Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Wow, that's probably the most boring link ever! - OniBtw, sorry to not have answered your posts on the other threads. I've been quite busy these days and don't have time to follow an entire debate. I'll just chime in from time to time. I'll get to them hopefully soon if you want to continue where we were.

Depends what you mean by 'American' gun laws, as different states have their own laws, particularly about carrying in public. Like I said a few times already I would like to see citizens have the right to have guns at home and use them in self-defense as long as they're over 21 with no mental illness and no history of aggressive violence or substance abuse. This would automatically exclude about half of the people on the Gurnos I reckon. The rest of the people there are pretty decent folk trying to do their best within their environment. I appreciate things have changed since, but when I was there most of the violence and crime was caused by two gangs for which there was absolutely no deterrent as neither the law, nor the residents could touch them. No, let me rephrase that: the only deterrent was disproportionate violence and the risk of disproportionate violence. There were no guns at the time (not that I knew of anyway) but couple of the local hard men used to employ baseball bats and a samurai sword to enforce their will. Allowing the ordinary folk on the estate to be armed and empowering them to use their guns in their defense would have shifted the balance of power from the junkies and layabouts who ruled by fear to their terrorised victims.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

So let me ask, would you be against states that have lesser gun laws and demand from them that they raise to that basic standard that you list above?If you would... then guess what, you're on the wrong side of the debate, because that's what most gun control advocates in the US are arguing for. Many states in the US don't meet that basic standard that you mentioned. And the criminals know exactly which states those are and purchase their guns legally there. Then those guns get brought back to states that have a stricter gun law and gets sold illegally there.Example:
Now an armed person who is mental ill, buys a gun legally, or buys a gun illegally that was once purchased legally, and uses it to shoot up Virginia Tech. Had ALL the states carried certain laws, neither legally bought guns that are then sold illegally in other states occurs, nor mentally ill people (with a violent past and addiction) get their hands on a weapon.That's all that (at least IMO) is being advocated for. Like I originally stated: "a universal gun control standard for all of the US."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

If guns become mainstream household items as you suggest how do you intend to stop "undesirable" gun carriers in places like the Gurnos having access to guns?In the ghetto areas of the US is there any evidence at all to suggest that guns are restricted to the sort of people you suggest would benefit whilst being denied to those who would be considered the most dangerous carriers of such items? I don't have stats here. I am asking your honest opinion. Who would benefit most from gun availability in the most socially deprived areas of Britain? "Honest citizens" or those who set out to commit crime?In my limited experience "hardness" has relatively little to do with strength or fighting ability per se. It is mainly to do with how far people are willing to take things. The hardest bastards I knew on the Gurnos were not necessarily those who were the most obviously physically intimidating. They were the ones who didn't give a fuck. The ones who didn't care if they got hurt. The ones who had no qualms at all about how much they physically fucked-up others. The ones who had no regard for consequences. Either for themselves or others.The idea of these people with access to guns (and yes some were students of mine) is frankly fucking terrifying. I just do not understand how you think making arms available to people like this in places like the Gurnos will result in anything but more danger, more fear and, ultimately, more innocent deaths.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yeah I know!! I could not find a more interesting one. I only lived there for a couple of years but I still feel a sort of affinity with the place. What can I say.......? I am not sure that we have any obvious unfinished business? But I have my (apparently loosely strapped) aluminium helmet always at the ready just in case!!!!!!

Rhavin... And yes, I'm too lazy too look up the specific post # because I know it was several pages ago closer to the beginning of the thread. If you aren't satisfied with that, I will look it up at a later time.

---

"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle

Ironically there is a naval base here too. I should add that I would much rather be in Portsmouth, UK than Portsmouth, NH. This is not my home of record and can't wait to leave. Well, don't be too apologetic because like Legend I think the citizens of the UK should have the freedom's they had before the gun ban. But I'm just speaking tongue-in-cheek as I'm not a UK citizen so I don't have any say in the affairs of your country. I think even more maddening are the totalitarian states so afraid of their own citizens that they diminsh their rights over it. They do this because they're complicit in crimes against their own people and they fear and uprising from the civilians and sedition by their military. No, I don't believe in any sense that the UK falls in to that category. I'm thinking more along the lines of Iran, North Korea and the now defunct East Germany.

---

"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle

LOL. So your justification for people to give up their basic rights is that you are a scardy cat? You will certainly have to come up with a better reason than "I'm 'fwaida dem guns"And for good measure:

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

No please look it up.Rahvin,
Can you confirm or deny that you stated that defend the rights of assailants over the rights of the victims?Hyro claims you have and I do not remember reading that anywhere.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Oh you make me laugh. Your reason for not allowing everyone to have their own personal nuclear deterrent is presumably what.......?Surely it is their civil right? Surely any restriction on said ownesrship of nuclear weapons is merely a manifestation of your "I'm 'fwaida dem nukes" communist mentality? So Jon are you "fwaida dem nukes"? Or not?Idiot.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi onifre!I did indeed make it back well from Afghanistan. OOC, What would you define as an assault weapon?Would a Semi-Automatic AR-15 qualify as an Assault Rifle? I certainly would hope you would think so... and most would agree that it is one.The next question would be where is the defining line that divides an AR-15 from a Bolt Action Hunting Rifle (The two polar examples)?You are correct in that "where there is a will, there is a way". In a prohibition of 30 round magazines, I could easily steal, or sell my 30 round magazines on the black market, with no one the wiser, thus completely circumventing the system.I could also take a semi-automatic weapon system, and through some simple steps involving crude tools, turn it into a Full-Automatic Weapon System. I could even machine my own weapons, that need only work once. Indeed, you do make a good point here.I must apologize though. In my haste I was not thorough in ensuring my post demonstrated what my thoughts were. I have revised my statement to more accurately demonstrate what I was trying to convey:In creating new regulations and laws, you are really only preventing law-abiding citizens from owning those certain firearms.What preventive measures would you implant to prevent criminals from purchasing guns in such a manner that circumvents laws?--------------------------------------------------------To make it quite clear, I fully believe weapons of any kind are not the issue. It is the fact that some people can rationalize killing groups of innocent people for a perceived wrong they have received from "The World" or any other source.Gun-crimes are really no different than any other crime. It's just guns make a big sound, and are much more capable of creating massive damage, regardless the physical capabilities of the person. Combine this with the fact that most people don't really understand guns, and you have something that is easy to sensationalize.

