StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lagmonster wrote: 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.

Some stats first before I get to things. Number of gun related fatalities in Canada in '97 1037, including about 800 suicides and 100 criminals killed in police or gang related shootouts. Number of car fatalities in Canada in '96 3420. In my country over 3 times as many people get killed by cars as by guns, and at last check there's over 2 million guns and gun owners in Canada.

With that out of the way the "guns are intended to kill people" statement is quite wrong. Guns aren't made for killing people, they just put holes through whatever one chooses to shoot at, whether it be paper targets, animals, or people. Though it does make killing people easier, a gun will not make you point it at another person and shoot him. The intention rests with the person using the gun, not the gun itself, inanimate objects do not have wills or intentions of their own.

As for my views on gun control, if a person doesn't have a criminal record, demonstrates proper safety and usage knowledge, and is mentally competant, he own and carry any freakin' firearm he wants, anywhere and anytime he wants.

Well im ok with limiited gun control. The problem is that a lot of people would use the gun not as a last resort and that manslaughter would probably go up because of spur of the moment rage.

I'm not against people carrying guns, but I think they should check their background to see if they might explode at any time while they are carrying the gun and just take it out and start shooting before thinking about it and calming down.

I have a clean criminal record and a solid psychological profile. Where's my fucking MG42?

Seriously, I tend to agree with Wong. I used to be much more on the Left of this issue, but I've become more centered lately.

aerius wrote:

Lagmonster wrote: 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.

Some stats first before I get to things. Number of gun related fatalities in Canada in '97 1037, including about 800 suicides and 100 criminals killed in police or gang related shootouts. Number of car fatalities in Canada in '96 3420. In my country over 3 times as many people get killed by cars as by guns, and at last check there's over 2 million guns and gun owners in Canada.

With that out of the way the "guns are intended to kill people" statement is quite wrong. Guns aren't made for killing people, they just put holes through whatever one chooses to shoot at, whether it be paper targets, animals, or people. Though it does make killing people easier, a gun will not make you point it at another person and shoot him. The intention rests with the person using the gun, not the gun itself, inanimate objects do not have wills or intentions of their own.

As for my views on gun control, if a person doesn't have a criminal record, demonstrates proper safety and usage knowledge, and is mentally competant, he own and carry any freakin' firearm he wants, anywhere and anytime he wants.

Those are nice stats, but where did you get them? Can you provide the source so I can read them for myself?

ArmorPierce wrote:Well im ok with limiited gun control. The problem is that a lot of people would use the gun not as a last resort and that manslaughter would probably go up because of spur of the moment rage.

I'm not against people carrying guns, but I think they should check their background to see if they might explode at any time while they are carrying the gun and just take it out and start shooting before thinking about it and calming down.

They do. Gun registration/licensing is already a reality in this country, afaik.

"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."

Believe it or not, I think it's the other way around!

Democrats usually want to pass laws designed to protect the people, but it limits our freedoms at the same time. Doesn't this sound like the Democrats have no faith in Americans for being responsible enough not to need a law to tell them how to behave? For instance, passing gun control laws or making them more strict.

Republicans usually want to limit the role of government by getting rid of laws. Doesn't this sound like the Republicans have faith in Americans for being responsible enough not to need a law to tell them how to behave? For instance, eliminating gun control laws or making them more passive.

I guess you can look at it both ways. However, I tend to see it this way instead of the book's way.

EDIT: I should also state my gun control view. I believe the gun control laws as to what Americans are allowed to have currently are fine. However, I do believe that it should be easier to legally purchase a firearm, because it encourages people to buy them on the black market as it is now. This means that the government does not know this person has a firearm, if this person is capable of owning a firearm, and even if the firearm is legal or illegal. Thus leaving it in the dark about everything. Chances are that if you were going to buy it on the black market, you would say "Well, I might as well buy a fully-automatic M4 assault rifle over a semi-automatic .22 rifle if I'm buying it illegal anyway." Plus, the government is losing money in registration fees, license fees, license renewal fees, taxes on your weapon, charging you for pens and pencils if you don't have one at the offices, etc. But then again, all of that would disappear if the laws were changed... (thinks about this)

before I get to my main point however, let me start by saying that I beleive that guns, like any other major device that may be used to cause harm on a large scale -- ie cars, boats, planes etc -- need to be regulated to an extent. basically I would regulate such items based upon the amount of energy/unit of surface area they can deliver to a target, with there being a minimum threshold for liscensing requirements.

