The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3246 of them)

lolololol i forgot what a menk roger adultery is.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 08:19 (nineteen years ago)

ok that is exactly the sort of thing i wanted to read....tomorrow morning. thanks, v. i'm very interested in the epidemiology of issues like this, and am a little embarrassed i came to the table with so few numbers

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 08:25 (nineteen years ago)

np

The time and money and manpower that would have to go into dismantling an entire American industry would be far better spent doing likewise to the social/institutional/whatever structures that are in place to engender widespread violent behavior

so one thing people have been arguing lately is that civic engagement in america is quite low compared to countries where gun violence / homicide rates are much lower (you could do a similar comparison across neighborhoods in america). what constitutes civic engagment would be things like involvement in church, home ownership, higher education, employment, membership in civic groups, etc etc ... i have a strong intuitive feeling that these things are even stronger dis-incentives to gun violence than draconian gun laws or a well-armed populace.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 08:38 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, but whilst waiting for hearts to change, changing the laws which the society has plainly shown itself to not be able to deal with would be a sound start. Dealing with the symptoms is essential, but tackling the problem in the first instance is part and parcel of that.

― The Boyler, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:04 (nineteen years ago)

What are criminals afraid of? Burglar alarms? Dogs? Nope. They're afraid of some housewife in a bathrobe with a loaded and cocked .357.

This may very well be the case, the point is that statistically the housewife has a lot more chance of shooting down a family member (mistaking it for a criminal or in a domestic fight). Guns are mostly used on family members and/or friends. Not criminals. Secondly you'll have to be a god damn good fucking shooter if you come across a burglar cause he is has the advantage of knowing he's doing something wrong and shooting is a lot of easier with that pre-knowledge. And hey did you learn shooting in the dark with adrenaline pumping through your body?

I'm not in favour of guns specifically for that reason. And, I know, one has knives in the house so in a domestic fight you could use that (or any other object) but it's not the primary use (so people think less of it as a knife to kill people) and it's less deadly (unless you of course chuck the knife right in the heart or whatever).

That said, it's not easy to reason with a culture that has incorporated guns to such a degree. I realize that it's impossible to erase that part. But one can try. Shootings like the one that happened yesterday is much rarer here. It happens but when (and this is very rarely) it is a smaller scale. I wonder why...

― stevienixed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:09 (nineteen years ago)

But I'm repeating what has been said.

― stevienixed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:11 (nineteen years ago)

i'm never understood why pistols have been so obsessively focused upon; what about the other stuff the police have? i'm thinking specifically here of NIGHT VISION. why should they get to have it and we don't? if an intruder breaks into my house in the middle of the night i'd be a lot better off with NIGHT VISION and a baseball bat than my normal eyes and a gun! or, imagine that the police are pursuing me across a field for a crime i didn't commit. at night, they can basically grab me at will because they can see me and i can't see them. with night vision, i would know exactly where to run to escape them! a gun's not going to do me any good, because killing cops is not exactly a recommended course of action, no matter how innocent or guilty you are. yet the home safety boosters insist on GUNS all the time, rather than the other hardware that would make a much bigger difference to their safety, and which is monopolized by the police!

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:37 (nineteen years ago)

Fact is I like guns. I like owning them. I like shooting them. I like how they look and smell. And it's my right to stockpile them if I want to. I have a CCW permit and can legally carry a gun in 39 states.

haha dude. without even getting into the gun control thing, just from a style point of view, taking that much pleasure from deices that are designed to kill people (in the case of handguns) is just straight-up creepy. it's like having a big collection of guillotines in your back yard or something. *shiver*

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

i'm never understood why pistols have been so obsessively focused upo

We've trief to focus on bricks as killer objects but it was laughed at.

― stevienixed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

Statistically, doctors are 9,144 times more dangerous than gun owners.
NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Joke/gag/trollage/laff riot/whatever, this is actually the single most stupid thing I have ever seen posted on ilx/possibly the internet.

