Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 301 (398103)
04-29-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jon
04-29-2007 3:36 AM


Re: Lies on top of lies
quote:
Sure, at first that might have been the reason for inventing the gun, but that doesn't mean someone now cannot get one for a totally different reason. Maybe they are a gun collector. I mean, what you are saying is similar to asserting that the only reason anyone would want to collect”own”a silver dollar would be to spend it. They get their dollar, and sometimes take it out to look at it... show it off, etc. Well, can they not also do the same with the gun? Does their only reason for getting it have to be to use it for its intended purpose?
They can collect it, but it should then be permanently rendered incapbable of firing ammunition.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 3:36 AM Jon has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 301 (398106)
04-29-2007 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jon
04-29-2007 4:44 AM


Re: Sexual Assualt vs Rape vs Hand gun
quote:
Personally, if someone started grabbing me in a sexual manner, and I had a gun, and the legal right to do so, I'd put a bullet between their eyes faster than they could blink.
Wow.
See, it's people like you that give lots and lots of credence to the gun control argument.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 4:44 AM Jon has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 301 (398112)
04-29-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by macaroniandcheese
04-29-2007 10:28 AM


Re: You, on the other hand, are a freedom fighter?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're going to need bigger guns.
quote:
i know. which is why i've decided to start opposing all size- or action-based gun control.
But it won't matter, Brenna.
Unless you are suggesting that every private citizen and every town and city spend billions of dollars arming themselves to the teeth, it simply won't matter.
Any invading military will not be stopped. The US military certainly won't be stopped.
Liberalizing gun laws will only get more people killed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 10:28 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 11:39 AM nator has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 301 (398114)
04-29-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-26-2007 12:30 AM


But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.
Where do we draw the line?
Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.
I've never really understood the argument from the anti-gun lobby for any number of reasons. Its so easy to blame it on the gun itself rather than where the blame really lies-- the person wielding it incorrectly.
Its a strange dichotomy. Without guns there would be no one shot to death, and yet, we seem to forget that murder was around long before their inception. If there is one thing that could be said of humans, its that they are incredibly resourceful. Prisoners don't have access to weapons, but that doesn't stop them from fashioning them from their ingenuity.
So why blame the gun when the gun has no will of its own? The argument, which is incredibly specious in my estimation, is that he bought the gun the perfectly legally, therefore the system is broken. But the fundamental problem is that we are bound by the understanding that there are very real consequences for using guns inappropriately. Cho knew it. But he did it anyway.
When we buy a car we know that we are not supposed to use them for vehicular homicide. But occasionally that happens anyway. When it does happen, should we blame the manufacturer or should we blame the person?
Buying the weapon maybe perfectly legal, but murder is perfectly illegal. We all know that. Cho knew it. So I say stop trying to place everywhere other than the obvious.
Making guns illegal doesn't stop crime because taking it away from people who use it for protection are now disarmed. The bad guys don't play by the same rules. The bad guy will always find a way to arm themselves. So why are you going to arm the bad guy but disarm the rest of us and allow us to be subjected to their tyranny?

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-26-2007 12:30 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 11:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2007 12:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 125 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 12:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 110 of 301 (398115)
04-29-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by nator
04-29-2007 11:30 AM


Re: You, on the other hand, are a freedom fighter?
Liberalizing gun laws will only get more people killed.
i'm willing to consider well-aimed psychological and arrest restrictions with waiting periods--as long as there is a concerted effort to ensure that there is low risk of abusing the system by falsely labeling political enemies (a little conspiracy theory never hurt anyone). it should be hard to get weapons. of course i'm all about mandatory public service, including military service. it just probably isn't compatible with the particular brand of personal choice which is protected here. but i think a couple years of mandatory service could positively affect the lives and perspectives of americans.
Unless you are suggesting that every private citizen and every town and city spend billions of dollars arming themselves to the teeth, it simply won't matter.
not really. just that we bring back local armories, especially in border areas and around the capitals and big cities. it has been clearly demonstrated in every major disaster in the last 6 years that the federal government is incapable of responding properly to domestic issues (and clearly not so well to foreign ones either). we need to be able and prepared to respond--for our own safety.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 11:30 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 12:06 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 301 (398117)
04-29-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
04-29-2007 11:34 AM


quote:
Without guns there would be no one shot to death, and yet, we seem to forget that murder was around long before their inception.
It is the ease of killing from a distance that is the issue with guns, juggs.
It is quite difficult, more intimate, and far more risky to the attacker to stab or bludgeon a victim to death.
quote:
But the fundamental problem is that we are bound by the understanding that there are very real consequences for using guns inappropriately. Cho knew it. But he did it anyway.
Cho was insane.
He lied on his application to buy the guns, saying that he was never involuntarily committed to a mental instution.
Why on earth should we depend upon the person wanting to buy the gun to be truthful?
quote:
When we buy a car we know that we are not supposed to use them for vehicular homicide. But occasionally that happens anyway. When it does happen, should we blame the manufacturer or should we blame the person?
Cars are not manufactured for the sole purpose of killing other people.
quote:
Making guns illegal doesn't stop crime because taking it away from people who use it for protection are now disarmed.
Can you show statistics that support the contention that many crimes are prevented with guns used in self-defense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 11:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 12:18 PM nator has replied
 Message 127 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 12:34 PM nator has not replied
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 2:31 PM nator has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 112 of 301 (398124)
04-29-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Jon
04-29-2007 4:05 AM


Re: Lies on top of lies
Me:
You don't buy a machine gun to plant flowers, you buy it to kill people.
Jon:
Prove that statement, or RETRACT IT! I will refer you to Forum Rule #4 for further information on what this means.
You want me to prove that you don't buy a machine gun to plant flowers. Very well.
Planting flowers typically necessitates digging a hole in the ground. It also requires placing the plant in said hole without doing it undo damage. Further it requires watering the plant.
A fully automatic assault rifle with armor piercing bullets would do a spectacularly bad job at 1) digging a hole, 2) gently placing the plant in the hole and 3) watering the plant.
Therefore, you would not buy that gun for the purpose of planting flowers.
I really can't believe that you need this sort of stuff explained to you.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that we are in the coffee house, and if you want to go down the "rule lawyer" road, I'll happily review ever single one of your 600+ posts in order to make you explain in excrutiating detail what you mean by even the simplest of comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 4:05 AM Jon has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 113 of 301 (398125)
04-29-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Vacate
04-29-2007 4:17 AM


Re: Lies on top of lies
Careful when you use words like "any". Jon will ride you for 20+ posts for it.
By the way, hasn't anyone ever heard expressions like, "There's no reason to go to NYC if you arent going to visit the statue of liberty."
I suspect that will be Jon's next cruisade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Vacate, posted 04-29-2007 4:17 AM Vacate has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 114 of 301 (398126)
04-29-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by macaroniandcheese
04-29-2007 11:39 AM


Re: You, on the other hand, are a freedom fighter?
quote:
just that we bring back local armories, especially in border areas and around the capitals and big cities. it has been clearly demonstrated in every major disaster in the last 6 years that the federal government is incapable of responding properly to domestic issues (and clearly not so well to foreign ones either). we need to be able and prepared to respond--for our own safety.
What do you think the rates of familiarity with guns and knowledge of gun safety are now compared with the days where armories were common?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 11:39 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 12:14 PM nator has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 115 of 301 (398127)
04-29-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jon
04-29-2007 4:44 AM


Re: Sexual Assualt vs Rape vs Hand gun
I'd put a bullet between their eyes faster than they could blink.
THIS is exactly the problem.
Because you have a gun in this scenario, you ramp up your agression to unwarrented levels.
It is unreasonable for you to execute someone for so slight an offense.
Prove that your use of lethal force is valid in all circumstances or...
RETRACT IT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 4:44 AM Jon has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 116 of 301 (398128)
04-29-2007 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Vacate
04-29-2007 7:42 AM


Re: You, on the other hand, are a freedom fighter?
tell me what the American public intends to do once they decide their goverment has become too fascist?
This is a hopeless question. Basically the further you are away from the ocean, the more likely you are to embrace this form of fascist regime.
Even though both coasts recognize that the current Government is out of control, the vast middle of the country is unable to formulate such thoughts for themselves.
These are the people who STILL agree that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that the corner grocier should absolutely stop selling "yellow cake"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Vacate, posted 04-29-2007 7:42 AM Vacate has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 117 of 301 (398130)
04-29-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by nator
04-29-2007 12:06 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are a freedom fighter?
much lower. but that's a solvable problem. with the reinstitution of local armories, there should be a local armory club which seeks to educate the public on gun safety. the issue of gun safety, like the issue of sex ed is one we should be active in, rather than ignoring or banning and hoping it will go away, especially because of the (still unnumbered, thanks to nuggin) incidence of "accidental" killings. should it be part of the public school program like sex ed is? probably not. but people concerned with this should probably be behind some kind of public education campaign.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 12:06 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 12:19 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 128 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 12:37 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 118 of 301 (398131)
04-29-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
04-29-2007 11:34 AM