that being said, the single greatest problem with gun control (ie barring or severely limiting their ownership by private citizenry en masse) is that guns are a very well known piece of technology... lets face facts -- the gun genie has been out of the bottle for the better part of a millenia now, and most of the tools and materials needed to build them are available from any typical neighborhood hardware store. with current PC capabilities, even the design of such weapons is a simple matter of getting the right CAD and chemistry software -- if you want to make a gyrojet weapon, it is even simpler than that. I am quite confident that most of the denizens of this board could effectively design and develop their own gun concepts, many of which might even be better than what is available commercially.

once the genie is free of the bottle, you cant put it back in. moderate regulation thru liscensing -- as per vehicles -- is key to public safety, and not some misguided attempt to get rid of the device itself.

Yes, that old Line
Guns don't kill people I do

Sure take my MK III away? Fine I praticed with Shriukin and Throwing Knives enough I could still relabily put one though your throat at twenty feet

Failing that I have enough Akido and other Marital Arts for Acient Ninja Hand to Nose into Brain, Or Acient Ninja Neck snap if I wanted you gone

I could beat you to death with a blunt object, Be it a baseball bat, A Stick or my hand...
I could go on a large stabbing spree to...

Seriously as people knew 10K years ago, its not that hard to kill somone

Mr Bean wrote:I could beat you to death with a blunt object, Be it a baseball bat, A Stick or my hand...
I could go on a large stabbing spree to...

Seriously as people knew 10K years ago, its not that hard to kill somone

Then again, as some have pointed out, you don't hear about a lot of drive-by stabbings

Guns do make it far too easy to kill someone. Having said that, the genie is out of the bottle, as somebody else pointed out, so regulation is about the limit of what we can reasonably do (although I would point out that regulating the sale of AMMO would be more effective than regulating the sale of guns; a gun can work for decades, but ammo is a consumable resource, and must periodically be replenished).

There is a certain amount of hippie-liberal trust required to walk the streets with no defenses whatsoever, and we don't seem to have it. Better to mistrust everyone and carry a gun so you can defend yourself, eh? But the biggest problem with guns is not how YOU or I would use them. The biggest problem with guns is that if they're going to be regulated, they should be regulated MORE strictly than automobiles, not less.

Let's put it this way: think of the last time you drove through heavy traffic. Think of the number of totally irresponsible, near-mindless assholes who either cut you off, nearly caused a fatal collision with some wild cowboy maneuver, or road-raged all over somebody's ass. Now ask yourself what would happen if every one of those idiots had a loaded, concealed firearm in a shoulder holster. Can you seriously tell yourself that these people think before they act?

Or, to put it another way, Arminius can probably get a driver's license. Would you let him buy a gun, if you had a choice?

Guns don't kill people, idiots and assholes do. Ideally, we would have "idiot and asshole control", but we don't. That's why a lot of people prefer gun control instead.

Darth Wong wrote: Then again, as some have pointed out, you don't hear about a lot of drive-by stabbings

Ah, but what about drive-by disagreements?

Darth Wong wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:I could beat you to death with a blunt object, Be it a baseball bat, A Stick or my hand...
I could go on a large stabbing spree to...

Seriously as people knew 10K years ago, its not that hard to kill somone

Then again, as some have pointed out, you don't hear about a lot of drive-by stabbings

We'll there must be some reason the Federal government put restriction on bayonet lugs.

Regulating the sales of ammo is sort of a good idea. Unless they already do that...LOL. But let's assume they don't for the sake of the argument. Anyone with a gun, legal or illegal, can go into a firearm store and purchase ammunition for it. Now, if the desk clerk required them to have his or her firearms license to purchase ammo, anyone without a license is stuck. Unless they result to robbing the store or getting a fake ID.... Now the types that have illegal firearms probably couldn't give a shit about robbing the store for ammo or killing innocent bystanders in the way...so maybe this isn't as great an idea as it seems to be. It just puts the people in the store at risk.

