GUN DEBATE

Originally Posted by Bradylama

We shouldn't be treating millions of adults like children because a statistically insignificant number of people don't use or store their firearms safely.

There wasn't a significant number of dumbfucks dying in their bathtubs while using their hairdryer either yet, it's mandated by law to have the WARNING TAG on the power chord.

Personally, I think the tag should be removed for the sake of natural selection. You do the math and see where I stand on the gun issue.

But think of all that wasted electricity.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

This is because gun collections are paradoxically more likely to make one a target for home invasion, and guns stolen from private collections are a significant source of illegally circulated weapons.

It only seems "paradoxical" if you buy into the quasi-magical notion that guns emit an anti-crime radiation (as many here seem to). Practical thinking leads us directly to the obvious conclusion that guns are worth a lot of money on the gray market, of course they will be routinely stolen. It's not like they jump out of the display cases and shoot the criminals automatically.

People keep treating these things as some kind of goddamn Living Embodiment Of My Constitutional Rights!!! instead of an object.

Originally Posted by Pangalin

It only seems "paradoxical" if you buy into the quasi-magical notion that guns emit an anti-crime radiation (as many here seem to).

But they don't! The bullets do. Plus, if it's that much of a concern, you can always buy a sound-and-flash suppressor. Make sure your firearm is capable of sporting such a device!

Originally Posted by Shin

If that's genuinely your opinion, I assume you're against the international community trying to stop Iran building nuclear enrichment plants? Why shouldn't they be allowed to produce nuclear power when it's only the crazy people in power who'd want to make atomic bombs with the leftovers after all.

Again, the issue is one regarding the individual liberties of US citizens. Issues of state soverignty in relation to nuclear programs are probably better suited for another thread.

Originally Posted by Pang

You have misunderstood my argument, such as it is, rather thoroughly. The notion of engaging in "safe practice" with a tool designed to ventilate someone's liver is a bit amusing, though. Whom are we practicing on, exactly? The dog?

To clarify, by safe practice, I mean practicing in the same way that you'd practice safe driving habits, practice safe sex, or in this case gun safety.

Originally Posted by Pangalin

If a teenager can bribe someone to purchase something in his stead, I'm fairly sure a lunatic can.

i'll go ahead and say lunatics will probably have a much harder time

you know

because guns are registered, usually

and taking mental tests is harder than flashing a driver's license

there's probably a lot more paperwork involved than when buying a 12 pack, so yeah, generally harder

Quote:

It only seems "paradoxical" if you buy into the quasi-magical notion that guns emit an anti-crime radiation (as many here seem to).

Do you think it's paradoxical that a gun ban doesn't eliminate all violent crime?

These analogies do not hold up so well, Meth. Their core functions are incompatible.

You see, the function of a car, the reason people purport to need one, is travel. It is indeed possible to use a car in this fashion safely. There are other ways to use a car, but this is the core use. If a car was built that did everything that a normal car does except accelerate your travels, no one would buy it.

The function of a gun is to put new windows in a structurally-sound person. It is not possible to use a gun in this fashion safely; by definition if the gun is used in this fashion someone has been hurt. There are other ways to use a gun, but this is the core use. If a gun was released that did everything a normal gun does except shoot bullets into people, no one would buy it.*

When people talk about "safe driving" what they generally mean is usage of the item's core function (accelerated travel) with the hope of absolutely minimizing injury or harm to the driver or other drivers.

When people talk about "safe gun ownership" what they generally mean is preventing the item's core function from engaging, by keeping the weapon unloaded, locked up, et cetera. A safe gun owner wants to prevent people from getting shot, or to make the gun useless.

You can't just treat a gun as a piece of property like any other for this reason. Either you're just looking at it (it's useless) or somebody's badly hurt (it's useful). Maybe there are other items like this but none are coming to mind. You can fuck somebody up pretty badly with a cricket bat but that's not why cricket bats exist.




*with some exceptions vis-a-vis hunting, but do you think the gun lobby would accept a ban on everything but hunting rifles? Also, when I say "no one" this obviously excludes collectors, which are in a class of lunacy all their own.

Originally Posted by LZ

there's probably a lot more paperwork involved than when buying a 12 pack, so yeah, generally harder

Do you think it's paradoxical that a gun ban doesn't eliminate all violent crime?

If you think "paperwork" keeps a determined asshole from doing whatever the hell he's decided to do I expect you don't watch the news too often. Here, let me lay it out for you. You have a gun. I am a criminal who does not object to killing someone to get what I want. Now I have a gun!

At any rate gun bans obviously don't eliminate violent crimes. Mostly people just resort to stabbing each other. But the class of crimes you can accomplish with knives is significantly smaller. I can't see anyone holding up a bank with a machete exactly.

Originally Posted by Pangalin

Here, let me lay it out for you. You have a gun. I am a criminal who does not object to killing someone to get what I want.

wait man let me stop you here! this is the part where I shoot you for breaking into my house ok go

Quote:

Now I have a gun am a dead loser!

No, it won't go that way all the time, but paperwork and bureaucracy is sort of necessary to make sure guns make it into capable hands. In the situation you gave, at least the good guy has a chance to protect himself.

Quote:

At any rate gun bans obviously don't eliminate violent crimes. Mostly people just resort to stabbing each other.

If you think "gun bans" keep a determined asshole from getting a gun, then you're the one who needs to watch the news!

