Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 8:52 PM
30 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, JonF, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,169 Year: 9,205/19,786 Month: 1,627/2,119 Week: 387/576 Day: 62/128 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   Guns
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2094 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 241 of 301 (398378)
04-30-2007 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Vacate
04-30-2007 4:05 AM


Re: thread redirection
Hunting rifles - not restricted as handguns should be, but most if not all of your suggestions should apply

vice presidents shouldn't be allowed to have them *snickers*

Any amunition not nessesary to kill a deer or a rat becomes illegal

bears?
i know people who have to deal with those on a daily basis. and they live in big cities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Vacate, posted 04-30-2007 4:05 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Vacate, posted 04-30-2007 11:19 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2094 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 242 of 301 (398379)
04-30-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by cavediver
04-30-2007 3:51 AM


Re: thread redirection
your comments are completely unconstructive. please move on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by cavediver, posted 04-30-2007 3:51 AM cavediver has not yet responded

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4322 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 243 of 301 (398380)
04-30-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by nator
04-30-2007 1:58 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
Huh? Who is telling any gun manufacurer that they have to stop making guns?

We're talking about the sale of guns, not the manufacturing of them.

So we'll make them illegal, but still manufacture domestic guns for... what?

That doesn't make sense. Either way, that's more guns that criminals could get their paws on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 1:58 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 3:41 PM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2094 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 244 of 301 (398383)
04-30-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Modulous
04-30-2007 2:00 AM


Re: thread redirection
if it is incapable of being fired, it is no longer really a firearm and probably shouldn't require a license. there's a difference between that and an individual which has functional but unused arms.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Modulous, posted 04-30-2007 2:00 AM Modulous has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 245 of 301 (398398)
04-30-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 2:09 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
quote:
but how are we supposed to know who's this stupid?

I think we already know that many, many many people are, indeed, this stupid. The 800-900 accidental shooting deaths per year should tell you that. That doesn't even include the number of guns that are stolen out of people's homes or used in suicides because they were not adequately secured.

quote:
Background checks could be improved, by giving the ATF some legitimate funds for starters, and that'd take huge chunk out of this problem. But I fail to see what your proposal is short of banning guns as to ensure that this DOES NOT HAPPEN as you seem to be desiring?

I don't expect accidents and misdeeds to never happen. That is impossible. I am simply proposing that we take steps to reduce the liklihood of them happening. As it stands right now, the laws are far too lax WRT liability. For example, gun owners should be held reasonably responsible for securing their firearms and if they don't, should be held liable if the gun they failed to secure properly is stolen and then used in the commission of a crime.

quote:
Is this a mental block? I know you don't want to ban guns, but you don't want to idiot to blow his head off, or worse yet hurt someone else. Me too; I just don't really see what you're proposing. Do we agree that we need to put funding in the right places, improve background checking, and get the APS (American Psychology... society, I think?) organized to get these crazies some help? If yes, then we're in agreement!

What the mental block is is this:

I say, "Guns in a home greatly increases the liklihood of someone in that home being killed with a gun."

Then you say, "Yeah, but if they didn't shoot themselves, they would just stab themselves in the hand with a pair of scissors instead."

This response, in different forms, is brought out over and over again, and I don't understand how someone can seriously equate a pair of scissors and a gun.

Can't you see that a gun and a pair of scissors have entirely different potentials for lethally wounding someone?

quote:
But are you saying that a criminal is more likely to break in while someone's home than when they're away?

No, I believe the evidence says that people who want to steal your stuff do not want to encounter any people. Sorry if I appeared to say otherwise.

Well, if your views aren't based upon solid evidence, what are they based upon? Preconceptions? Gut feelings? Fear and other emotions?

quote:
How about experience and rhetoric?

Personal experience and rhetoric leads to bias and error in conclusions.

quote:
Okay, Descartes, am I to assume my whole life hasn't happened?

No. But your "whole life" doesn't represent anywhere close to an accurate picture of the reality of the issue we are discussing.

