This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

2012 Presidential Election

191012141531

Comments

  • The point is that guns have a poor track record of actually preventing crime in the hands of civilians, and civilian gun deaths are fairly common. It's pretty irrational to think that a gun is useful as a weapon of self-defense.
    I agree that education and training need to be more stringent.

    I think that a responsibly armed populace is better for a nation like the US culturally than an emasculated, scared populace. I know a glock isn't going to outshoot a tank but I don't like the corrupt government being the only party with weapons and know how.
  • Oh, you're one of those.
  • edited July 2012
    Oh, you're one of those.
    Well that's one way to address an argument.

    Big picture matters.

    The UK is a little closer to 1984 than we are as a nation, as bad as we are with the DHS and the TSA. I'd like to see that trend slow down. I don't think a nationwide ban and collection of all firearms is conducive to slowing that trend.
    Post edited by muppet on
  • You can't have it both ways; if you are going to discount the disproportionately high rate of gun ownership in the US as a correlating factor to gun violence, then you must also discount the hypothesis that a disproportionately high rate of gun ownership in the U.S. serves as a deterrent to gun violence.
    True. Gun ownership actually has nothing to do with either the rate of gun violence (other than the fact that guns happened to be the weapon used) or as a deterrent against gun violence. The real issue is what makes violent people violent to begin with -- their choice of weapon is irrelevant. If it wasn't a gun, it could've been a knife, or a bomb, or homebrew poison gas, or whatever else. Note that this Colorado guy apparently had tear gas on him and claimed to have an apartment full of explosives in addition to his guns. He was a nut job who would've done something violent even if he didn't have access to guns.
  • What argument? You already rejected facts and derided them as "Spock quotes," so I know that an actual responsible appeal to reason won't work with you.

    And the "argument" that you keep putting forward is just some ridiculous gun-toting circle jerk fantasy that you owning an Uzi is going to somehow stop the evil, giving-insurance-to-kids gubbment from takin' away yer RIGHTS AS A MERCAN 1984!

    As far as a 1984 future, I have news for you: Guns won't do anything to halt evil legislative agendas. That war is being fought with lobbyists and dollars, and it's being waged on you by the same political party with which the above quiz said you are aligned.

    So I'm not really sure, based on your fairly non-reflective comments so far, what can be said or demonstrated to cause you to reconsider your views. That means there's really no argument here.
  • He was a nut job who would've done something violent even if he didn't have access to guns.
    This is what the take away should be.

  • I didn't reject facts and deride them as Spock quotes. I said that statistics, while helpful, aren't the full picture.

    You're making some big assumptions, possibly due to that chip on your shoulder. Don't assume every argument is the last argument you had.
  • As far as a 1984 future, I have news for you: Guns won't do anything to halt evil legislative agendas. That war is being fought with lobbyists and dollars, and it's being waged on you by the same political party with which the above quiz said you are aligned.
    Of course physical guns and firepower have nothing to do with it. I'm talking about the sociological/cultural impact of disarming a populace. Not the logistical situation of citizens having guns or not having guns.
  • "Aligned with" is pretty strong language for an online quiz that focuses only on what the mainstream media and PR wonks have convinced 90% of the country the election issues are.
  • You know you can edit just a single post instead of spamming, right?
  • Regardless, our constitution does protect the right to bear arms, so unless you want to go about a constitutional amendment procedure, banning guns isn't going to happen.

    The most we can (and should) do is regulate gun purchasing to make it more difficult for criminals and the insane to purchase guns. The whole excuse that they'd just "buy them illegally" is a load of crap. It's a lot easier to drive down to your local Wal-Mart or Bass Pro Shop to buy a gun from their hunting department than it is to find the local street thug selling guns out of the back of a truck.

    We have the technology to have an internet terminal of some sort in every gun shop that can be used to perform instant background checks prior to every gun purchase. This will delay the purchase by a matter of minutes at most yet go a long way in keeping guns out of the hands of those who should't have them.
  • edited July 2012
    You know you can edit just a single post instead of spamming, right?
    So the extra 75 pixels of scroll from additional headers is a major concern?

    Vanilla has a plug-in for that. http://xenforo.com/community/resources/double-post-merge.833/
    Post edited by muppet on
  • RymRym
    edited July 2012
    Well, we effectively banned them in New York, and it's worked out pretty well for us.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Well, we effectively banned them in New York, and it's worked out pretty well for us.
    D.C. also effectively banned them. Didn't work out so well. This sort of gun control always seems like treating the symptoms and not the underlying problem. Improve education and living conditions, legalize and regulate street drugs, etc.
  • Well, we effectively banned them in New York, and it's worked out pretty well for us.
    Yeah, but now some Norwegian can just kill all of you since now you're all emasculated and scared.
  • Well, we effectively banned them in New York, and it's worked out pretty well for us.
    Yeah, but now some Norwegian can just kill all of you since now you're all emasculated and scared.
    image
  • It's a begged question that there is any actual evidence of a psychological effect of an "unarmed" population, so that's little more than baseless speculation.

    More to the point, we banned guns in New York for nothing more than practical reasons. We know criminals will have them anyway and don't care. We don't want civilians having them for one reason: it's crowded.

