How much gun control?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Jerrek, Apr 8, 2003.

?

How much gun control do you think should a state have?

  1. None

    6 vote(s)
    16.2%
  2. None with respect to ownership, some with respect to storing, selling, and buying

    6 vote(s)
    16.2%
  3. Moderate control, with background checks, fingerprint checks, the works, and the "big guns" can be o

    13 vote(s)
    35.1%
  4. Complete ban on guns for most part, except in special circumstances (hunting, military, police, etc.

    12 vote(s)
    32.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Counslercoffee:

    <i>Those kids at that one school were pretty committed when they shot the place up. Now, if they were psycho enough they would of done it with knives. The individual that wants to kill will find a way to kill no matter what. Those kids could have easily knifed five people before they got toppled.</i>

    We could debate that, but it's kind of beside the point. I was talking about all the cases where people generally <b>won't</b> go out of their way to kill somebody, but where the presence of a gun makes that outcome much more likely.

    Also, suppose you are a responsible gun owner. You store your gun in a locked place, and keep the ammunition separate, making sure your kids can't get hold of it etc. Now, when that intruder breaks into your home, what are your chances of being able to quickly retrieve your gun, load it up and threaten that person effectively?

    There is just no good reason for gun ownership by the average suburban guy.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    james r you present pretty the same basic argument as me. unfortunately though, our valid points arent even being considered
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    Shrubby,

    Go eat some yogurt. It's full of vitamins and protein. All the stuff that the body needs to live. The only problem is that it gives you runny poop. Wait. Where am I going with this? James opinions are being read, I am considering them. If I weren't then I would consider myself a jerk. Just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean that I don't consider his opinions. Even though most of em are crap anyways.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    James R,

    You don't put the bullets in a different room! You put them in a different location in the same room. I would put the gun in the top of my closet, easy access for me, not for kids. Then I would keep the bullets in my dresser. Kids can't kill themselves with bullets unless they fall onto them.

    The way I see the smart person playing out a robbery?

    Man: Stay out of my bedroom! I've got a gun! Take whatever you want but if you come in here I'll shoot you like a zombie. And if your a zombie the dog is down stairs. Eat him.

    Burglar: Okay! Im just going to steal some hamburgers and run back to McDonald's.

    That is what the smart person would do. People don't have to own guns, I know that. A person could just buy an attack dog. Even though the dog could mull and kill a small child.

    You can protect your home using mother nature herself. Just grow rose bushes in front of all your windows. It's a natural defense. When it gets down to it a gun is only needed to protect yourself in the most extreme cases. If someone breaks into my house, Im using it to protect myself (Barred up in my room) while the crook is stealing all my stuff.

    It is often best to have a strong defense instead of a weak offence.

    /CounslerCoffee

    P.S. Yogurt is yummy!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ThePHNX Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    79
    If Sparks' IQ is less than 130 I'd be very surprised, and would NOT be surprised were it considerable higher. Even if it were 100 the impression is that it is much higher than yours.

    On the NRA. it is an organization built entirely of a very large body of American Citizens whose membership is entirely voluntary. It is abundantly evident you think Americans who refuse to think like collectivist Europeans are evil. This spills onto poor Sparks because as an Irishman he tends to think more as an Individual than a sheep.

    I notice the consistent use of the lower case i when referring to the first person when it should properly be capitalized. A disturbing trend I have seen lately coming from the latest crop of Spock Spawn. If this is a physical handicap and not a mental one, I apologize and would be pleased to explain how you might modify your keyboard to accommodate your disability. If it is mental then I fear you are one of those whose herd instinct outweighed your individuality and self respect and thus under the control of your shepherds there is little hope of showing you the truth. In which case, clearly you're not worth our time.
     
  8. ThePHNX Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    79
    Right on target!
     
  9. mouse can't sing, can't dance Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    671
    EI Sparks:

    Yes, you'd be in trouble but in such a case you really not need a fire arm but an army and foreign support. Besides, i doubt that anyone of the posters in this thread should fear her or his government to such an extent that they need to arm herself or himself against it.

    I'm in favor of non-lethal ways of defence, and would avoid a shoot out at all costs. I must admit though, i'm saying this from a place where we obviously are not living in rape city.

    A remarkable result, i am curious to the title of this report, so that i could look it up. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, one can start to wonder what the alternative crime reduction methods were used as a basis of comparison in this report. Moreover, i do believe that if it was the only method that worked in the past it does not mean that we can not come up with something better today.

    On a personal note, i agree with the use of guns for sport through a government issued licence.

    In theory, yes. In practice, you'd see that over some other rights there is considerably more consensus.
     
