Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 877,941 Year: 9,689/23,288 Month: 704/1,544 Week: 96/322 Day: 16/80 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 301 (397940)
04-28-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nighttrain
04-28-2007 3:14 AM


Re: Militia
Righteo, Americanos, kindly explain to an outsider, why the well-regulated militia section is dismissed, and individual gun ownership reigns supreme.

As an American from the midwest (where 2nd Amendment issues are debated most hotly), it's been my understanding that the pro-gun crowd interprets it to mean that "because it's necessary for private citizens to be asked to form a spontaneous, irregular civil defense force, private citizens shall be allowed to own firearms."

So it's not that you have to join a militia in order to own a firearm; it's that you own firearms so that you can join a militia, if needed.

That said there's never been a civilization in the history of mankind where you didn't have to earn the right to bear weapons. So I think barriers to gun ownership are a good idea. I think sweeping bans on weapons aren't necessary, but I support measures like a national ballistics database and other technological means (including mandated retrofitting of weapons) that would mean that every fired bullet could be matched to a gun and a fingerprint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nighttrain, posted 04-28-2007 3:14 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 4:51 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 301 (398224)
04-29-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jon
04-28-2007 4:51 PM


Re: Militia
You know this is a fallacious statement;

It's actually three statements, and as far as I can tell, none of them are fallacious. The first statement is a statement of fact (and if it were wrong, you would have been able to provide a counter-example, which you did not do.) The second is a statement of my opinion (which cannot be factually incorrect by definition; my opinion is what I tell you it is.) The third is a statement of what I support, which, again, is not something you can disprove.

and you know that someone was bound to point it out to you.

Point what out, exactly? As far as I can see you've just made accusations of unspecified fallacies without defending them.

Explain to me how what other civilizations have done is even half-way relevant in deciding what is right for the here and now.

Only a great idiot would ignore the example of the past when setting policy for the present and future. If you disagree with my position, and you believe that it would be much better for everyone if gun ownership were unrestricted in any way, and that anyone who wanted a gun could procure one instantly and cheaply, then by all means, advance and support that argument.

Otherwise? You'll have to bring something much better to the table than "your argument is fallacious because I say it is."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 4:51 PM Jon has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 301 (398225)
04-29-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 3:16 PM


Re: So, what does the 2nd amendment mean to you?
However, it's a LOT harder to kill someone with a .22 than it is to kill someone with a 9mm.

In fact, I saw a cops episode where a fat kid in jeans was running away from a guy who shot at him with a .22 and it didn't break his skin. I kid you not. It left a hell of a welt, but no penatration.

.22 long rifle? Or .22 pistol?

Did you even know there was a difference? .22 long rifle has enough energy by far to penetrate jeans and blubber; but the worst part is - it doesn't have enough energy to penetrate the other side. So it (or it's fragments) usually bounce around within the skull or chest cavity, shredding brain matter and organs.

.22 is more than sufficient to be lethal - and indeed, many impacts that would be survivable with a through-and-through 9mm bullet become kill shots with the .22.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 3:16 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 10:11 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 197 of 301 (398266)
04-30-2007 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Jon
04-30-2007 12:17 AM


Re: thread redirection
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?

Sure, it's possible; it's also possible that the only reason I want a sample of lethal smallpox is for my "great moments in epidemiology" diarama.

Kindly explain how the desires of collectors - who could just as easily make do with replicas - overrides the government's interest in public safety?

Or were you under the impression that all you had to do here was show up, accuse us of "fallacies" in the most strident possible tones, and you were done? Somebody should register you as a firearm - all you've done so far is shoot your mouth off. (That's a little gun joke.)


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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 200 of 301 (398269)
04-30-2007 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Jon
04-30-2007 12:56 AM


Re: thread redirection
WTF?

But what if death ISN'T the outcome?

Is this your A-game? Or do you think we're idiots?

Presumably, certain death doesn't await literally everyone who performs research on smallpox. That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict ownership of pandemic infectious agents to those authorized by the CDC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Jon, posted 04-30-2007 12:56 AM Jon has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 209 of 301 (398324)
04-30-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 10:34 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
What do you think should have barred him that on any given day, prior to this event, you wouldn't have ordinarily said that he was being discriminated against?