Hi Jon. I can honestly tell you that I am deeply afraid of people with guns that are/have not:
a) Received proper instruction from a trained professional
b) Of sound mind, and reasoningAren't you?Also, what is this deal with gun ownership being a basic right? Is it because the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms? I am sorry, but rights exist only in our minds, and solely at our discretion to enforce them.I would agree that an armed citizenry is a good thing, but to allow just anyone to have a gun is stupidity.

Wait, you lost me. To whom are you referring? Then please give compelling reasons why a semi-automatic handgun is unreasonable, all the while explaining why law enforecment agencies around the world employ them, to include the UK.We could also go anothor route. There are less than lethal munitions (stingball munitions, rubber fin-stabilized munitions, etc) as well as less than lethal tools (i.e. tasers) that hypothetically could be used. If not handguns, should the general public be allowed to own these types of non-lethal weaponry?It would also do your position some justice to explain why certain types of shotguns and rifles are allowed to be owned by people in the UK, but not anything else. If the capacity to kill is there, and that is the weapons sole function, as you seem to have used this as a qualifier, why then are they legal and others not? I ask this since we are on to the question of reasonability. But that is what's going on. You may say that you think everyone should be able to defend themselves, but not reasonably so, in my opinion. For if you take away the public's ability to defend themselves, you force them to either submit or to engage them in an unfair situation. I don't understand this statement. Can you please clarify? If you didn't have lots of money, how are you able to procure expensive items in order to sell them at a higher rate to make a profit? I suppose thievery is the only real way. We are agree that a gun can be used for defensive or offensive purposes. So this seems like a non-issue. What is weak is irrationality and ignorance toward guns. Think logically about the situation. If massive amounts of guns are already in circulation, there is little to no way to actually stem the flow. However, if you make it legal and yet regulate it at the same time, you now have a way to catch people who use guns criminally rather than defensively.By making guns illegal, all you do is make those who follow the law (the people who would use guns correctly to begin with) now defenseless against the criminals who could care less about the law.These laws prohibiting guns only hurt law-abiding citizens and not the criminals who it was intended to stop in the first place!Now, what about that is weak on my side of the argument, but somehow bolsters the opposition? I'm willing to meet my opponents in the middle. However, thus far their specifics are left wanting. "More gun control," they say. "All right, in the form of what," I reply. They then proceed to propose inventing laws that are already in place. But it is clear from their tone they want more restrictions.And why? According to their arguments, because guns are unsafe and people could shoot themselves or could shoot loved ones. But we could accidentally run over our neighbors kid, but we don't ban cars as a result. We could accidentally saw off our hand with a power saw, but we don't ban power saws as a result. We could accidentally drown in a swimming pool, but we don't ban swimming pools as a result. these are not red herrings, as some have implied. These are questions forcing those who use specious arguments to contront the speciousness of it by presenting one against itself.Life is full of dangerous things and "what-if," hypothetical scenarios, but we have to factor in and filter these things by looking at both the pro's and the con's and weighing the reasonability of it. I'm not saying they desire being defenseless. I'm saying that by removing people's rights to "effectively" and "reaonsably" defend their home and person is making them less safe, not more safe. You do understand that most citizens guns cannot leave their property without having a concealed weapons permit, right? So who's business is it that I should have a gun to protect my private property? All of which are deadly weapons. So why not outlaw everything that has the capacity to kill? In this country, you can't just walk around with a gun legally without a permit which is granted only after an exhaustive background and training. That's within reason. Can you legally carry around knives in the UK for defending themselves since they don't have a right to defend it by other means? I'm only arguing the positions you are making and answering the questions as you present them to me.

---

"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle

Pff... there is another thread here on gun control where nuclear weapon control was brought up. I explained it there, and there you can find it. I have no time to retype everything over and over again. Unlike many members here, I am not content rehashing the same crap Down scarecrow man... down!

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

Well, here's the problem, Oni. There are two conflicting laws working against each other. HIPAA laws make it so that a patient's rights, identity and privacy are protected. The mentally ill fall in to this protected category. Which ordinarily is a very good thing, but like with most things, there should be some exceptions.As we saw during the VA massacre, Cho could have been prevented from purchasing guns legally had a stipulation been in place in where HIPAA does not apply when it comes to reasons of this nature. And the only people that would have access to the information is law enforcement personnel. Even gun store owners shouldn't know why the person cannot purchase a gun, only that the database says they aren't allowed.I for one am all for HIPAA rights, but I think some extenuating circumstances should also be introduced, like mentally unstable people should not be allowed to obtain weapons legally.But if you pass a full background check, have no history of violence or mental illness, what legal justification could prevent someone from purchasing a gun?That was, at the time, the problem. Anything less would have been discrimination against him. But if we append to this law, something like that could be prevented in the future.And that, my friend, is in the spirit of tighter gun control. I for one am all for it, I'm sure you will agree. Then one has to ask why not just do away with states altogether? As it stands, only the US Code, Bill of Rights, and the Uniformed Code of Military Justice supersede a states right to govern itself.

---

"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle