcement of their own laws and social rules. The government isn't efficient enough to do it, and if it was it'd just be an oppressive regime ruling over a nation of mindless worker drones.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: First off, let it be known that the medieval bandit analogy just went to hell on a tangent.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:39 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
Abunai! wrote:
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
And really, if the farmer is pissed enough at his wife and the miller that he's going to kill them, it doesn't matter if he has his trusty knife, his gun, or a fricking rock, he's going to kill them.
Abunai! wrote:
Guns don't kill people, sure. But they sure as hell make it a whole lot easier. Just look at the gun deaths that come from accidental shootings (that just happen to outnumber the gun deaths that come from lawfully defending one's home).

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Oh look, it's the modern day where we have miracle weapons that kill people from a mile away, and HOW many murders are done the old-fashioned way: with your bare hands?

Well, gee whiz, don't keep us in suspense. Tell us tell us of the beating-deaths that far outnumber the gun deaths! C'mon, give us the raw stats!


I'm a dick.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:49 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 2:23 am
Posts: 34
Location: melb
Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia

Australia has 1.5 murders per 100,000 people, and going on the figures that Herbal linked to, Americas sitting on 5.5.

Weapons used against victims of crime

302 people were murdered in Australia last year:
16% Firearm deaths.
43% Knife/other deaths.
40% No weapon - good ol strangling.

Only .6% of assaults include a firearm.
6% of robberies have included a firearm - this includes banks, petrol stations, etc. Kind of a lot, but in reality thats only every 16-17 times you are robbed will the offender have a gun.

I keep thinking the top figures, 1.5 to 5.5 means something significant. Maybe we have to kill people here the old fashioned way, but it certainly makes people think twice about it.


On other topics, I can see your arguement about 50 Cal rifles holds a lot of merit. Im not too anti-rifle at all; they serve a purpose, you can use them for recreation. They are hard to conceal. Slow firing rate and all that hopefully. I can't see the point banning them while you still have so many other more dangerous weapons on the street.

As to the cars/guns debate, a cars usefulness far outways the dangers. But really, if we had an awesome, and i mean AWESOME, 100% safe public transport system, they might start to be phased out as well...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:34 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
Take a wild guess at my opinion, go ahead, you can do it.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 9:07 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
Clay_Allison wrote:
Take a wild guess at my opinion, go ahead, you can do it.


I think Clay is Rabbidly anti-gun, to the point that he refuses to support the Airsoft and BB Gun industries, and slingshots be damned! (though slings are fine, because they take lots of skill)

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:02 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Posts: 79
I don't know about the statistic now, but, a few years after Tony Blair took office as Prime Minister the issue was brought up about all the stabbing deaths in Scotland, apparently there were quite a few of them, so one more right leaning talk show host basically said, "what are you going to do now that you've banned guns, go after knives and swords too,"

Insane is right, it takes responsibility of the people to make firearms safe, in the hands of the right person a firearm is about as dangerous as, oh say, a tire iron. It can be used as a club, it can be used as a weapon, and I'm sure it has. He's also right about the criminal analogy, criminals will think twice before they might be hurt, they won't do a crime if they think they might get hurt or killed, they're cowards at heart.

And he's also right, people need to take responsibility for their actions, 2 kids, sometime last year, were picked up for taking a rifle and enacting a mini game from "Grand Theft Auto" series, where you shoot at the broadsides of speeding trucks, that's what they were doing. The mother didn't punish her sons, oh no, she sued Rockstar and Sega and the Walmart her sons bought the game at. Now, first off there is a label that says this game is not for anybody below a certain age, secondly the mother herself should have enquired about the game before she bought it for her sons, thirdly, she should've punished her sons for doing something so stupid as discharging a weapon at people.

So, why did they do this? Because they weren't responsible enough to be able to handle the game nor the gun. It's also the parental units fault for not making sure the gun was more secure. When I was very young, I was taught about gun safety, I was taken out to my grandparents and saw what a bullet will do to pumpkins, and tomatoes, and when I was older I saw what it will do to cantaloupe. I was also instructed about death very early on, so I wasn't under any delusions that when Jack Finney disappeared he went on vacation, I learned he had shuffled off this mortal coil..... don't need to go into Monty Python. But anyway I learned very early on what shooting somebody would do. Parents need to do this, there are local gun clubs that would love to come out and talk to children about gun safety. You need to start early on teaching children about safety, not when they're 13 and they're using dad's .38 for the first time. If you start early less accidents will happen and less people will die because of accidental discharges. And they won't play with their family's weaponry when they are alone at home with their friends.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Second Ammendment to the US Constitution wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Except from the US Declaration of Independence wrote:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


One might argue that, based on a current interpretation of the Second Ammendment and the existance of an organized national militia, only persons serving in the police forces, on active military duty, in the National Guard, Ready Reserve, Retired Reserve, or Individual Ready Reserve should be allowed to keep and bear arms. It could even be argued that this could be expanded to include everyone eligible for the draft under the Selective Service Act.

I don't really agree with that, but it seems the most rational interpretation of the purpose for which the second ammendment was ratified.

