Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


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 181 of 301 (398235)
04-29-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by macaroniandcheese
04-29-2007 9:17 PM


quote:
and yet no one has suggested their "comprehensive policy plan,"
Except that I did, in my very first post in this thread, on the very first page.
Message #12
"If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there's a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying"
quote:
i think that depends on the drug and whether you take to little and make yourself sick or too much and reject it.
Those were the odds according to Dr. Hemenway's work.
You know what the first sign that someone is suicidal often is?
They attemt suicide.
quote:
maybe it's the first sign people notice, but i really doubt it's the first actual sign.
The point is, the notion that "suicides can be prevented with counselling" is simplistic. People who's suicidal symptoms are not noticed by others are not likely to get counselling.
quote:
i think they are. just saying "this isn't a toy" can do a great deal.
It didn't work for many of the boys in that study. It took less than 15 minutes alone in a room for some of them to find a gun, handle it, and pull the trigger. Nearly ALL of those boys had gun safety training.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 9:17 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 10:52 PM nator has not replied
 Message 185 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-29-2007 11:24 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 182 of 301 (398236)
04-29-2007 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by macaroniandcheese
04-29-2007 9:17 PM


Re: Bren, do you know what a gun is?
Bren, I've deleted the content of two of my needlessly harsh replies because in this thread you are actually making sense.
No one is suggesting that we ban all guns. The whole point of this thread was to point out that we have to draw a line someplace.
The NRA would like that line to be somewhere just short of an M1 Abrams tank.
Rosie ODonnell would like it to be just over a straw with a spitball in it.
Neither extreme is going to work.
The fact of the matter is, it is currently too easy to get weapons in this country. The weapons are more lethal than they have ever been. And the restrictions we place on the weapons go completely unenforced.
The system has to change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 9:17 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-29-2007 11:10 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 186 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 11:28 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 183 of 301 (398237)
04-29-2007 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by nator
04-29-2007 10:14 PM


Except that I did, in my very first post in this thread, on the very first page.
see, i did see that and forgot about it. i apologize. there's been a lot of fighting and a lot of being mean and that first page just got lost.
Those were the odds according to Dr. Hemenway's work.
i know, i's being difficult.
The point is, the notion that "suicides can be prevented with counselling" is simplistic. People who's suicidal symptoms are not noticed by others are not likely to get counselling.
but many people do demonstrate symptoms that can be identified if people know what to watch for. my ideas of national policies of mental improvement don't really belong in this thread. but it goes along with my thoughts on using a well funded education system to instruct on racism, sexism, sex ed, depression, and so forth.
It didn't work for many of the boys in that study. It took less than 15 minutes alone in a room for some of them to find a gun, handle it, and pull the trigger. Nearly ALL of those boys had gun safety training.
i don't expect it to work in isolation. but i'd hope it would be more useful than that. boys are so difficult

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 10:14 PM nator has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 184 of 301 (398242)
04-29-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 10:15 PM


This is how communication works
See, now you're debating like a rational human being. There were points where none of us were. That said, though, I replied to you in post 147, and while there were irritable parts because some statements I replied to seemed to me like an indirect attack on me, as well as my family, it comes to a very similar conclusion to what you just gave at the end of the post. I would appriciate a reply, to the very last part at least.
I think I agree with you for the most part, the only exception being the handgun ban (if that is, in fact, what you're suggesting)... which seems like we might have to agree to disagree.
Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : Had to make clear the things I didn't know for sure

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 10:15 PM Nuggin has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 185 of 301 (398248)
04-29-2007 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by nator
04-29-2007 10:14 PM


666!!! EVIL POST!!!!
It didn't work for many of the boys in that study. It took less than 15 minutes alone in a room for some of them to find a gun, handle it, and pull the trigger. Nearly ALL of those boys had gun safety training.
Did they put the wrong end of the barrel to their occipital before pulling the trigger?
Oh, and in the 'Humor III' forum, there's a 300 trailer that I think you might have missed. If God has an imagination beyond our reality, then it goes something like what's in that Youtube clip.
Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : I just realized that my avatar is the face of evil until I find something else worth replying to.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 10:14 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 186 of 301 (398249)
04-29-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 10:15 PM