Quote:

But the class of crimes you can accomplish with knives is significantly smaller. I can't see anyone holding up a bank with a machete exactly.

No, but how about them breaking into someone's house?

Originally Posted by Pangalin

At any rate gun bans obviously don't eliminate violent crimes. Mostly people just resort to stabbing each other. But the class of crimes you can accomplish with knives is significantly smaller. I can't see anyone holding up a bank with a machete exactly.

I guess you could hold up a bank with homemade bombs.

Guns aren't useless if they don't hurt anybody, your own example of the bank robbery is indicative of the deterrent factor. Some people get shot during bank robberies but most of the time they don't and I'd hardly think the robber considers his gun useless because nobody was perforated. Hell, you don't even need a real gun for deterrent, which is a significant cause of gun crime in Britain. You could even use an airsoft gun in a robbery (doesn't shoot bullets).

The same principle applies to all other uses, legal or otherwise. If I can deter somebody from committing an assault or robbery without firing a single shot that's the best possible outcome.

Originally Posted by Pang

The function of a gun is to put new windows in a structurally-sound person. It is not possible to use a gun in this fashion safely; by definition if the gun is used in this fashion someone has been hurt. There are other ways to use a gun, but this is the core use. If a gun was released that did everything a normal gun does except shoot bullets into people, no one would buy it.*

When people talk about "safe gun ownership" what they generally mean is preventing the item's core function from engaging, by keeping the weapon unloaded, locked up, et cetera. A safe gun owner wants to prevent people from getting shot, or to make the gun useless.

*with some exceptions vis-a-vis hunting, but do you think the gun lobby would accept a ban on everything but hunting rifles? Also, when I say "no one" this obviously excludes collectors, which are in a class of lunacy all their own.

The function of a gun is to fire a projectile. The target is reliant upon the user and their motivation. Why all the demonizing? As you said earlier, it's just an object. Gun safety is practiced not to prevent the core function from engaging, but to help insure control when the function is engaged and prevent accidents.

Some people keep pistols not only for personal protection, but also for competitive shooting and recreation, and as you mentioned, collecting. Clue me in on why this seems crazy.

Originally Posted by LZ

wait man let me stop you here! this is the part where I shoot you for breaking into my house

Yes, because I went up to your bedroom, woke you up, announced my intentions, handed you the gun I already took out of your cabinet, stood against the wall, and held up a dartboard in front of my chest. Best of luck with that scenario.

It's entirely possible you're awake 24/7 and never leave the house but this is not probably the most common example.

Originally Posted by Meth

competitive shooting and recreation, and as you mentioned, collecting

"Competitive shooting". Explain to me why you need anything more than a paint gun for this. Or, hell, a crossbow. Darts. A rubberband and paperclip. Spitwads. In the world of "gosh let's see which of us can point at something" there are many options that hardly ever blow off somebody's thumb.

As for collecting I don't see why "GUYS LOOK: I HAVE A LOT OF SOMETHING" isn't a little silly. When I was about 7, maybe 8, I collected baseball cards. And then I said to myself: "Self, these things are fucking worthless".

It'd probably be best if everybody stopped fantasizing about what could go right or wrong. Paranoia isn't going to get us anywhere, and paranoid fantasies should not be the basis of policy.

The fact is that guns have deterred crime. Guns have also made people the target of crime. Guns can save lives and also be completely useless. The core of this debate concerns cultural values, and the political reality is that despite the majority of Americans who do not mind gun control, the few that care about it are the only ones who consider it a voting issue.

So I guess Americans just love guns FUCK YEAH

YouTube Video
Get the Flash Player to play this youtube video file.

FUCK YEAH

YouTube Video
Get the Flash Player to play this youtube video file.

FUCK YEAH

YouTube Video
Get the Flash Player to play this youtube video file.

FUCK YEAH

more like

YouTube Video
Get the Flash Player to play this youtube video file.

Originally Posted by lordphoenix71

For my critics, see the shirt.

owned

Originally Posted by Pangalin

"Competitive shooting". Explain to me why you need anything more than a paint gun for this. Or, hell, a crossbow. Darts. A rubberband and paperclip. Spitwads. In the world of "gosh let's see which of us can point at something" there are many options that hardly ever blow off somebody's thumb.

As for collecting I don't see why "GUYS LOOK: I HAVE A LOT OF SOMETHING" isn't a little silly. When I was about 7, maybe 8, I collected baseball cards. And then I said to myself: "Self, these things are fucking worthless".

Ok, within competitive shooting participants use both rifles and pistols in a variety of calibers. Paint guns aren't anywhere near as accurate as real guns over long distances. And yes, they have competitive crossbow shooting and darts. But as you can imagine, it isn't quite the same. Your statement is about as silly as telling a formula 1 driver that he should stick to go-karts, tricycle races, or pony rides. You really should try going to a gun range if you have access. Not to march around all macho, but to give it a go for the sport and get some firsthand education on the subject instead of immediately writing it off because it involves scary weapons. You'll find that it's not quite as simple, or barbaric as you might think.

And just cause you decided that your baseball collection sucked, doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy collecting things (guns included).

I'm not saying they don't enjoy it. People enjoy a lot of terrible things. NASCAR. Hot Pockets. Everybody Loves Raymond.

I'm not writing anything off because it's "scary" but because it's conceptually boring. People taking turns pointing at things. It's not an objection to guns precisely, I have the same attitude toward, say, a free-throw contest. "Sports" where nobody's actually interacting.