I've never really understood the argument from the anti-gun lobby for any number of reasons. Its so easy to blame it on the gun itself rather than where the blame really lies-- the person wielding it incorrectly.
If the UN allowed all nations to develop or buy nuclear weapons, and then Iran blew Israel up. We would obviously blame Iran for being crazy, but we could also say that this situation would have been much less likely to happen if all nations did not have the right to buy or develop nukes.
Sure Iran could still invade Israel with ground troops, but that is a harder battle. They could try and destroy Israel with swords or baseball bats or shoes. The nuke really helps though, which is why we are so keen to prevent nations that don't have them from getting them while at the same time understanding the power of the deterrent.
Its a strange dichotomy. Without guns there would be no one shot to death, and yet, we seem to forget that murder was around long before their inception.
Without nukes, nobody would be nuked. We don't forget that war existed long before.
Prisoners don't have access to weapons, but that doesn't stop them from fashioning them from their ingenuity.
Right, and crazy world leaders will try and secretely develop nukes, succesfully sometimes. Just because some nations are able to break the law, that doesn't mean we should overturn the law!
So why blame the gun when the gun has no will of its own?
Nobody really blames a lump of metal. People blame its prevalence and ease of access combined with the rich-poor divide, population density, cultural attitudes, social structure in general etc etc.
The argument, which is incredibly specious in my estimation, is that he bought the gun the perfectly legally, therefore the system is broken. But the fundamental problem is that we are bound by the understanding that there are very real consequences for using guns inappropriately. Cho knew it. But he did it anyway.
Here's the thing. I have no idea how to buy a gun. I've never seen a handgun outside of law enforcement in the UK (I've seen a couple of shotguns, but I know some farmers and poachers so...), and that is not a result of a sheltered life.
Sure I know a couple of names of criminal families, but I don't know how to go about getting hold of a gun without getting noticed by the wrong kind of people (or law enforcement).
So, my ability is to get a rifle or a shotgun at the very best if I was very very motivated to get a gun. Those are not weapons sprees are generally made of.
Would it be sane to sell hand grenades to people, would we question the prevalence of high explosives if a nutter used them in a shopping mall?
The question is obviously one of drawing a line. If you still do not understand the argument, its time to do some more listening. I have a friend who is very much pro-gun. I understand his reasoning, but disagree with where he thinks the line should be drawn.
Making guns illegal doesn't stop crime because taking it away from people who use it for protection are now disarmed.
Nobody suggests making something illegal will stop crimes. It will reduce some crimes, it might increase other crimes. The debate is whether banning certain or all guns will save more lives than having them legal will. Given the complex nature of socialogical studies, it is rarely a simple answer and anyone who thinks it is as simple as 'banning guns will make crime victims defenseless therefore we shouldn't' is missing a very big point.
As a side note, I was once shot at in the US by somebody whose name and address were known to me (the police didn't bother to follow it up though since nobody was hurt and they had plenty of serious gun crime to keep them busy). I was later introduced to a home defense revolver which I thought was sensible. In a place like the US, I can understand why someone might want a gun for protection - but some guns are clearly overkill. You only need a few rounds of ammunition to serve as a deterrent against almost all crimes you are likely to want to defend yourself against. The ammunition does not have to be designed to be deadly either. As long as a gun provided adequate threat of death or serious injury its deterrent and defensive purposes will be fulfilled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 11:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 3:05 PM Modulous has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 119 of 301 (398132)
04-29-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by macaroniandcheese
04-29-2007 9:58 AM


Bren, clear things up
Okay Bren for 3 posts in a row now, I have had no idea what you are refering to.
This is a very long thread with a lot of topics. If you want to jump in and snipe, that's fine, but can you at least cut and paste some quotes in so we know what you are talking about?
Apparently, from this last fragment of a post, you are disagreeing that there is a difference between a drunk hillbilly and a member of the National Guard. Care to elaborate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 9:58 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 12:23 PM Nuggin has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 120 of 301 (398136)
04-29-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by nator
04-29-2007 11:48 AM


Cho was insane.
there is no proof that he was insane or unreachable. unless you have access to his personal file (and i'm fairly certain that it has not and will not be released. i don't think privilege ends just because he's dead), you have no way of knowing this. further, this in no way necessarily precludes him from knowing that what he did was wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 11:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 12:31 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024