  10. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    pnhx:

    ok i see your logic. determine im stupid because i have made legitimate points that none of you hypocrites have even posted any kind of counterpoint that has any relevance or practicallity.

    the fact that you believe iq has any significant correlation with one's ability to excel shows how flawed your arrogance really is. if you think it is so important anyway, i can tell you mine is higher than both numbers you listed there. iq does not equal creativity, understanding or insight.

    you can comment on my grammar etiquette all you please. it is inefficient to waste my effort capitalizing a few words to make you happy. you are obviously not a happy person. you over concern yourself with trivial matters. you might want to look up trivia to understand properly what i mean. language is a constantly evolving thing just like cultural and life. to place into such a rigorous mold is egotistical and backwards. that is like saying we should keep all technology exactly where is it now because we have everything perfect. i could nitpick your grammar, spelling, typos, etc all day. i, however, do not see the point. i dont attempt to justify my own intelligence by drawing absurd conclusions via judging someone who doesnt capitalize as inferior.

    it is funny how when you feel your beliefs threatened you resort to demeaning you oppositions maturity or intelligence. why cant you just let reason win out? is it because you are unreasonable? i really dont know how you made it this far
     
  11. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    mouse good luck in getting any one to give you evidence. i asked for a source once and was pretty much called stupid for asking for some sort of proof other than NRA spun propaganda
     
  12. ThePHNX Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    79
    1. Didn't call you stupid but I'm getting the increasing impression you are
    2. Sorry, legitimate points? By you? What were those?
    3. Excel? At thinking? IQ Irrelevant? Is this what you consider a "legitimate point(s)"?
    4. Well, there you've got us; if "4" is true (hard to believe, over 100?, 110?) then it DOES tend to prove "3"
    5. Wow, IQ does not equal Creativity, understanding, or insight? So Picasso, Freud, and Einstein had low IQs?
    6. So you are not mentally disabled just mentally lazy. Actually, isn't that a disability in the proper sense?
    7. Living in a world where people like you are encouraged to think above your abilities can make one unhappy. Oh, for the return of the servant class.
    8. I think your thoughts are as good a definition of trivial as one could ask for.
    9. Yes, true, and thus we have Eubonics and ain't instead of Shakespeare. Improvements they ain't!-)
    10. And difficult for you and others who want to write without thinking or exerting effort.
    11. When and if "we have everything perfect" what more would we need. Were `everything perfect' we will have restored the servant class and you'd have a place. But then, you'd think that unfair. Would that be perfect, I wonder?
    12. Please do. I ENJOY learning and the chance to see my errors. Don't nit-pick though that IS silly, Nit. Pointing out that continued and systematic use of the lower case i for the first person is NOT a small thing but a social statement. Read Ayn Rand (whom no doubt your programmers will call a fascist, yet another abuse of language common to the herd and herders)
    13. THAT WOULD be difficult.
    14. Really, not a social statement? Why then, really?
    15. We have no need to demean your intelligence you do a very good job of that on your own. Example: you say 2 plus 2 equals 6, we correct you, advising that it is 4. You respond, Don't call ME stupid! I know it's 6!
    16. By accident, you have made a point! Your unreasonable `reasoning' can't win!-(
    17. A bit of luck no doubt, so take heart, in the words of the immortal whatshisname "You do not need intelligence to excel".
      [/list=1]
     
  13. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    shrub,
    That's a lie. I didn't call you stupid. I said that it was a major story, easily researched and common knowlege to anyone watching UK news over the last two years.

    mouse,
    Certainly not if you mean the government targeting a specific person. The point was that the theory states that a government cannot oppress a well-armed populus. Of course the US is currently showing that armed oppression isn't really needed...

    Unfortunately, a pistol is the most effective form of defence and until someone invents a star-trek phaser, it'll remain so. Tazers don't always work, pepper spray is too close-range, martial arts are both difficult to learn and not much use against multiple attackers. An attack dog might be a good substitute, but that's about all I can think of.

    It's here. It's by Lott and Mustard. Lott has since written a book based on the study, it's More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws.

    Today, I disagree with - tomorrow is obviously a whole other story.

    Sounds reasonable. However, in Ireland it's proven to be a rather shaky premise. Up to 1972, pistol shooting was common in Ireland (competitive shooting - there are several pistol events in the olympics and many more that go up to world championship level) but in '72 the government issued a temporary order requesting all pistols to be handed into the gardai for a period of one month for security reasons. We've never gotten them back, noone has ever been compensated (and we're talking about millions of euro here because not only competitive equipment was taken, but heirlooms, historical pieces and so on).
    The thing is, if it's not a right, it's often worthless here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Consensus is immaterial to legal issues. Which is sometimes good and sometimes bad from an individual's point of view, but overall it's accepted as a good thing.
     
  14. justiceusa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    908
    I own four weapons and am ,of course, in favor of gun ownership. It is time ,however, to update the second ammendment. The Ammendement was written in the 18th century by men who used 18th century muzzled loaded flint lock flash pan weapons.

    We have come a long way baby. A 21 century semi automatic assault rifle with a 20 round clip is beyond the wildest dreams of those who penned the second ammendment.

    The second ammedment was necessary for state and national defense in 1788. It simply no longer applies in 2003.

    What we do about ownership of weapons must be based on common sense, and the actual needs of the people, not the perceived needs. We are not going to be defending America with our Glocks and 357's as some here would believe.