I was curious about where this thread would go (didn't have high hopes, of course). As someone who has (a) handled a variety of guns before, over several visits to a variety of shooting ranges, (b) been violently attacked - at gunpoint - and had loved ones violently attacked, and (c) come to the personal conclusion that I wouldn't actually feel safer with a gun around at all, I'm always curious to see if there are convincing arguments out there.

Come to find Roger A./Manalishi sounding genuinely frightening at several points, spouting nonsense statistics and kneejerk constitution citations, and offering nothing of any real substance.

i.e. Show me someone who can attempt to speak reasonably and intelligently about why liberals "have it wrong" about gun control without sounding like a SCARY FUCKING MANIAC.

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:50 (nineteen years ago)

i have fired automatic weapons. it was gay.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:00 (nineteen years ago)

Hang on, did Roger say that 1,500 people are accidentally killed by guns every year? That is a STAGGERINGLY high amount of deaths that don't need to happen.

What happens if Roger's beloved wife defends her home with a gun, but is disarmed and murdered with her own weapon? Her fault? His fault? Or America's, for ORDERING him to carry? (obv as a liberal I realise it can't be the responsibility of the poor misunderstood burglar who suddenly had to defend his own life)

Dear America, plz change your constitution. I am appreciating the irony in Roger's absolute trust in something that's itself a change in the constitution.

― Mark C, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:02 (nineteen years ago)

I'd be okay with more people owning guns if I thought that they took the same precautions and had the same respect for guns that Manalishi has.

But you know, they don't. Growing up in the South, I saw tons of people that had no business owning guns, but could legally carry a concealed weapon.

― Jeff, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:04 (nineteen years ago)

"To take the high road and answer the insufferably sarcastic questions upthread: Gun safety classes. The younger the better.

Teach evolution. Teach safe sex. And teach gun safety.

Replace the obligatory 'Arbor Day' lesson plan if neccessary. Reading, writing, arithmetic and personal responsibility.

Seems simple enough to me."

rejected sketch from 'studio 60'

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:09 (nineteen years ago)

we should also teach children karate

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:14 (nineteen years ago)

Handkarate laws! Concealed karate!

(er... ignore)

― StanM, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:16 (nineteen years ago)

children should also be taught general battlefield medicine; if their mother accidentally shoots off her own hand they need to be calm and professional so they can treat her properly

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:19 (nineteen years ago)

I'm all for the continued evolution of this thread into total comedic clusterfuckage, but I am still hung up on this whole thing. At the end of the day, the Libertarian gun thing is just seriously selfish cuntery, right? A lot of foot-stomping about how "it's my RIGHT to have these guns... and I LIKE them!"; whilst paying absolutely no attention to (or brushing aside) the fact that there is a massive part of the country with issues ranging from incredibly poor mental health to serious economic and educational disadvantage that should not have easy access to guns (but clearly do, as my own personal experience can testify to)? Do the likes of Roger think that's someone else's problem?

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:44 (nineteen years ago)

selfish cuntery

aka libertarianism

― ledge, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:46 (nineteen years ago)

Show me someone who can attempt to speak reasonably and intelligently about why liberals "have it wrong" about gun control without sounding like a SCARY FUCKING MANIAC.

Milo and river wolf are doing a good job of this, I think.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:49 (nineteen years ago)

(To clarify: I think Milo is stating decent reasons for why being able to legally carry a gun isn't automataically a bad thing and river wolf is doing a good job of arguing that most antigun legislation doesn't address the problems that are leading to gun violence in the first place.)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:52 (nineteen years ago)

http://static.zoovy.com/img/2bhip/W179-H140/the_right_to_keep_and_arm_bears_black_belt_buckle.jpg

― The Boyler, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

No, you're right... I suppose I meant "show me someone who believes we should do absolutely nothing about retricting guns who can attempt to speak reasonably and intelligently..."