And unless you have been keeping really, really good records of the events in your life, confirmation bias is likely to be rampant in your impressions.

quote:
To deny what I've seen would be living in denial, even though I don't think we really disagree on much. I can't bring myself to think that I'm safer without a gun in my house when my neighborhood goes to shit.

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't. The data I've seen suggests that you are more likely to be shot or kill yourself if you have a gun in your house, and more likely to be burgled, too. The data also suggests that the chances of you using your gun in a legitimate case of self-defense are very small.

quote:
I'm not asking you to fix this problem in a paragraph, but to what degree to you think gun restrictions should be intesnified, and why? I have a feeling I'll agree with 95% of what you'll say.

Please reread message 12 on the first page of this thread and tell me what you'd like me to elaborate on. I may or may not have a fleshed-out answer for you, but I'll do my best.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 2:09 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 8:14 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 246 of 301 (398401)
04-30-2007 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 2:12 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
quote:
So we'll make them illegal, but still manufacture domestic guns for... what?

Hunting. Military and police use. Modified, unfireable guns for collectors.

It's up to the private manufacturers how they wish to respond to changing regulation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 2:12 PM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 658 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 247 of 301 (398413)
04-30-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 12:09 PM


I win!
Sorry, NJ, you blew it.

Hitler disarmed his people.

I invoke Godwin's Law and proclaim myself winner!


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

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 658 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 248 of 301 (398418)
04-30-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 12:09 PM


No Self Defense
Alright, before I address you points NJ, I want to clear something up.

You "pro-shoot people" people keep claiming that you can use a gun for defense against someone.

A hand gun is piss poor defense against a bullet. Look at the size and shape of a handgun. If the attacker doesn't hit the gun directly, they aren't going to be stopped at all.

A better tool for self defense would be a bullet proof vest or an armor plated car.

You don't use a gun for defense, you use a gun for offense. You want to have a gun so that you can KILL someone who you think is going to do you harm. Stop pretending like you aren't looking to KILL someone.

Now, onto NJ's post:

Its common sense that by trying to ban guns, all you really do is ensure the people who don't play by the rules remain armed, while you are disarming those with integrity.

Once again, you've restated the position which no one is stating. No one is saying we take away ALL guns. We are saying it should be HARDER for people to get SOME KINDS of guns.

I keep hearing you and Nator saying that its way too easy to buy a handgun, but neither of you have offered any solutions or defined what "easy" constitutes in this instance

Okay, here's an example.

I live in a state where it is illegal to own a fully automatic Uzi, but I want one so I can kill all the girl scouts on my street. I get in my car, I drive a couple of hours into Arizona and go to a gun show. While there I pay a couple hundred dollars for a non-automatic Uzi, no background check, then from the EXACT SAME VENDOR, I purchase the missing part that's needed to make it fully automatic, and the video of how to put that part back into the gun. I pay maybe 20 bucks for the spring and another 20 bucks for the uzi.

Here's another example:

I live in NYC and have a criminal record for armed robbery. It is illegal for me to buy a hand gun. I go to a store, pick out a gun I want, hand some money to my brother, who hands the money to the store owner. The store owner hands my brother a gun, which he then hands to me.

THAT'S VERY EASY.

Please tell me how you plan on making any difference by taking away people's guns?

Jesus, you people are dumb. I'll say this in caps. NO ONE IS SAYING TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S GUNS.

NO. ONE. IS. SAYING. TAKE. AWAY. EVERYONE'S. GUNS.

I see Joe Gangbanger every day, in every single city I've ever lived in.

Exactly how many gun fights have you been in, if you've been accosted by Joe Gangbanger and his gun EVERY day in the EVERY city?

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

Either arrogent or retard, or both.

This may be news to you, but you don't have "muzzle control" over the handgun that your wife uses to blow your head off. You are MORE likely to the victim of a shot FROM YOUR OWN GUN that from SOMEONE ELSES GUN.

What do you call a person who bitches about something but offers no real solutions

You people are really starting to make me sick. ALL YOU DO is put up a strawman - "You want to take away everyone's guns!" then repeat it adnaseum.