Darth Wong wrote: Guns do make it far too easy to kill someone. Having said that, the genie is out of the bottle, as somebody else pointed out, so regulation is about the limit of what we can reasonably do (although I would point out that regulating the sale of AMMO would be more effective than regulating the sale of guns; a gun can work for decades, but ammo is a consumable resource, and must periodically be replenished)

They DID try that. It was part of the 1968 Gun Control Act Rammed thru
congress after JFK's death. It made you have to go thru all kinds of hoops
to get ammo. But despite 20 years of strict paperwork, IT PREVENTED NOT
ONE CRIME, and that part of the '68 GCA was repealed by Ronald Reagan
in '86 with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (which also turned Class
3 weaopns into things only the government could have made, but
that's another story...)

EDIT: and to buy ammo in ILLNOIS, you must have a Firearms OWners Card,
which effectively restricts it....but that doesn't seem to work, since Chicago
has such a high crime rate.....

Ah, well there ya go.

Darth Wong wrote:Let's put it this way: think of the last time you drove through heavy traffic. Think of the number of totally irresponsible, near-mindless assholes who either cut you off, nearly caused a fatal collision with some wild cowboy maneuver, or road-raged all over somebody's ass. Now ask yourself what would happen if every one of those idiots had a loaded, concealed firearm in a shoulder holster. Can you seriously tell yourself that these people think before they act?

Oh great, the entire "We can't trust people because they act like
assholes" fallacy.

How about this? Instead of regulating guns and knives, lets
just pass the "ASSHOLE PREVENTION ACT OF 2002."

Every citizen shall be required to take enough PROZAC to choke
an elephant daily. Since everyone will be so mellowed out, there
shall be no crime at all.....

And not taking your PROZAC is punishable by a 10 year prison
term....yeah, that'll do it......

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Let's put it this way: think of the last time you drove through heavy traffic. Think of the number of totally irresponsible, near-mindless assholes who either cut you off, nearly caused a fatal collision with some wild cowboy maneuver, or road-raged all over somebody's ass. Now ask yourself what would happen if every one of those idiots had a loaded, concealed firearm in a shoulder holster. Can you seriously tell yourself that these people think before they act?

Oh great, the entire "We can't trust people because they act like
assholes" fallacy.

How about this? Instead of regulating guns and knives, lets
just pass the "ASSHOLE PREVENTION ACT OF 2002."

Every citizen shall be required to take enough PROZAC to choke
an elephant daily. Since everyone will be so mellowed out, there
shall be no crime at all.....

And not taking your PROZAC is punishable by a 10 year prison
term....yeah, that'll do it......

Assuming the population doesn’t OD, that might work.

Or we could just issue guns to every last person and simply allow citizens to shoot on sight anyone who commits a crime.

That’s basically the logic behind nuclear deterrents and its worked for 53 years. People question then need for ABM.. Though thats another topic..

I don't like this give everyone guns idea....sounds like COMMUNISM to me....

(Looks around at everyone suspiciously with TOS Star Trek music playing in the background whenever something important happens.)

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:I don't like this give everyone guns idea....sounds like COMMUNISM to me....

(Looks around at everyone suspiciously with TOS Star Trek music playing in the background whenever something important happens.)

I think I see your logic, only communists treat all people equally, so giving everyone a gun would be communist. By the same reasoning, equal rights concerning other things like voting are also communist.

BRING BACK SLAVERY, IT AMERICAS ONLY HOPE TO REMAIN FREE FROM THERED MENACE!!!!!!!

*brain melts from excessive anti logic infusion*

Sea Skimmer wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Let's put it this way: think of the last time you drove through heavy traffic. Think of the number of totally irresponsible, near-mindless assholes who either cut you off, nearly caused a fatal collision with some wild cowboy maneuver, or road-raged all over somebody's ass. Now ask yourself what would happen if every one of those idiots had a loaded, concealed firearm in a shoulder holster. Can you seriously tell yourself that these people think before they act?

Oh great, the entire "We can't trust people because they act like
assholes" fallacy.

