Gun nuts, give it a rest!

[Whitehawke]

I was thinking about those crazy gun nuts today...you know those "the gubmint gots no raht to taik away mah AK-47 what I use fer huntin' because de Constametushun say so!"

What is WRONG with these people? Don't they SEE that if no one had guns, there would be far fewer murders and accidental shootings? Can't they look even slightly beyond their own selfish noses and give a little for the good of society? Honest to Pete!

[Lore]

Guns done killed my pa!!

[Whitehawke]

lore said:

Guns done killed my pa!!

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...with bullets fired out of guns!

(And sometimes with knives.)

(Or cars. Lots of car-related killings.)

(Oh, and blunt instruments. Yep, plenty o' those.)

(And viruses. Yep, people kill other people by giving them viruses. Remember folks, when it comes to Ebola, "sharing is caring" is crap.)

[Lore]

(And vampires. Don't forget vampires.)

[Masoob]

Hey. HEY! If i want to fire a thousand rounds into a deer carcass with a .50 cal, who are you to say i can't? huh? you gonna take away air next?! communists!

[Whitehawke]

murrayb said:

Hey. HEY! If i want to fire a thousand rounds into a deer carcass with a .50 cal, who are you to say i can't? huh? you gonna take away air next?! communists!

There's more efficient ways to vaporize a couple hundred pounds of meat, ya know.

And yeah, I think taking away air would be pretty cool...I could sell it in 1 liter bottles...the price would be determined by strictly impersonal market forces such as "how much I like you", "do I find you sexy in those heels?", and "can you dance the jitterbug while singing the 'Memories' song from Cats?"

It would also make it dead easy for me to cause social change..."Let's see...lied to the population and caused us to invade a small nation on a pretext that was really a thinly veiled oil seizure? Yep, sorry...NO AIR FOR YOU!"

And I'm not a communist. If I were, I would be interested in "sharing" the air, and I'm not. I'm all about owning it and selling it. <violation_of_controversial_topic_rules = "total">In fact, you know what? With your clear desire to let the air be "freely available" and "shared by all", YOU SIR, ARE THE COMMUNIST!!!!!!11!!shift one</violation_of_controversial_topic_rules> So there, neener neener!!!

[Masoob]

Haha... canned air. Totally spaceballs. And only if i thought everyone was entitled to the exact same amount of air would i be Communist. Ha!

On a serious note- what purpose does the 'right to bear arms' serve in this day and age? I can see the purpose if there was a sparse police force/military, but the United States boasts the biggest of both in the world. At least it doesn't make sense to me. Where i'm from guns are a big no-no, and the thought of the average joe being granted access to weapons of all sorts is... frightening.

At least to me it is. (i figure the title of this thread is controversial enough that this isn't any more controversial)

[Lore]

whitehawke said:

And yeah, I think taking away air would be pretty cool...I could sell it in 1 liter bottles...the price would be determined by strictly impersonal market forces such as "how much I like you", "do I find you sexy in those heels?", and "can you dance the jitterbug while singing the 'Memories' song from Cats?"

::jitterbugs, trying to remember the words. flashes heels:: Gimme!

[Whitehawke]

lore said:

whitehawke said:

And yeah, I think taking away air would be pretty cool...I could sell it in 1 liter bottles...the price would be determined by strictly impersonal market forces such as "how much I like you", "do I find you sexy in those heels?", and "can you dance the jitterbug while singing the 'Memories' song from Cats?"

::jitterbugs, trying to remember the words. flashes heels:: Gimme!

Hey, any pretty ladies who flash their heels at me are entitled to air. Here you go. :>

[Whitehawke]

murrayb said:

On a serious note- what purpose does the 'right to bear arms' serve in this day and age? I can see the purpose if there was a sparse police force/military, but the United States boasts the biggest of both in the world. At least it doesn't make sense to me. Where i'm from guns are a big no-no, and the thought of the average joe being granted access to weapons of all sorts is... frightening.

Well, there are definitely arguments against allowing people to have guns--if the question were simple, it wouldn't be controversial and it would have been settled decades ago. Here are the arguments FOR allowing people to have guns:

1) Statistics show that states with relaxed concealed-carry laws have lower per capita (not just absolute) murder and violent crime rates than places with stringent gun restrictions.

2) The general argument for gun control is that it will prevent people from killing each other, or at least reduce the number of murders. It's not clear, however, that the evidence actually supports this; so far as I'm aware, there aren't any incontrovertible studies that address the question one way or the other. If you think through the logic, though, there are some problems: normal people don't kill each other--indeed, from what I've read, the military has a really hard time getting recruits to the point where they could actually shoot another human being, and most soldiers can't do it except "in the heat". As a demonstration of that, consider that we all have plenty of improvised weapons ready to hand--kitchen knives, heavy objects, cars, whatever--so, if we really wanted to kill someone, we could. Has the thought ever seriously crossed your mind? I doubt it. Murders are generally committed by highly aberrant people, generally with an established record of criminal activity. These people can get guns on the black market. Gun control and enforcement is expensive (like most government programs) so why are we paying exorbitant sums to keep guns out of the hand of people who wouldn't shoot each other anyway, if it does little or nothing to prevent criminals from shooting us?

3) The best reason of all to my mind: the people of a nation should always have the option of armed insurrection should their government become corrupt, abusive, or tyrranical...and once it is time for insurrection, it is too late to easily acquire the weapons that are needed.


The last reason is the most important, but it's also a hard one to present, both because it's the most abstract and therefore the easiest to dismiss as paranoia. I'm not advocating insurrection, I'm not saying that we should be rising up against the American government (or any other) at this time--in fact, I think we should NOT--and I recognize that civilian weapons against a trained and equipped military with modern hardware is a lousy match. That doesn't change the truth of the argument though.


Edit: Ah the irony. I started these two threads just for the humor of it, and now I'm getting lured into a serious discussion on the topic.

[Masoob]

Its such an alien topic for me I can't really hold up in this discussion. The idea of needing to stage an insurrection is... interesting though. I hadn't even thought of that.

To obtain a handgun here a person has to submit to numerous background checks, criminal checks, a mountain of paperwork, and two or three firearms qualifications. Handguns must be locked when not at a firing range. Weapons of a military or paramilitary appearance are prohibited, as are automatics. Magazine size is also limited. RCMP has a list of registered firearm owner list and has 'preventative search and seizure powers' if owner is deemed dangerous.

The argument here being that if someone is willing to submit and go through so much trouble to wield a firearm is that they're responsible enough to do so safely. In theory anyways. If I wanted to I could probably buy an unregistered handgun in Toronto, which are apparently smuggled in from Chicago.

Stark contrast huh?

[Whitehawke]

murrayb said:

Its such an alien topic for me I can't really hold up in this discussion. The idea of needing to stage an insurrection is... interesting though. I hadn't even thought of that.

Nor had I, when it was first presented to me. In fact, growing up, I was very much pro-gun control. I accepted, without examining them too closely, all the arguments as to why private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms. And I dismissed all the arguments against this position as "ravings". Then I got older and started talking to more people, and hearing more statistics and facts, and I realized that the issue isn't simple at all.

I think the insurrection argument was the first one that I flat out could not contradict or wish away. And it's probably why I am now more pro- than anti-gun ownership. It's still not an easy question though.

Of course, I think "should people be allowed to own guns?" is also the WRONG question. The RIGHT question is "what legal and social structures should be created to minimize the harm caused by accidental discharges and guns used by criminals?" If people spent time researching that question, fairly and honestly, and concluded that banning guns was the best solution, I'd be much more prepared to accept it. But I suspect that the answer would be something different, like "allow people to own guns, enforce mandatory firearms training, and have severe penalties for misuse of a firefarm."

murrayb said:

To obtain a handgun here a person has to submit to numerous background checks, criminal checks, a mountain of paperwork, and two or three firearms qualifications. Handguns must be locked when not at a firing range. Weapons of a military or paramilitary appearance are prohibited, as are automatics. Magazine size is also limited. RCMP has a list of registered firearm owner list and has 'preventative search and seizure powers' if owner is deemed dangerous.

The argument here being that if someone is willing to submit and go through so much trouble to wield a firearm is that they're responsible enough to do so safely. In theory anyways.

I don't really follow that logic...persistence and responsibility are completely orthogonal in my experience. That said, who knows? Maybe I'm just missing something.

murrayb said:

If I wanted to I could probably buy an unregistered handgun in Toronto, which are apparently smuggled in from Chicago.

Stark contrast huh?

Hmmm, not as much as you might think. To get a gun in this country (USA), you also have to go through a background check and registration process--although it's probably less intense than yours. The laws relevant to transport and use of your weapon vary literally from town to town, though--my aunt hunts deer up in the Berkshires, and she says that it's a royal pain because different sheriffs will have different ideas of what constitutes a legal "gun case", whether being in the backseat (as opposed to the trunk) is a violation or not, what kind of trigger locks are required, etc.

Of course, you can also buy a Saturday Night Special cheap in the skeevier parts of Manhattan.

[Masoob]

I don't really follow that logic...persistence and responsibility are completely orthogonal in my experience. That said, who knows? Maybe I'm just missing something.

I think i phrased that wrong. I meant that the system is so involving there should be no chance of someone with a criminal background or mental instability that could come into possesion of a weapon.

I imagine it would be a complex issue stateside where it is an issue to be contemplated in the first place. To be honest I'm glad It isn't an issue to be dealt with where I live. Unless of course an insurrection needs to be staged.

But hey, on the other side of things, shooting stuff is fun! Granted I've never shot anything living nor do I plan on it, but heck, just for fun on the odd occasion blowing away a snowman is very satisfying. Also guns make excellent plot devices.

[Erika]

murrayb said:

I think i phrased that wrong. I meant that the system is so involving there should be no chance of someone with a criminal background or mental instability that could come into possesion of a weapon.

Unfortunately, there are many ways that even with a thorough system of background checks, unsavory individuals can get their hands on weapons. the most obvious would be buying it illegally off the street. then you have...

• Getting it from a relative or aquaintance, either by buying or borrowing, stealing or inheriting.
  
• Buying from a pawn shop, or gun show where the staff don't take the proper precautions.
  
• A simple flaw or loophole in the system that doesn't catch the bad guy. No system is perfect. The shooter at virginia state, for instance, acquired his weapons legally.
  
• Perhaps the criminal or nutjob in question doesn't HAVE a record. Maybe s/he's never been caught or diagnosed.
  
• The person could already own the gun legally. Example: in the news recently, a young law enforcement officer, angry over a romantic entanglement, shot six having a get-together.
  
• Finding it, having an accomplice with a clean record purchase it, or steal it from the last guy you robbed.
  

This is surely not a complete list; only what I though of off the top of my head. So there IS some truth to the saying "if guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns.

I AM very pro gun control myself, however. I used to be anti-gun. My opinions have (I hope) matured. I used to think that we should get rid of guns almost entirely, because lets face it: the intended purpose for a gun is to kill things. That's what theyre made for, and that's what they do. Now I recognize that it is possible for people to own guns responsibly, even if I would be happier if I never saw one again.

I agree that the issue isn't gun ownership, it's gun violence and accidents. So I support very stringent policies on liscences and background checks as well as mandatory safety training and resrictions on what kinds of guns can be privately owned.

I also think that it is a good idea to have laws regulating the proper storage of weapons, like safety locks and locked cases. A weapon needs to be kept safely under wraps, not somewhere where it can be found easily, especially by children. I don't know if this is still true, as it's been a long time since I've done any research on the subject, but when I was doing reading for a debate on this topic in school, the sad fact was that a privately owned handgun was more likely to kill a member of the family than an intruder.

My goodness this is long. END!

[Outdoors Man]

You will never get rid of guns. Look at England, they have harsh gun control laws yet the crime is higher than ever. With that said, gun control laws only restrict people who follow the law to begin with...that means that criminals don't care about gun laws and like them because it restricts the upstanding citizen and overall gives the criminal the edge.

Same with the gun free zone at schools...It's ridiculous. It won't stop the crazy kid going to shoot up the school, if he's going there to kill people, who thinks that a sign will stop him, but what the law does stop is the CCW packing teacher who can put down the kid before he kills a whole bunch of students.