You're playing this up as a "gotcha", which you can do, I guess, but I wanted to step in and point out that you've raised a very legitimate point. If we're going to grant the use of firearms for personal defense - and their utility in that respect is an unsettled point, I think - then we can't simply disqualify people for self-defense simply because they have a mental illness. Women who have been grappling with depression, for instance, are at a much higher likelihood of being sexually assaulted.

If the only people we're going to allow to defend themselves with guns are the people who don't really need a gun to defend themselves, what's the point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 10:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:00 AM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 212 of 301 (398333)
04-30-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by nator
04-30-2007 11:00 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
People with depression are also at a much greater risk of committing suicide.

I'm sensitive to that, and that's an argument against the use of firearms as a self-defense measure; but American society seems to have spoken on that point, and accepted that handguns are appropriate tools for defense. (For right or wrong, I'm unconvinced by either side. There's risks with having guns, but there's a lot of instances where they are successfully used to defend oneself and others. If they couldn't serve that function I doubt that police and soldiers would use them.)

Maybe we just need to let people kill themselves, if they want. I'm not sure what justification we have in preventing adults from doing so. If we'd let someone commit assisted suicide because of a painful, chronic, terminal disease, why not a painful, chronic mental illness?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:00 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:18 AM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 214 of 301 (398339)
04-30-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by nator
04-30-2007 11:18 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
All the stats I've seen show that for every one woman who uses a gun in self defense, over 300 are killed with a gun.

Sure. But there is that one woman. And it's not like her act of self-defense killed those 300 other people.

It's not worth it.

I guess, if I had to be the person to tell that woman that she had to be raped or killed because 300 other people would be killed if we let people like her own firearms, I'd want to see more evidence that a prohibition on handguns would prevent those 300 deaths.

But you've done a great job of providing evidence, so I'm not asking for more. But even with what you've presented I can't yet conclude that there's no merit in the idea of handguns for personal defense.

I'm not talking about police and military use, and never have been.

I am talking about civilian, residential use.

I'm not trying to grapple with strawmen, I assure you. But civilians do find themselves in the same situations that soldiers and police do, and it's not unreasonable to suggest that they might benefit from some of the same tools.

I perceive that, being on the fence, I look like I'm on the other side, from both sides.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:18 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:35 AM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 217 of 301 (398343)
04-30-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by nator
04-30-2007 11:35 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
I do not advocate for banning them altogether, just for much stricter regulation on what kinds are available and stricter purchase and storage requirements.

Yes.

You don't need much of a gun to defend yourself, and you certainly don't need a military-style weapon.

I'm not saying we need full-auto assault rifles, of course, but there's almost no difference between the sidearms issued to soldiers and police and the handguns you can go in and buy as a private citizen.

I disagree with you on hollow-point bullets, though. While they definitely have a higher "kill value", I'd rather private citizens (and cops) were using hollow-points than slugs for two reasons:

1) They're much less effective against body armor, such as that worn by police;
2) They don't penetrate cover very well. So a shot that misses is more likely to be stopped by a wall, instead of passing right through and hitting an unseen bystander. Similarly, a shot that hits its target is much less likely to pass out of the body and hit someone else ("overpenetration.")

Impact-expanding ammunition is more dangerous for the target and much safer for everybody else. Even police-trained shooters hit their target only once out of every six shots or less in the field, so that seems like a net gain.

I'll also remind you that between 800 and 900 people die from accidental shootings every year in the US.

Fair enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:35 AM nator has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 301 (398351)
04-30-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
I mean, past a background investigation and possibly a psychological profile, what should bar anyone from purchasing a handgun?

But Schraf and others have pointed out that it's still too easy to buy a legal firearm without even undergoing the background check, through gun shows and other loopholes.

That's what they mean when they say it's "too easy."

Maybe Joe would, but my muzzle control is a little better than that.

I doubt it. If you can rate more than 15% accuracy during an actual gun battle, you're a far better shot than the nation's top police marksmen. (Anybody can drill a paper target - they don't shoot back.)

What do you call a person who bitches about something but offers no real solutions, only platitudes?

Are you just not reading posts? "Close the gun show loophole" sounds like a pretty good solution, for starters. You're the one who seems more interested in the NRA's rhetoric than actual evidence for your position.

You think Cho would have just said, "Oh well... Guess I'm screwed." Hell no. He would have purchased one on the black market or he would have went berserk with a machete.

Right. I'm sure an asian dude from suburbia has black market connections. And perhaps indeed he "goes berserk with a machete." He injures two people before he's wrestled to the ground or hit with a chair or something. (The human clavicle makes it fairly hard to deliver a fatal blow with a chopping, overhand attack with something as light as a machete.)

