StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

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.

P.S. Shep, I know you want to hijack this thread, but I think we all know what your views are already.

NRA FOR FUCKING EVER!!!!!!!!!! RKBA!!!!!!
heeheehee Lata and Happy Shooting!

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:snip
P.S. Shep, I know you want to hijack this thread, but I think we all know what your views are already.

Oh no, a gun control thread. Do you know the problems these things have caused on ASVS? damned things distractd us for like two days..a disgrace.

Yeah, I saw, but Marina isn't around, so it should be OK.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Yeah, I saw, but Marina isn't around, so it should be OK.

Possibly, but there are a few here I am sure who could take up the slack.

A guy can be logical and knowledgable as all hell within certain areas and just as prone as anyone else to baffling opinions in others.

But even so I am curious now to find out his stance.

I will firmly control my gun as I shoot people.
In all seriousness, there should be some restrictions on ownership of firearms. If you have been convicted of violent crime, you shouldn't get a gun. If you have a mental illness that signifigantly affects your stability, and cannot be controlled, you shouldn't have a gun. If you are an idiot, you shouldn't have a gun, and since everyone in the human race is an idiot sometimes, none of us should have access to a firearm without being able to prove our effective intelligence and common sense on the spot any time we want to use it. If your wife has just left you for your best friend, you really shouldn't have a gun.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: P.S. Shep, I know you want to hijack this thread, but I think we all know what your views are already.

I'm shocked that you think that I would do such a thing.

Anyway, it's good to see that someone is seeing through the BS
that the Brady Bunch puts out. And with that note, I'll sign off!

If your going to commit a cry with a gun, how likely are you to stop simply because it a gun crime? If you intend or are willing to commit murder a gun charge isn't going to make much difference.

Guns make it easier to kill people just like Knives make it easier to kill people, And Spears and Swords,
And Hands and fingers to snap peoples necks

Some things I don't see the people Having Need for(RPGs, Redeye Launchers ), Generaly I'm pretty much fine with guns(Consider those that I own )

And typicaly I find the avarage Gun-control person to be so Logic Flawed its not even funny

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

I'm not?

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.

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.

Indeed, its one of the funnist things about Heavly Armed Racist Groups

Consider the WCOTC, They think 10k untrained armed people are enough to overthrow the US Goverment

Gun control is an unsettleable argument, simply because the people that have no need to shoot anything will always fear the people that have an ability to shoot someone whether they want to or not. Me, I want people to not have the ability to kill me with a finger twitch. I want an environment where being a six-and-a-half foot tall german with a scowl is all the defense I need.

When a couple of punk kids in my neighbour got arrested for carrying guns (just kids playing at being gangsters, but it's worrying in peaceful suburbia), I knew that if they went off, they could kill me without a thought. So I'm afraid of what they could do. And I have the choice of buying a gun to even the odds against gun-toters, or finding an alternate means of protection. And what many people like me end up doing is supporting gun control because they want to be protected from potential violence more than they want anyone to have the personal freedom to have a collection of machine guns or the ability to go out in the woods and absolutely vaporize some deer.

considering that probably half of the WTOC members are uncover federal agents, I would hardly call them untrained.

But more to the point, it surprises me that people think that an entire federation is going to listen to the dictates of one group who happens to kill everyone in the capitol and then issue decrees, its redculous.

Maybe if Bill Clinton had tried to extend to a 3rd term, I would suspect, that marines would be on there way to kill the SOB, but I really don;t consider the US a revolutionairy state. We are very conservative compared to most nations.

On the flip side its not the locals you have to fear

ITS ALIENS!

Just kidding, though a fully armed popluas is the best means of detering forign invasion

One of the Reaons Switzerland was untouched(Along with one or two others) as from 1939-1945, near 100% of the Popluation was armed and traning to Fight anyone who might invade

imo guns suck.
make it illegal to buy them.
nuff said
MAHOK!

I think civilians should only be allowed flintlocks. Good guns, pretty sturdily built if my is any indication, infallible safety lock(Remove flint, it will not fire), and one round at a time will be a small deterrent to shootouts.

Then again, there will always be those able to get illegal guns.

Sorry but Bean happens to be a Gun Nut,

You can take my MK III away after I go on a homcisidal rampage with it and not a moment sooner thank you very much

Mr Bean wrote:Sorry but Bean happens to be a Gun Nut,

You can take my MK III away after I go on a homcisidal rampage with it and not a moment sooner thank you very much

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.

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.

Your not a man until you can take a Flintlock and hit a target though the head from 200 paces considering 100 was the top accurasy on those guns even with latter rifling increased it to 300 paces.

Frankly I prefer placing six .45 AP rounds through a targets head in less than eight seconds from 60 Meters while standing

Meh. You're not a man unless you have a willy out the front of your trousers, but that's another story.

Meh. You're not a man unless you have a willy out the front of your trousers, but that's another story.

Meh your not Evil if you can't shoot that thing off from 1/2 a mile but thats another story

Lagmonster wrote:Meh. You're not a man unless you have a willy out the front of your trousers, but that's another story.

Even THAT isn't true proof with the entire transgender movement.....may the clinics that do their sex changes get bombed by Eric Robert Rudolf. ...

But that's another story...

Lagmonster wrote:And what many people like me end up doing is supporting gun control because they want to be protected from potential violence more than they want anyone to have the personal freedom to have a collection of machine guns or the ability to go out in the woods and absolutely vaporize some deer.

Then I guess we better ban all cars capable of going beyond 55 MPH
and a certain weight limit, along with removing all steering wheels and
turning over control of motor vehicles to a GPS guidance system.

Why? BEcause you could be killed by a starbucks-sipping yuppie
when he losoes control of his SUV and runs you over when he
spills the coffee into his lap.\

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

MKSheppard wrote: Then I guess we better ban all cars capable of going beyond 55 MPH
and a certain weight limit, along with removing all steering wheels and
turning over control of motor vehicles to a GPS guidance system.

Why? BEcause you could be killed by a starbucks-sipping yuppie
when he losoes control of his SUV and runs you over when he
spills the coffee into his lap.\

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

You also forgot the part where this yuppie was also talking on his phone and had a cigarette dangling from his hand as well.

I drive a Toyota Celica, 1989. Little car. Big asshole SUV (and why the fuck call is a UTILITY vehicle? They only cart their fat ass kids around in it) drivers who don't even see other cars on the road. I have had so many near miss accidents because of some idiot in an SUV, usually driving while they are on the phone.

(No offence intended for those of you who drive SUVs responsibly.)

And remember, don't drink and drive. You might spill your drink.