Wong's views on gun control

[Azeron]

I think every child should be issued an M16 rifle on his/her 13th birthday. Just in case yuou euros/chinamen ever get any ideas about invadeing.

[Kelly Antilles]

All of that aside... on the matter of guns...

My father loved to go duck hunting. He had a gun cabinet with 6 or so shotguns. They were NEVER left in the cabinet loaded.

I don't have problems with guns (though I've never fired one in my life). Although, as long as it is in the hands of a RESPONSIBLE adult. I understand that the current gun laws for registration are pretty hard, which is good, but it could be better. Then again, there is the black market... *shrug* It seems to be a lose/lose situation.

[Cpt_Frank]

I think every child should be issued an M16 rifle on his/her 13th birthday. Just in case yuou euros/chinamen ever get any ideas about invadeing.

Indeed you deserve your title.

I don't think gun ownership should be restricted very much.
Only ban automatic guns, keep all the others.

You are not a man until you've fired a flintlock through a target's forehead and burnt a friend's eyebrows off from the little jet of flame shooting out the side.

Yet a flintlock gun is no match for a matchlock gun .

[Ted]

I think someone should ban you.

[greenmm]

I'm not one of those people who thinks Wong is an infalliable being who is right in all things

I'm not?

Naw, just nigh-infallible. Kind of like how the Tick is nigh-invulnerable...

but he is older, wiser, and probably more intelligent and logical than myself, so I generally find myself either agreeing right off with what he says or coming around eventually. Anyway, I've been having a hell of a time cutting through all the BS surrounding gun control and trying to come to the most logical conclusion I can, but it hasn't been easy.

That's because people try to polarize the issue so that there's no middle ground.

Just like every other political hot potato, when you think about it. The few voices of reason are drowned in the seas of rhetoric...

The more I read, the more I became convinced that the conservatives are basically right on this one, that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun, and that most gun control is harmful, and I guess I still feel this way, but the last time I went to an anti-gun control site, it set off my bullshit detector left and right. I hadn't really researched the subject heavily for a couple of years, and let me tell you that the difference between what an 18 year old picks up on and a 20 year old is amazing. It actually claimed that the slippery slope is not a fallacy, if you can believe that!

Most of the hardcore anti-gun control sites throw logical fallacies at you like rice at a wedding. My favourite: "the Nazis took away the Jews' guns before WW2, so if the government tries to regulate handguns, we'll be living in a police state within a few years" (slippery slope). Also: "handguns decrease crime, because Switzerland has lower crime and more guns than the US, and everyone knows that Switzerland and the US are identical in every OTHER way" (complex cause fallacy; ignoring other possible causes of the difference).

However, to be fair, hardcore gun control people also use their share of logical fallacies, such as: "guns cause murder" (again, complex cause fallacy). Since it is possible for a group of people to own guns and not commit murder, this is clearly erroneous.

Anyway, the point of this long-winded post is that I wanted to know what Mike's thoughts were on gun control to try and get a handle on what a logical, knowledgeable person should think.

Well, I try to be logical

My take on it is simple: guns are at least as dangerous as automobiles in the hands of a lunatic or a moron. We regulate automobiles for the sake of public safety. We should regulate guns for the same reason. This does not necessarily mean taking them away from everybody; it only means that there should be some kind of licensing program in which you must demonstrate mental competence, a clean criminal record, knowledge of safety procedures and rules, etc. Just as we do with cars. The argument that this would leave law-abiding people defenseless is silly; a law-abiding person can follow the procedures and get himself a gun.

And as for the notion that we will rapidly slide into totalitarianism if handguns are licensed, that's simply the worst slippery slope fallacy in common use (it is actually used as a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy in many textbooks). Not only is no effort made to substantiate a chain of causality between all of the myriad events required for this to happen, but quite frankly, the whole idea that the armed population can control the government through fear is simply absurd. The notion of Good ol' Cletus holding off the US military with his handgun and his rifle is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Against tanks and aircraft and artillery, militias with small-arms are toast, and if it ever came to that, then yes, professional soldiers would indeed pry the gun from Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands.

Complete agreement here. I've personally felt this way for years, and being married to the daughter of a retired sheriff's deputy has only reinforced those beliefs.

Heck, we could even call it the BGL: Bureau of Gun Licensing...

[Kelly Antilles]

You know, Azeron, just when I think you might say something halfway intelligent, you go and prove you deserve the title you've been given.

[greenmm]

I think every child should be issued an M16 rifle on his/her 13th birthday. Just in case yuou euros/chinamen ever get any ideas about invadeing.

Wonderful. And I suppose they should get a crate of grenades when they enter high school, or perhaps an M60 or M249 for graduation. Heck, give them their own supply of Stinger SAM's when they complete their college degree while you're at it.

Village idiot? Hell, you're too stupid for that roll.

[Cpt_Frank]

Actually I don't think Azeron is extremely stupid, he's just a fascist asshole (and quite good at being that).

[Kelly Antilles]

Actually I don't think Azeron is extremely stupid, he's just a fascist asshole (and quite good at being that).

Point. And a very appropriate one.

[Mr Bean]

In some countrys though it has show merit(Giving people guns)
But then thats Switzerland or the place people don't fuck with so who knows?

(*Edit-Also name any other Country that was PAID to stay out of war after being hired to help France, instead kicked the Englishs Arse the Rampaged accross half of Europe FOR FUN)

[Durandal]

I reiterate my former statement: Azeron's title should be changed to "Village Fascist."

[Azeron]

whats so facist about giving everyone a free gun?

[Lagmonster]

The worlds a dangerous place, what with 4 ton chunks of metal, glass, and plastics zipping around at 70+ MPH everyday.

No question about the danger, but you've skewed your way around the point. Guns are intended to kill people. Hence, fear of them is more widespread. Even if you pull up some stats that suggest that cars kill more people than guns do, fear of guns is still more powerful than fear of getting hit by a car. And that public fear is the issue on which the laws are debated.

For the record, I don't care if you own a gun, but I believe that the process one is required to go through to GET one is too simple. The fear of guns in the public's eye would likely dim drastically if the type of people who shouldn't have guns didn't have them in greater numbers than the type of people who can prove that they deserve the right to carry a lethal weapon.

[Kelly Antilles]

What about just plain fear of death?


and that is my biggest fear.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I'm not one of those people who thinks Wong is an infalliable being who is right in all things

I'm not?

Well, your view that psychology is basically worthless pseudoscience is the only view that comes to mind that I disagree with. Don't mean to hijack a thread that I started, but my problem with it is that human behavior is so fucking complex that you simply can't apply equations and mathematical analyses like you can in engineering or physics. It's like doing standard economics versus economic history (I'm an econ major, can you tell?). In standard econ, like analyzing prices and quantities and such, you can apply all sorts of econometrics and calculus to model and analyze these things, but when you start getting into history, famous economists have tried to take the same approach and failed dismally. They didn't bother to figure out all the environmental factors, social factors, the fact that there are 200 different types of grain and you can't lump them all together, and just the basic aspect that your information is mostly coming from letters to royalty and such instead of tax returns. The things you have to consider in economic history are so much more complex and hard to define than in standard econ that you can't just waltz in and apply mathematical theory and expect to get anywhere. I think psychology is the same way, except perhaps even more so, given our lack of understanding of the human brain. I understand where you're coming from on critizing the lack of use of the scientific method, but to conclude that the field is worthless and the majority of people that decide to major in it must be idiots is wrong, IMO.

but he is older, wiser, and probably more intelligent and logical than myself, so I generally find myself either agreeing right off with what he says or coming around eventually. Anyway, I've been having a hell of a time cutting through all the BS surrounding gun control and trying to come to the most logical conclusion I can, but it hasn't been easy.

That's because people try to polarize the issue so that there's no middle ground.

The more I read, the more I became convinced that the conservatives are basically right on this one, that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun, and that most gun control is harmful, and I guess I still feel this way, but the last time I went to an anti-gun control site, it set off my bullshit detector left and right. I hadn't really researched the subject heavily for a couple of years, and let me tell you that the difference between what an 18 year old picks up on and a 20 year old is amazing. It actually claimed that the slippery slope is not a fallacy, if you can believe that!

Most of the hardcore anti-gun control sites throw logical fallacies at you like rice at a wedding. My favourite: "the Nazis took away the Jews' guns before WW2, so if the government tries to regulate handguns, we'll be living in a police state within a few years" (slippery slope). Also: "handguns decrease crime, because Switzerland has lower crime and more guns than the US, and everyone knows that Switzerland and the US are identical in every OTHER way" (complex cause fallacy; ignoring other possible causes of the difference).

However, to be fair, hardcore gun control people also use their share of logical fallacies, such as: "guns cause murder" (again, complex cause fallacy). Since it is possible for a group of people to own guns and not commit murder, this is clearly erroneous.

Anyway, the point of this long-winded post is that I wanted to know what Mike's thoughts were on gun control to try and get a handle on what a logical, knowledgeable person should think.

Well, I try to be logical

My take on it is simple: guns are at least as dangerous as automobiles in the hands of a lunatic or a moron. We regulate automobiles for the sake of public safety. We should regulate guns for the same reason. This does not necessarily mean taking them away from everybody; it only means that there should be some kind of licensing program in which you must demonstrate mental competence, a clean criminal record, knowledge of safety procedures and rules, etc. Just as we do with cars. The argument that this would leave law-abiding people defenseless is silly; a law-abiding person can follow the procedures and get himself a gun.

Be able to simply own one or to own one and carry it concealed? I think concealed carry should be freely allowed to anyone who qualifies to own a handgun in the first place (no felonies, clean mental bill, demonstrated safety knowledge, etc.), but since I started this thread, my views on this issue are obviously not set in stone.

And as for the notion that we will rapidly slide into totalitarianism if handguns are licensed, that's simply the worst slippery slope fallacy in common use (it is actually used as a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy in many textbooks). Not only is no effort made to substantiate a chain of causality between all of the myriad events required for this to happen, but quite frankly, the whole idea that the armed population can control the government through fear is simply absurd. The notion of Good ol' Cletus holding off the US military with his handgun and his rifle is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Against tanks and aircraft and artillery, militias with small-arms are toast, and if it ever came to that, then yes, professional soldiers would indeed pry the gun from Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands.

Hehe, I see you're point. Of course, if, instead of endorsing a slippery slope, they simply said "No guns doesn't necesarily lead to erosion of freedoms, and an armed populace is no match for the fully mobilized military, but leaders are less likely to indulge dictatatorial leanings when the prey has the ability to fight back, just like lions generally attack old, sick buffalo and avoid the strong and healthy ones", it might be more convincing.

Thanks for responding, Mike. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

[Knife]

Being a gun nut who, oddly, doesn't own that many guns, I say that there should never be a list of people who own guns. There should be, however a list of people who should not own guns. Do not make hoops to jump through for law abiding people, the burden goes to those who have shown that they are unreliable enough to own a firearm.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

You don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself, an ordinary pistol would do the job.

And, gun control, in just about any case, has failed to lower the crime rate, and in some instances, the crine rate went up. Like in Europe. That's the good tihngs about having other countries. You can learn from their mistakes.

[Guest]

Just make handguns/pistols illegal. It's pretty damn hard to conceal a rifle, or to shoot yourself with one btw. Besides, rifles are cooler anyway.

[Azeron]

I don't think I need to justify to anyone why I want or need a fully autamatic assault rifle. Myabe I think it looks nice on my mantle, maybe I would use it as a sex toy, why the hell do you care?

besides if everyone is issued a gun, than here will be no need for a gun registry, since everyone will be assumed to have one.

[LordChaos]

My take on it is simple: guns are at least as dangerous as automobiles in the hands of a lunatic or a moron. We regulate automobiles for the sake of public safety. We should regulate guns for the same reason. This does not necessarily mean taking them away from everybody; it only means that there should be some kind of licensing program in which you must demonstrate mental competence, a clean criminal record, knowledge of safety procedures and rules, etc. Just as we do with cars. The argument that this would leave law-abiding people defenseless is silly; a law-abiding person can follow the procedures and get himself a gun.

I have to agree. However, I want to point out that the procedure should be as well documented and straight forward as getting a driver's licence, because in many places, it isn't. There are many places that have concelled carry laws on the books that sound like what you are discribing, but when you go to apply for the permit you find out that, regaurdless of who you are, why you are applying, your possible needs, or your background, it's up to the local sherrif to aprove. While that may seem resonable to some, it's not. Quite often (or at least more often that it should be), it boils down to who you know. If you and the sherrif are budies, you got it. If you don't know him but have a very legitiment reason, well, tough.

[Lagmonster]

Besides if everyone is issued a gun, than here will be no need for a gun registry, since everyone will be assumed to have one.

Okay, let's try this from an alternate perspective: Why does everyone need to be issued a gun?

[Manji]

Just make handguns/pistols illegal. It's pretty damn hard to conceal a rifle, or to shoot yourself with one btw. Besides, rifles are cooler anyway.

What sort of dumbass statement is that? Half the reason for having the RTKBA in the US is to enable defence of the self, and that means carrying. People are SUPPOSED to be able to carry.

(The other half of the reason is the whole "preservation of a free state" thing)

I also agree that rifles are cooler. But in a pinch, you need a small gun for defence.

[Azeron]

Okay, let's try this from an alternate perspective: Why does everyone need to be issued a gun?

Just in case....

[Darth Wong]

Once upon a time, I read a passage from a sociology book which stated the difference between social liberals and conservatives in an extremely succinct manner. I'll try to paraphrase it from memory: "Conservatism is based on self-interest and mistrust of others. Therefore, conservatives propose laws intended to protect their interests and allow them to defend themselves from the evil that they see around them. Liberalism is based on societal interest and belief in the goodness of others. Therefore, they propose laws designed to protect society from harmful individuals or even to protect harmful individuals from themselves."

As applied to gun control, you can see where this leads. Conservatives always decry liberals as naive and stupid. Liberals always decry conservatives as heartless and self-centred. They're both right.

[Azeron]

Wong,

tell me, what if a conservative viewed people as assets, and the best way to get an asset to full productivity is by empowering them to make the most and best decisions for themselves?

What if we viewed people with guns as protecting the government? why does a government that trusts the people have to fear the people with guns?

Maybe its the liberals that fear people, what they might do, if they don't like the authoritarian style government they impose?

To let people have guns, means you trust them. To not, means you fear them. its that simple.

I would rather live in a country where the people are presumed to be good and trustworthy by default, not evil deranged demented people who can't be trusted to live out thier own lives without the conscnet of the state.