I think its incredibly obtuse, unrealistic, and unfair to blame the NRA for Cho's disposition, rather than look at the American subculture that is feeding these kinds of inequalities.

The subculture is male sexual entitlement. Do you think it's coincidence that the attack started with the murder of a woman whiom Cho felt had "spurned" him? No, of course not. The culture is the culture of patriarchy, the culture that says that women are objects for the consumption of men, the culture that reinforces "traditional values" of female servitude.

Hey, sounds like the NRA's mailing list! What a coincidence that gun culture and patriarchy go so hand in hand. What a surprise that the contours of the gun debate follow almost exactly the contours of the abortion debate and evolution debate. What a surprise indeed that NJ takes a pro-gun, pro-NRA stance in addition to his opposition of the science of evolution and reproductive freedom.

It's all related, NJ. If you want to know why a guy would pick up a gun and execute 33 people because everybody was getting laid but him, look around at your next gun show.

Made Cho accountable for his own actions.

Cho's dead, in case you hadn't heard. Nobody can "make him accountable for his actions." If you want to watch us all take turns pissing on his grave, I guess we can do that, but how much time do we have to waste telling you what a misogynistic asshat the guy was before you're convinced we're not overlooking his part in his massacre?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 8:33 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 301 (398352)
04-30-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kuresu
04-30-2007 12:22 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
Hell, Trotsky fled the USSR and they still got him.

With a mountain climber's axe, incidentally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kuresu, posted 04-30-2007 12:22 PM kuresu has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 301 (398355)
04-30-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 12:58 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
The knowledge that 99% of American homes would have no firearms

Surely that's just about already true? Maybe not 99%, but how many American households have handguns in them?

Criminals don't manufacture guns, and the "street" doesn't conjure guns wholesale from thin air. The reason that criminals are able to procure illegal handguns so easily is because guns are being constantly manufactured to fill the legal demand.

The loss of the legal gun market, and presumably programs to interdict or buy up the street's supply of firearms, would leave a lot less guns available for criminal procurement.

But I know you're much smarter than that, so I guess our only beef on that lies in what % of the world do we keep our guard up to? I'd put it around 40% or 85%, depending on which of two cities I find myself in.

Well, you're not a woman. I imagine that in Schraf's case she probably begins to "keep her guard up" when she walks out her front door. If you view yourself as being in danger, then by all means take steps to reduce that danger; it's not at all clear that carrying a firearm is a way to do that. Do you carry one, by the way? If not, isn't that because you know on some level that the level of personal defense you'd gain isn't worth the risks and costs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 12:58 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:20 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 232 of 301 (398365)
04-30-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
You're forgetting something--the US isn't the only place that manufactures guns, and criminals traffic firearms from other countries in even now.

To the contrary. I'd say that it's much easier to get a kilo of cocaine into the country than a single handgun.

Furthermore I'd imagine that most non-military guns in the world are made in the US. Am I wrong?

Lots of people think teaching kids self defense as a society would promote violence, so that doesn't happen. Well, might as well allow them to defend themselves somehow.

I'd say that cell phones with video cameras constitute a great defense for young people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:20 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:34 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 268 of 301 (398452)
04-30-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
Do you mean the 'anti-theft' commercial? The camera phone may get somebody convicted, but it isn't that great a weapon. You're much better off wearing a heavy boot, carrying a swiss army knife, or, against a bladed weapon, using your belt or your shoe.

As a child? Fending off an adult attacker? A weapon is useless (not to mention, children are the last people who should have access to weapons). But a few high-profile cases of pedophiles sent away for a long time on the basis of cell-phone video evidence would be an incredible deterrent, I would think.

Realistically, a certain number of crimes are going to occur no matter how people are armed. Taking steps to ensure later prosecutability would be a great step towards repairing the inevitable damage of crime.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:34 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 7:52 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 279 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 9:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 272 of 301 (398459)
04-30-2007 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 8:14 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
Oh, and their POTENTIALS aren't different-- They can both kill something. What you meant was the difference in LIKELYHOOD and ACCESSIBILITY of their full potential.

You keep drawing these bizarre equivalences. If guns aren't a significant technological improvement in terms of kill power, then why were they invented?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 8:14 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 05-01-2007 1:35 AM crashfrog has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020