thread redirection
The whole point of this thread was to point out that we have to draw a line someplace.
well that's easy enough to say.
where do you propose we draw it?
i say we turn a new page in this thread and go in that direction. schraf reminded me of her ideas.
message 12
1) I do not think there is a legitimate reason for anyone other than the military to be able to own a firearm that is capable of firing off rounds in very rapid succession.
2) The gun lobby has shamefully and almost always effectively fought any reasonable restriction or requirement or delay to gun ownership.
3) If gun ownership is to be allowed, I think that people should have to be licensed to own one, such that they must:
-be at least 21 to own a gun
-undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check
-give proof of residency
-successfully complete a firearms safety course and test.
I also think there needs to be stricter liability laws for how people store their guns and ammunition.
I also think there needs to be stricter laws with regard to child safety locks; as in, all guns sold to private citizens in the US should have them.
my policy suggestion was listed here seems to not have been in one post (unless i managed to get it in the wrong thread somewhere) and is a little hard to follow, so i'll relist here. some of my suggestions are recently informed. (i was talking to my fiance about going to classes and a range and he said something about how expensive guns are and linked a few... i was not convinced that expensive is the right word.) i've generally avoided the reality of gun ownership out of lack of interest, so i'm learning a bit. that's always useful. anyways. on with the shit.
-increased taxes on weapons and ammo.
-more effective background searches (integrated, national database).
-mandatory psychological evaluation.
-easily available gun safety courses for non-owners.
-mandatory safety and "sensitivity" training (for want of a better word) for owners as part of a waiting period in addition to whatever may already be required for licensure. (laws, what is defense...)
-mandatory child-proof trigger locks (i really thought that was already in place).
-mandates on safe gun storage (proof and inspection of proper facilities required for purchase. i hesitate to suggest periodic checks because to be effective, they'd have to be unannounced and that is an undue burden, and separately illegal. is someone going to waste time issuing a warrant to inspect a gun cabinet unannounced?).
-local infrascructure and mandatory training for interested non-regular forces to eliminate the need for excessive private collections for "freedom fighters" like me volunteer fire department, meet volunteer local militia.
-increases waiting period for second and higher parity purchases, say an extra month tacked on for the parity level (one for the second gun, two for the third...). this should be tempered with good behavior bonuses. afficianados who demonstrate that they only use weapons in ranges or responsible and incident-free hunting should not be overly punished with this. there should be a max extra time (say whatever double would be, maybe).
i'm sure i could think of a few more things.
what would you like to add?
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 10:15 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 12:11 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 204 by Vacate, posted 04-30-2007 4:05 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 187 of 301 (398255)
04-30-2007 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Jon
04-29-2007 2:22 PM


jon writes:
Will you deal with the real issues: minority oppression, institutionalized inequality, racism, negative stereotypes; or will you try to fix it on a superficial gun control/ownership level simply to remain ignorant of the real problems you refuse to address?
If this has already been adressed by others, I am sorry. Still reading page 9 of 13!
I completely agree with you that these issues are very important. Reality, however, takes a bite out of humanities attempts to live up to high ideals. These problems are not going away. I would like to see these problems get fixed as much as any other, but the reality is that racism, inequality etc will not be cleared up within the next few hundred years.
Guns are not resposible for all the US mahem, you are correct. What you need to address is that guns, in the hands of a person affected by racism, inequality, or just some run of the mill mental disorder enable these people to kill fast, and possibly in large numbers. Most importantly it enables them to kill without any training whatsoever.
Jon writes:
Why get rid of the weapon when it's the person”and ultimately society as a whole”that is the problem?
I ask you this - how do you propose to get rid of all the problems in society when all attempts thus far have failed? What is the simplest solution to the problem? Would you give a baby a land mine, and then teach him to speak, reason with him/her, explain the dangers, and hope that during this process nothing bad will happen?
Is it normal to suggest the most difficult road to a better society while the simplest solution looks you right in the face? Nobody, for any reason, needs an assualt rifle. Society is full of crazy people and your best suggestion is to arm them to the teeth and supply councelling for their issues in society.
Edited by Vacate, : Found one of many spelling errors

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 2:22 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 188 of 301 (398256)
04-30-2007 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by macaroniandcheese
04-29-2007 11:28 PM


Re: thread redirection
I'd put tough liability laws in place for people who don't secure their weapons, as in people who's guns are used to commit a crime after they are stolen out of their house because they weren't properly secured can be charged with criminal negligence. Same with parents who don't secure their guns and a child is accidentally shot or commits suicide; the gun owner should be liable if they didn't secure their firearms properly.
I'd also close the gun show and private sale loopholes that exist that make it easy to sell a gun with no paper trail and no criminal check. In general, requirements of paper trails of sales of guns should be required.
It is currently quite easy to remove or obscure the serial number on most guns, so changing that would be good.
The sale of armor-piercing and hollow-point ammunition to civilians should be banned. They have no non-military purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 11:28 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Jon, posted 04-30-2007 12:17 AM nator has replied
 Message 196 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 12:34 AM nator has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 301 (398257)
04-30-2007 12:14 AM


”SOLUTION”
I would like the anti-gunners to tell everyone their stance, as it seems there is confusion with what they want. They claim that us pro-gunners”whom they've called hillbillies, people with small genitalia, people who feel inadequate”folk are creating the straw man of 'anti-gunners want to severely reduce the freedoms of people to own guns and/or want to severely increase the restrictions on obtaining guns.'
They claim this is not their stance, but I haven't seen them make their stance clear, so I would like them to do so now. Also, I would like them to list each of the specific set of data that they wish for us pro-gunners teenie-weenies to produce. Once they list it, we will be able to gather it up in an organized manner. Also, once they've done this, the pro-gunners in the thread will be able to do the same and tell their stance and explain exactly what it is they want from the other side in regards to the evidence.
I hope this helps reorganise the debate,
Jon

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by kuresu, posted 04-30-2007 12:17 AM Jon has replied
 Message 193 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 12:22 AM Jon has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 190 of 301 (398258)
04-30-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Jon
04-30-2007 12:14 AM


Re: ”SOLUTION”
They claim that us pro-gunners”whom they've called hillbillies, people with small genitalia, people who feel inadequate
strawman.
and our stance is quite clear--unless you haven't been paying attention. read some of nator's posts. that should clue you in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Jon, posted 04-30-2007 12:14 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Jon, posted 04-30-2007 12:19 AM kuresu has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 301 (398259)
04-30-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by nator
04-30-2007 12:11 AM


Re: thread redirection
They have no non-military purpose.
Other than to collect. Of course, this was brought up before, and you all just wiggled out of it by turning the argument a little. Tell me once again why it isn't totally possible for someone to want such an item for the sole purpose of adding it to their collection?
Do you have any proof that these things have only one purpose, and that it is impossible for people to find other”non-lethal”purposes for these things?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 12:11 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 12:33 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 197 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 12:42 AM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 301 (398260)
04-30-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by kuresu
04-30-2007 12:17 AM


Re: ”SOLUTION”
GOD DAMN IT! That was exactly the kind of post I figured you people would make! Why is it always 'go back and reread 188 posts'? Can't you just restate your damn opinion? I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ, you went through the God Damn trouble of making a fucking post anyway! It could've just as well had some substance to it!
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by kuresu, posted 04-30-2007 12:17 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by kuresu, posted 04-30-2007 12:22 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 193 of 301 (398261)
04-30-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Jon
04-30-2007 12:14 AM


A much simpler solution
How about you support ANY of your arguments with evidence?
I've already done that with mine. I've also already stated my position. Many times.
If you want to know what it is, read post #12, on the very first page of the thread.
This will be the second time I've asked for statistics, studies, and any objective numbers or research to support your side of the argument.
quote:
They claim that us pro-gunners”...”folk are creating the straw man of 'anti-gunners want to severely reduce the freedoms of people to own guns and/or want to severely increase the restrictions on obtaining guns.'
No, I'd say that's about right.
The strawman the pro-gun folks on this thread have consistently raised is that we want to ban ALL guns.
That is not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Jon, posted 04-30-2007 12:14 AM Jon has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 194 of 301 (398262)
04-30-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Jon
04-30-2007 12:19 AM


Re: ”SOLUTION”
you only have to read upthread a little (or is that downthread?). OR go back to the very first page.
Or, you could just actually pay attention and remember what's been said. Not my fault you didn't pay attention.
and calm down. after all, it's just a post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Jon, posted 04-30-2007 12:19 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 195 of 301 (398264)
04-30-2007 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Jon
04-30-2007 12:17 AM


Re: thread redirection
quote:
Tell me once again why it isn't totally possible for someone to want such an item for the sole purpose of adding it to their collection?
I do not deny that people may desire to collect things.
But if someone wanted to merely collect spent nuclear power rods, or surface-to-air missles, or samples of various strains of smallpox, should the mere fact that they want to collect them make any difference at all to if they should be allowed to?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Jon, posted 04-30-2007 12:17 AM Jon has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024