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.