Of course, at this point, you'd have to also make provisions for people to own hunting or sporting rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

I don't really see the need for the average person to own automatic or heavy weapons, unless they have served or are serving in the military. They don't, for the most part, have the training to use them safely, and i would feel a little bit safer if everyone who professes the need to own military grade weaponry for the purpose of overthrowing a potentially tyranical government has already volunteered to defend the democratic one.
The US Military Oath of Enlistment wrote:
I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders
of the President of the United States and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the wording of the Second Amendment, and I am frankly not very surprised. The English language has gone through a few changes in the last two hundred-plus years, making the wording of the Constitution oblique to modern eyes; the political structure has changed as well, rendering its meaning difficult to divine from a purely modern perspective.

Its intention becomes somewhat clearer when one reads some of the political material that was floating around at that point. A Google search for "Federalist Papers" should turn up a few, though you might want to narrow it down with an additional term like "arms"; several were written, and not all had anything to do with guns. Bear in mind that they were written by federalists, i.e. the then-current proponents of a large, powerful national government.

<a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm">This</a> might be worth reading too, if you feel like taking other people's opinions instead of formulating your own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:57 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Point the first: damn strait guns don't kill people. neither do people. Kinetic energy kills people.

Point the rest: while I, personally, do not own a gun I feel that we should be allowed to own firearms. Not cruise missles or tanks (though I'm sure a few "groups" holed up in the shady parts of L.A. have 'em) but regular old "boom sticks." Not as any sort of real protection (although the US is probably currently the least invadible country in the world, I mean can you imagine someone invading L.A.? I mean holy shit, they'll go in with tanks and leave in body bags) but as a form of gov't trust. A symbol if you will.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: First off, let it be known that the medieval bandit analogy just went to hell on a tangent.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:09 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:55 pm
Posts: 37
Location: In a van, down by the river
Well well well, I'm going to kick myself, but i'm going to have to wholly agree with I_M on this stuff.

Abunai! wrote:
Since I'm bored, a little deconstruction.
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
The next problem is ignorance. You've got several groups involved in the gun debate: the responsible group, like myself, who know the proper use of a gun and the responsibility inherent in owning one, the idiots who buy a gun because they think it makes them cool and can't even operate one without putting a bullet through the furniture, the ones who buy guns expressly for the purpose of committing criminal acts, the ones who fear guns and will do anything to banish them, the ignorant ones who don't see the point to owning guns and won't give anyone else a choice in the matter, and the ones who want guns taken away from the general populace to further their own goals, whatever those might be.

Gawd, you're such a self-righteous dick. You accuse people of being ignorant and not capable of understanding that people like you (i.e. "responsible"), while admitting ignorance of the motives of others.

Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
The idiots who buy guns to look cool are the ones we have to worry about, for the most part. These are people who should not have guns. They are either unaware of the responsibility required to possess a potentially dangerous tool or simply don't care. These are the ones who cause all the accidental shootings while playing around and being stupid. These are the winners of the yearly Darwin awards. Unfortunately, these people pass on their stupidity and lack of common sense to their children, who also want to look cool, get into their dad's gun cabinet, and cause all of sorts of excitement on the 6:00 news. These people don't understand the power they wield in their hands and the responsibility they have to use it properly.

Even the responsible ones have children, who by their nature are not fully aware of the realities they face when they find the gun cabinet unlocked (as this is, of course, unusual). And, frankly, who is responsible and who isn't is subjective, as well as relative.


He's not self righteous, he's correct. There is the "responsible gun owner" class which many people fall into, but MANY do not. People need to realize what all is involved with gun ownership besides pointing and pulling a trigger. I would fall into the responsible group, but there are several of my friends that I wouldn't even hand a BB gun to.

As for your second point, it again is flawed. My entire life we had a gun cabinet that was NEVER locked, had 25-30 guns of various type and size, and around 10,000 rounds of ammunition, besides .22LR/CB rounds (probably had 10,000 of those alone). Only rule was don't open it when he wasn't around.
My father started me on a .22 when I was four and taught me responsibility from day one. If I ever messed up while we were shooting, we packed up and left, just like that. It was a serious "game" that I had alot of fun with, but he had no sympathy for any mistake. The way he taught me was to roll a tin can out there and have me shoot it.

"see what it did?"
"Yeah."
"How thick and hard is your skin"
"less than that."
"Exactly, you mess up and this is what's going to happen to someone"

Not once have I ever accidentally pointed a gun at someone and never once have I pointed one in jest.


And as for people buying guns just to look cool, try this on for size:

I was at a shooting range practicing with my .45 Blackhawk. A black guy walks in and gets in an argument with the range owner since they won't let him shoot from anything but a hip holster or the table and that they won't let him shoot tandem. He had just bought a pair of chrome .45s and wanted to use them at the same time side holster

They finally get everything sorted out so he's going to shoot one at a time from the table. Picks it up one handed, points it downrange with the hammer pointing to the left across his face, pulls the trigger, and has blood pouring down his face from a cut shaped oddly like the back of the hammer :lol: .

Should this guy have owned that gun? NO. Why not? He had NO IDEA what was going to happen. Since he had NO IDEA what the reaction to his action would be, he was therefore irresponsible and should not have been shooting.

_________________
"Gravity just overcame his equilibrium at the precipitant appearance of my foot"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group