StarDestroyer.Net BBS

1. A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. A person can kill just as efficiently as a screw driver or baseball bat, you just dont have to be as close to use it.

2. The majority of guns are used for:
a) Self Defense
b) Hunting/Sports
c) Collecting and As Entertainment (I.E. Goin out back and plinking)

3. Guns are not what we need to try to control as much, we need to try to control the criminals themselves.

4. Gun control imminently wouldnt work, criminals would do as they have always done to buy guns to use in crime, they would go to the black market or steal from other criminals.

In other words, when guns are outlawed, i guess ill just be a criminal

And, I dont dial 911, i dial .357,

Once again, I feel I must state what the rest of you seem to be ignoring... commercially available guns should be regulated, in a manner commensurate with their potential for doing harm, but that does nothing to mitigate the fact that guns are easy to make -- ammo too! certain classes of firearms are so ridiculously easy to homebuild (shotguns for example) that I for one am amazed that they arent the criminals weapon of choice! but then again, criminals are almost invariably stupid, which is a good thing

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: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.

I did a term paper in college 2 semesters ago; and from my reasearch (historicly and otherwise), gun control is a boo-boo.

Look at what has ahppened in Britain, Canada and Australia after the guns have been taken away; crime rate has gone up. Nothing to deter the criminal minded...

Lagmonster wrote:No question about the danger, but you've skewed your way around the point. Guns are intended to kill people.

That is completely and utterly incorrect. Guns are intended to fire bullets at a target which is usually a living animal. This may or may not be a human.

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).

It may be a consumable resource, but anyone with access to lead, charcoal, dung and sulfur can make their own. Sure it won't work good, and will probably destroy modern firearms, but a matchlock isn't exactly a hard thing to build. I mean, you can get exact instructions on the process and chemical quantities to make black powder in a high-schooll Encyclopedia.

aerius wrote:...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.

I would like to, without intent of flaming, be shown where it was considered that guns were invented simply for the thrill of making pieces of metal fly around at supersonic speeds. I'm fairly sure that they were created to kill people. Specialized rifles exist exclusively for hunting and sharpshooting, but MOST GUNS are designed and built for the purpose of use against hostile humans.

You seem to be arguing intent by the owner: That is, arguing that people do not buy guns with the intent of blowing someone's head off, but motive of the buyer is irrelevant in this particular aspect of the gun control argument. The inventors and manufacturers of submachine guns and pistols aren't considering their application on a collector's mantle or a redneck's beer-can shooting contest. They're considering how effectively they can be used to drop live targets that could be human (the next time you go hunting with a glock, let me know; it doesn't matter what they're designed to kill, only that they are designed to kill). I suggest again that many commercially available guns are intended for use against people. They may not be USED that way 100% of the time, but that's not the consideration most anti-gun people make when they say that gun control should be tighter.

EmperorMing wrote:Look at what has ahppened in Britain, Canada and Australia after the guns have been taken away; crime rate has gone up. Nothing to deter the criminal minded...

Gun control doesn't automatically mean taking away guns. It means imposing controls on who can own the guns and under what circumstance.

[quote="Lagmonster]I would like to, without intent of flaming, be shown where it was considered that guns were invented simply for the thrill of making pieces of metal fly around at supersonic speeds. I'm fairly sure that they were created to kill people. Specialized rifles exist exclusively for hunting and sharpshooting, but MOST GUNS are designed and built for the purpose of use against hostile humans.

You seem to be arguing intent by the owner: That is, arguing that people do not buy guns with the intent of blowing someone's head off, but motive of the buyer is irrelevant in this particular aspect of the gun control argument. The inventors and manufacturers of submachine guns and pistols aren't considering their application on a collector's mantle or a redneck's beer-can shooting contest. They're considering how effectively they can be used to drop live targets that could be human (the next time you go hunting with a glock, let me know; it doesn't matter what they're designed to kill, only that they are designed to kill). I suggest again that many commercially available guns are intended for use against people. They may not be USED that way 100% of the time, but that's not the consideration most anti-gun people make when they say that gun control should be tighter.[/quote]


If we're talking about military firearms then yes, these guns are made to kill people. Pistols/handguns I disagree with, even though they are reponsible for the majority of firearms related fatalities. Handguns in my opinion are self defense tools, made for stopping a human in his tracks and possibly killing him if you hit a vital spot. They are made to be easily concealed and drawn so that a person can defend himself on the street. Unfortunately criminals know this so the handgun has become their prefered weapon since it's so easy to carry and hide, not because it kills well.

That leaves hunting rifles and shotguns, which are the most popular firearms with the possible exception of handguns. These firearms are made for hunting animals or shooting targets, the fact that they also kill people quite nicely is besides the point, they weren't designed with that purpose in mind. These aren't "specialized rifles" as you put it, they're ordinary general purpose ones, "specialized rifles" would be what the military uses for killing enemy soldiers, and what SWAT teams use for killing criminals.

aerius wrote: That leaves hunting rifles and shotguns, which are the most popular firearms with the possible exception of handguns. These firearms are made for hunting animals or shooting targets, the fact that they also kill people quite nicely is besides the point, they weren't designed with that purpose in mind. These aren't "specialized rifles" as you put it, they're ordinary general purpose ones, "specialized rifles" would be what the military uses for killing enemy soldiers, and what SWAT teams use for killing criminals.