When we reply that that's not what we said, you say "You haven't offered any solutions."

BECAUSE WE"VE SPENT ALL OUR TIME TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU GODDAMN MOUTHBREATHERS WHAT THE FUCKING DEBATE IS ABOUT!!!!

There's NO point in explaining solutions to you, you don't have the first clue what the hell we are talking about.

It's like all you "pro-shoot people" crowd are a bunch of fucking creationists. You say "Scientists want to ban the Bible!" And we say, "um no." Then you say "You haven't proven creation." And we say, "we're trying to answer you question about banning the bible." And you follow it up with "God speaks to me directly!"


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 249 by AdminSchraf, posted 04-30-2007 5:29 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:29 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 280 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 9:19 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 301 (398419)
04-30-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Nuggin
04-30-2007 5:12 PM


Re: No Self Defense
Nuggin, tone it the hell down, or I will be forced to suspend you for 24 hours.

I really don't want to do that, and I can't guarantee that another admin won't do it anyway, but come on. I don't care how frustrated you get, the rule is:

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.

If you freak out, all it does is give your opponent to an excuse to avoid answeing your valid points.

Edited by AdminSchraf, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 5:12 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 6:11 PM AdminSchraf has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 301 (398420)
04-30-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Nuggin
04-30-2007 5:12 PM


Re: No Self Defense
You "pro-shoot people" people keep claiming that you can use a gun for defense against someone.

A hand gun is piss poor defense against a bullet. Look at the size and shape of a handgun. If the attacker doesn't hit the gun directly, they aren't going to be stopped at all.

A better tool for self defense would be a bullet proof vest or an armor plated car.

:rolleyes:

Its for preventative defense...

Someone is less likely to assault someone else if they think that person has a gun.

You want to have a gun so that you can KILL someone who you think is going to do you harm. Stop pretending like you aren't looking to KILL someone.

That's a bigoted statement.

Have you ever shot a gun?

They're really fun. I shot a few fully automatic ones too. Just right into the dirt, it was a blast and I can't wait to do it again. We shot some worn out bowling pins too, btw.

Its also fun to target shoot and watch yourself improve. You get a sense of accomplishment by increasing your skills. And chicks dig guys with skills :D

But you've already conflated pro-gunners with drunk rednecks, so I don't really expect much of a high quality reply, and with all the sarcasm and smart-ass stuff...

But seriously.... preventative defense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 5:12 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 5:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 261 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 6:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 04-30-2007 6:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 251 of 301 (398421)
04-30-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:29 PM


Re: No Self Defense
quote:
Someone is less likely to assault someone else if they think that person has a gun.

Do you have any data to support that assertion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:32 PM nator has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 301 (398422)
04-30-2007 5:32 PM
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.

Didn't Cho shoot himself as soon as he met any resistance from the cops?

If there had been more guns then maybe he wouldn't have gotten so far. Hell, if there had been more guns, he probably wouldn't have started it in the first place.

Easy access isn't to blame.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 6:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 301 (398423)
04-30-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by nator
04-30-2007 5:31 PM


Re: No Self Defense
quote:
Someone is less likely to assault someone else if they think that person has a gun.


Do you have any data to support that assertion?

No, its intuitive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 5:31 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 5:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 265 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 6:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 301 (398425)
04-30-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
04-28-2007 7:44 AM


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.

It might not be what you're defining as "legitimate", but they sure are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot.

Reason: Entertainment.

Have you ever shot a gun?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:44 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 5:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 267 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 6:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 255 of 301 (398429)
04-30-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:32 PM


Re: No Self Defense
quote:
Someone is less likely to assault someone else if they think that person has a gun.

Do you have any data to support that assertion?

quote:
No, its intuitive.

Actually, it is empirical.

As in, it is a testable hypothesis.

How much less likely is it for someone to assault someone if they think they have a gun?

What if both people have a gun? What are the chances then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:57 PM nator has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019