    If a radical element should take control of our government we will not be destroying that radical element with our assault rifles, as the gun lobby would lead us to believe, because he who controls the government controls the military.

    There is a definite need for personal defense and home security. What weapons we use to accomplish that must "not" be decided by testosterone and ego, but by a well thought out objective plan suitable for the 21st century.
     
  15. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    jusa,
    I'd be most careful with redrafting the constitution...

    Out of interest, define an "assault rifle".
     
  16. justiceusa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    908
  17. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    jusa,
    Okay, so here's the original definition:
    Specific problems:
    1) There is a large competitive league of AR-15 shooters in the US. Most of these AR-15s have been very nearly fully rebuilt (the term is "accurised"), changing the design brief of the rifle from it's original brief of "killling humans" to one of "be as accurate as possible".

    2) For self-defence in the home, about the best I can think of is a semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun loaded with rubber bullets or other less-than-lethal rounds. And with such a weapon, for such a usage, the more compact and the higher magazine capacity, the better. So it would be illegal to have the best home defense weapon allowed.

    On a more general note, it should be noted that, inclusive though the gun control law is, these weapons make up a remarkably small proportion of those used in crimes (1.2% if I recall correctly). And the proposed measures that I've heard of in the last week or two would simple add extra features to those lists, and make far more weapons illegal, but with no real proof that such a move would be of benefit to crime prevention, and significant proof that it would be detrimental.
     
  18. justiceusa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    908
    El_Sparks

    "OK so here is the original definition"

    So why did you ask?

    http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html

    As I said I am a gun owner and I do use a shotgun for defense inside my home. We don't have to tear up the constitution to do what is needed. As far as I know the ban on the list of weapons expires in 2004.
     
  19. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    James R:
    He is a big man, yes he is
    And he's got a big gun

    Indeedy doo, there isn't. And we all know that only white men (being the ones who make the laws) deserve protection.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Coffee:
    And a moat with alligators, and turrets where I can hide to pour boiling oil on the robbers. Oooh! And starving peasants, and an evil advisor with a Fu-Manchu mustache!
     
  20. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    jusa,
    Because I didn't know where the definition was, but was aware that there were some problems with it.
    No, but the real answer that is needed is never going to be taken on because it's too difficult. Instead there'll be a kneejerk ban, like there was after dunblane and it will solve nothing and give people the sense that the problem is solved and as a result, people will die that don't need to.
    What I've been reading is that the ban is not just to be extended, but that the range of weapons it applies to is to be extended as well.
    Xev,
    Try here!
     
  21. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    phnx u should probably go back and read all of my posts. it appears in your old age your memory and judgement are fading. you may want to jot down some notes so when you try to conceptualize my points you dont get confused and fall over. you also may want head down to the library, get a library card, and pick up some books to explain basic logic, the formulation of an argument, and a general book describing your susceptibility to propaganda. you may also want to check out some studies about iq tests as well some psychological discussions on intelligence. if you are lucky you may be able to figure out why you project your flaws onto others. it no doubt has something do with some early experiences when the other children out performed you on a normal basis.

    i feel bad for you and your two class perception. when upheavals come around it is arrogant self rightous people like you who are dragged to the street by the peasants and beaten to death.

    oh yeah so tell me more about the iqs of all these famous minds. im curious, did they tell you their iqs when you were younger? did you develop the concept of iq before any others and test all of these figures? since you are apparently so familiar, tell me how einstein's trouble in school correlates with his high iq?

    someone should make you our fearless leader so you can dictate all of our policies in a nonsensical splendor. we could even make a statue of you. we could put a knife in your teeth, strap ammunition across your chest, sawed off shotgun in one hand, m-4 in the other, and put the corpes of the nonbelievers at your feet. you are awesome
     
  22. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Tell me, then PHNX, if you have no intention of actually making valid points, or even making a strong argument (as indicated by your refusal to clarify points when asked, and your assertion that it is not your place to provide evidence of your claims), then what are you doing here? To claim that the burden of proof for your claims does not rest on you, shows that you are either no better than the deluded morons talking about channeling aliens, and harnessing the power of crystals on the Pseudosience and parapsychology boards, or that you simply don't even have any interest in being seriously engaged in this argument. So, by your own admission you are either an idiot or spamming.

    PHNX, what the hell are you doing here? You're like some sort of joke. Quit shooting your mouth off when you are clearly in way over your head. Learn a little about formal debate, and building an argument, and then come back when you are ready to play with the big boys.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2003
  23. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    What's with conservatives and the "Slippery slope" argument? "Why if we take away guns, then by this time next year we'll all be eaten by bears". You do realize that this argument has been recognized as an informal fallacy for longer than either you or I have been around, don't you?

    If you take a way a right, there MUST be some basis for it, and the same argument used for banning guns isn't going to work, or even be aplicable for say removing freedom of religion or what have you. One doesn't even lead to the other.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page