Uhm, problem. The deadly .50 cal rifles that the anti-gun crowd likes
to harp about were not created for the military in the first place. They
were designed for the CIVILIAN market in the early 1980s. The military
merely picked them up much much later.

The Beretta 92 was on the civilian market here
in the States long before it was adopted by the
US military.

The AR-15 was a private venture long before it was adopted as the
M-16, and the list goes on......unlike Europe, the history of
american firearms is that of the civilian crowd always being AHEAD
of the military....but the stupid "assault weapons" ban that
restricts development of new "homeland defense rifles" to the
military, along with the 1986 Class 3 Ban on manufacturing
has destroyed our civilian arms industry. Nothing new is coming
out nowadays except for retreads of the .45 The only real significant
advances in firearms have come from foreigners nowadays....

FN P-90 SMG, FN Five SeVeN pistol, etc etc The good stuff now is illegal
because of stupid Bush I era bans on the importation of "evil" stuff
from overseas......

So no Semi Auto G-36s or P-90s unless HK or FN sets up a factory here
in the States...

FYI, in the 50s and early 60s, you could buy a 20mm anti-tank
rifle and have it shipped to your doorstep complete with as much
ammo as you wanted by the US Postal Service.......ammo that could
penetrate the side and rear armor of tanks......and NOT ONE CRIME WAS
CAUSED BY THESE WEAPONS.

ACTUAL MAGAZINE AD FROM 1957



"Hurls a 1/3 pound shell up to 4 miles....will cleanly penetrate 2 inches of armor plate....."

AND NOT ONE CRIME WAS COMMITED WITH ONE!

Wow I'm calling right now!

*Later, Doh damn laws

EmperorMing wrote:Look at what has ahppened in Britain, Canada and Australia after the guns have been taken away; crime rate has gone up. Nothing to deter the criminal minded...

Completly false. Although gun control has gone far to extreme here guns were never prevelent enough to be even factored into a criminals thinking, I have never, ever, seen a gun here in Britain except in the hands of the police or armed forces. Crime has gone up for entirely different reasons, mainly ineffective policing and a pants criminal 'justice' system. Guns have nothing to do with it.
Personally I don't like the idea of widespread gun ownership and think that tough controls need to be in place. And don't think of me as being left wing either, I was a member of the Army Cadet Force and throughly enjoyed firing rifles and even a light machine gun (now that was fun!).

Soulman wrote:either, I was a member of the Army Cadet Force and throughly enjoyed firing rifles and even a light machine gun (now that was fun!).

I have one in my attic. Bren guns are fun but the sight just plain sucks.


Say, anyone want to guess with the limit is for civilian owned guns in Saudi Arabia?

Sea Skimmer wrote: 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..

Ah, the "give every black grandmama an M-16" solution?

Soulman, you claim to have indepth knowledge of the criminal pyshce, would you care to explain what nefarious deeds you have been up to, coming accross this knowledge?

phongn wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: 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..

Ah, the "give every black grandmama an M-16" solution?

Funny, I've never heard of that one... and I subscribe to Ludicrous Solutions Illustrated...

Mr Bean wrote: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

No, those are just 10k future biological weapons test subjects.

Bioweapons test subjects? But that's so... impersonal. Can't we use them for hockey pucks instead?

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:

phongn wrote:
Ah, the "give every black grandmama an M-16" solution?

Funny, I've never heard of that one... and I subscribe to Ludicrous Solutions Illustrated...

Give every black grandma a shotgun and let them clean house for awhile.

phongn wrote:

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:

phongn wrote:
Ah, the "give every black grandmama an M-16" solution?

Funny, I've never heard of that one... and I subscribe to Ludicrous Solutions Illustrated...

Give every black grandma a shotgun and let them clean house for awhile.

Why only the black grandmas? My Irish grandma's a real workaholic when it comes to cleaning house, especially with shotguns.

Because black grandmamas are more likely to live in areas that would maximise their effectiveness

phongn wrote:Because black grandmamas are more likely to live in areas that would maximise their effectiveness

I was asked to reply to this point via PM:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: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?

That's a tricky one (I never said it would be easy). But I do think that there should be:

A) mandatory training courses in basic safety, proper use, etc (like we do for cars)

B) lifetime weapons ban for anyone with a criminal record

C) weapons ban for anyone with a long rapsheet for aggressive driving (if someone can't be responsible with a car, I don't see why we should expect him to be responsible with a gun).

D) Some sort of minimum education level (for example, high-school dropouts are definitely too stupid to own guns).

There's no panacea, but honestly, there are a lot of people walking around out there who are far too stupid or reckless to own firearms. You can't make it impossible for them to get guns, but that doesn't mean you should make it EASY.

Darth Wong wrote:I was asked to reply to this point via PM:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: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?

That's a tricky one (I never said it would be easy). But I do think that there should be:

A) mandatory training courses in basic safety, proper use, etc (like we do for cars)

Actually, there are several groups that have such courses. Picking the best one and making it mandatory certainly isn't unreasonable, as long as the fee for such a thing can be kept within reasonable limits.