    Anyone using a gun, even in self defense, is a danger to a lot of people here. We actually don't want normal people to be armed or respond to things with weapons here, lest the stray bullet casualties far outweigh any benefit of extra security.
  • The only thing that scares me more than a criminal with a gun is an untrained civilian with a gun. I'd be fine with more CCP if I could be comfortable enough to know that they aren't all fucking stupid.
  • The only thing that scares me more than a criminal with a gun is an untrained civilian with a gun. I'd be fine with more CCP if I could be comfortable enough to know that they aren't all fucking stupid.
    True. Personally, I think a requirement that all gun owners have to pass some sort of accredited gun safety course before being allowed to purchase one is a good idea. Military/police/etc. training can be substituted in lieu of said safety course.
  • edited July 2012
    It's a begged question that there is any actual evidence of a psychological effect of an "unarmed" population, so that's little more than baseless speculation.

    More to the point, we banned guns in New York for nothing more than practical reasons. We know criminals will have them anyway and don't care. We don't want civilians having them for one reason: it's crowded.

    Anyone using a gun, even in self defense, is a danger to a lot of people here. We actually don't want normal people to be armed or respond to things with weapons here, lest the stray bullet casualties far outweigh any benefit of extra security.
    I'm sure I can find studies showing that if you remove responsibilities from a population, that population becomes more biddable, but I'll let it go for now because it's Friday, I'm demotivated, and meh. :-)
    Post edited by muppet on
  • edited July 2012
    Muppet, that picture is adorable.
    The most we can (and should) do is regulate gun purchasing to make it more difficult for criminals and the insane to purchase guns. The whole excuse that they'd just "buy them illegally" is a load of crap. It's a lot easier to drive down to your local Wal-Mart or Bass Pro Shop to buy a gun from their hunting department than it is to find the local street thug selling guns out of the back of a truck.
    Don't forget pawn shops. I don't think I've ever been in one that doesn't have a glass case full of pistols and revolvers.

    That said, I doubt you're going to find many street gangs or organized crime groups that arm themselves by walking into a store.

    Though it would be interesting to see any statistics in regards to how many guns stolen from homes are used in violent and non-violent crimes later on.



    Post edited by Banta on
  • There is at least one TED talk about how the fact that the State (e.g., police) has a monopoly on the use of force has done more to reduce worldwide violence than any other thing in history.
  • There is at least one TED talk about how the fact that the State (e.g., police) has a monopoly on the use of force has done more to reduce worldwide violence than any other thing in history.
    I'd be interested in the raw metrics. I think I prefer urban street violence to war, tough call though that is.
  • edited July 2012
    If only the world could use the movie Step Up as a framework for solving problems.
    Post edited by MATATAT on
  • This is a discussion that rarely convinces anyone away from their opinion. However, interesting that there is a recent relevant incident:

    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120716/ARTICLES/120719707?tc=cr
  • The most we can (and should) do is regulate gun purchasing to make it more difficult for criminals and the insane to purchase guns. The whole excuse that they'd just "buy them illegally" is a load of crap. It's a lot easier to drive down to your local Wal-Mart or Bass Pro Shop to buy a gun from their hunting department than it is to find the local street thug selling guns out of the back of a truck.
    Don't forget pawn shops. I don't think I've ever been in one that doesn't have a glass case full of pistols and revolvers.
    Of course, pawn shops should be included as places where people can legally buy guns. I only listed places I've actually been inside as they were the first to come to mind. However, if I were to open up a phone book (or use an online equivalent), I'm sure I'd find no shortage of legal gun shops where I could walk in, purchase a gun, and walk out.
    That said, I doubt you're going to find many street gangs or organized crime groups that arm themselves by walking into a store.
    True. However, organized crime, by nature of being "organized," already knows where to find the shady characters selling guns out of the backs of trucks. There is a good chance that the shady characters are even members of the organizations themselves.

    The restrictions on gun purchasing at legal shops is more to prevent "lone gunman" sorts of crimes -- things like a mentally disturbed individual purchasing a gun, an independent violent criminal who escaped/was released from prison and decides to purchase a gun to go after those who originally locked him up, someone with a restraining order against him, etc.
    Though it would be interesting to see any statistics in regards to how many guns stolen from homes are used in violent and non-violent crimes later on.
    Although, I wonder if storage in a proper gun safe would prevent these thefts to begin with. I assume they would as your average burglar probably wants to only grab the quick to acquire items in order to get in and out as fast as possible and will avoid safes and the like. Those who are capable safe crackers are probably working on higher-profile crimes than simple B&E.

    In a similar vein, I would like to see statistics documenting how many gun crimes are due to organized crime as opposed to "lone gunman" types.
  • As I said, I am more worried about legitimate, noncriminal gun owners than I am about criminals. with guns.

    Tasers and stunguns are effective self-defense weapons. There is a lot of evidence that guns aren't.
  • As I said, I am more worried about legitimate, noncriminal gun owners than I am about criminals. with guns.
    See that is something that gun control advocates will rarely state so bluntly. I wonder why you feel this way. How can you be less concerned about criminals with guns? Their actions are deliberate (usually) to harm others. With noncriminal gun owners, is your worry that simply having guns around will result in accidents?

  • I go to the range, see people muzzle sweeping and having poor trigger control and I wonder. A lot.
  • As I said, I am more worried about legitimate, noncriminal gun owners than I am about criminals. with guns.
    See that is something that gun control advocates will rarely state so bluntly. I wonder why you feel this way. How can you be less concerned about criminals with guns? Their actions are deliberate (usually) to harm others. With noncriminal gun owners, is your worry that simply having guns around will result in accidents?

    Maybe he thinks criminal gun owners don't store their guns at home or have kids..? Seems odd.
Sign In or Register to comment.