How about this? Instead of regulating guns and knives, lets
just pass the "ASSHOLE PREVENTION ACT OF 2002."

Every citizen shall be required to take enough PROZAC to choke
an elephant daily. Since everyone will be so mellowed out, there
shall be no crime at all.....

And not taking your PROZAC is punishable by a 10 year prison
term....yeah, that'll do it......

Assuming the population doesn’t OD, that might work.

Or we could just issue guns to every last person and simply allow citizens to shoot on sight anyone who commits a crime.

That’s basically the logic behind nuclear deterrents and its worked for 53 years. People question then need for ABM.. Though thats another topic..

Yes, arm the whole populace with guns. Great way of natural selection. You'd hope all the idiots with anger-management issues would quickly remove themselves from the gene pool.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

MKSheppard wrote: Oh great, the entire "We can't trust people because they act like
assholes" fallacy.

How about this? Instead of regulating guns and knives, lets
just pass the "ASSHOLE PREVENTION ACT OF 2002."

Every citizen shall be required to take enough PROZAC to choke
an elephant daily. Since everyone will be so mellowed out, there
shall be no crime at all.....

And not taking your PROZAC is punishable by a 10 year prison
term....yeah, that'll do it......

Assuming the population doesn’t OD, that might work.

Or we could just issue guns to every last person and simply allow citizens to shoot on sight anyone who commits a crime.

That’s basically the logic behind nuclear deterrents and its worked for 53 years. People question then need for ABM.. Though thats another topic..

Yes, arm the whole populace with guns. Great way of natural selection. You'd hope all the idiots with anger-management issues would quickly remove themselves from the gene pool.

Exactly. Not only does it cut down on crime, after the first half hour anyway, but it also enhances the human gene pool for the long run.

I think I see your logic, only communists treat all people equally, so giving everyone a gun would be communist. By the same reasoning, equal rights concerning other things like voting are also communist.

Oh, come on. You can't say you thought I was serious.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

I think I see your logic, only communists treat all people equally, so giving everyone a gun would be communist. By the same reasoning, equal rights concerning other things like voting are also communist.

Oh, come on. You can't say you thought I was serious.

How the could you thinkIwas?

Darth Wong wrote:Then again, as some have pointed out, you don't hear about a lot of drive-by stabbings

Guns do make it far too easy to kill someone. Having said that, the genie is out of the bottle, as somebody else pointed out, so regulation is about the limit of what we can reasonably do (although I would point out that regulating the sale of AMMO would be more effective than regulating the sale of guns; a gun can work for decades, but ammo is a consumable resource, and must periodically be replenished).

There is a certain amount of hippie-liberal trust required to walk the streets with no defenses whatsoever, and we don't seem to have it. Better to mistrust everyone and carry a gun so you can defend yourself, eh? But the biggest problem with guns is not how YOU or I would use them. The biggest problem with guns is that if they're going to be regulated, they should be regulated MORE strictly than automobiles, not less.

Let's put it this way: think of the last time you drove through heavy traffic. Think of the number of totally irresponsible, near-mindless assholes who either cut you off, nearly caused a fatal collision with some wild cowboy maneuver, or road-raged all over somebody's ass. Now ask yourself what would happen if every one of those idiots had a loaded, concealed firearm in a shoulder holster. Can you seriously tell yourself that these people think before they act?

Or, to put it another way, Arminius can probably get a driver's license. Would you let him buy a gun, if you had a choice?

Guns don't kill people, idiots and assholes do. Ideally, we would have "idiot and asshole control", but we don't. That's why a lot of people prefer gun control instead.

So what's your view on how we keep guns out of the hands of idiots and assholes without denying them to people like you or I?

Because you treated your response as if you were being sarcastic about anyone else's serious POV. Like Azeron's. hehehe

Heh, Heh, Heh.

Seriously, we got along just fine with NO NATIONAL GUN CONTROL at all
until 1934.

Oh, and guess what the Gun control laws were like before then?

In the south, the nations first gun control laws were passed
during reconstruction, limiting the guns you could buy/own legally
to a Colt Navy Revolver....which was expensive, which meant no
former slaves could afford buying it for protection...