StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Azeron wrote: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.

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.

Darth Wong wrote:

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.

Azeron wrote: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.

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

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

Darth Wong wrote:

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?

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.

Darth Wong wrote:
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.

Azeron wrote: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.

johnpham wrote: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.

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