River Wolf says things like while ppl will never stop killing each other out of rage, getting rid of guns would probably seriously curb the number of people who are successful., which one would assume means he is for gun control on some level.

Obviously River Wolf's big picture scenario - fix the problem at the fucking source for once - is right on.

(xpost)

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:06 (nineteen years ago)

Fucking hell, that sentiment in bold type is off, too. Obviously I mean "someone who doesn't think we need to change things as they are now."

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

I think Milo is stating decent reasons for why being able to legally carry a gun isn't automataically a bad thing

Of course it's not a bad thing - heck, having an atom bomb in your house is not bad per se - but the fact is that in many cases it's misused and one should try to avoid that problem. Easiest solution: trying to get rid of people having guns at home.

― nathalie, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

i appreciate the argument that super-gun-control would be impossible to enforce, but what about making it harder to buy new guns? how do the gun fans feel about that?

― s1ocki, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:46 (nineteen years ago)

tracer, you can buy night vision goggles at many specialty stores, i've seen them.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:48 (nineteen years ago)

sweet! i just hope they're as effective as the police/military's are. i mean those REALLY work. from like 200 yards away in complete darkness you can see a guy BEHIND a door.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:56 (nineteen years ago)

i mean, i hope you're not talking about the sharper image. that place is full of empty promises.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:59 (nineteen years ago)

do i look like the type of person who has set foot into a sharper image?

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:00 (nineteen years ago)

hey my bad. let's all be cool.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:03 (nineteen years ago)

Obligatory gun insurance/training/licensing
Tighter control over ammunition
Cessation of preferential treatment of gun manufacturers
All guns must be pink with flowery handles/stocks, clips must be fuschia

― Michael White, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:06 (nineteen years ago)

It's just the internets.

― Laurel, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:07 (nineteen years ago)

heck, having an atom bomb in your house is not bad per se - but the fact is that in many cases it's misused and one should try to avoid that problem.

Yeah, we use our atom bomb as a door stop. I know that's wrong, but it looks so ornamental.

― Michael White, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

What are criminals afraid of? Burglar alarms? Dogs? Nope. They're afraid of some housewife in a bathrobe with a loaded and cocked .357.

LOL WHO ARE THESE CRIMINALS "omg i hope wifey isn't up ready to shoot me with her purse pistol! oh fuck you rottweiler, you pussy, oh also fuck the police and the completely thorough and functional burglar alarm that catch the fucking husband half the time he comes home from his affair OH WAIT he got shot by the wife lol."

Also I love the concept that because SOME people are mature responsible gun holders, ALL people should have access to guns. Gun control is around so that responsible people get them and irresponsible people don't. Why is there an argument here?

That said I didn't read anything under the "skipping messages" cut, so I dunno where any of this is at and I am just spittin'.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:16 (nineteen years ago)

"omg i hope wifey isn't up ready to shoot me with her purse pistol! oh fuck you rottweiler, you pussy, oh also fuck the police and the completely thorough and functional burglar alarm that catch the fucking husband half the time he comes home from his affair OH WAIT he got shot by the wife lol."

to be fair, i'd wager more people own handguns than do burglar alarms or attack dogs.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

Haha "attack dogs". We never had a single dog who wasn't a happy, barking idiot who wanted everyone on our property to chase him and throw sticks...until I snuck into the house one night so as not to wake up the family, and the two happy collies in our basement got to growling like I have NEVER heard before or since (until I spoke to them & they recognized my voice). If you'd asked me whether our dogs wd attack an intruder I'd have said no, but I was glad for the basement door between us then.

― Laurel, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

Or good locks that they actually keep locked, which would obviate the need for any of these things. I'v been robbed, and threatened with rape and death in my own house and a gun wouldn't have done me any f*cking good at all in any of those situations. Even if I were really trained in, like, firearm safety. None of it would have happened in the first place if I'd had GOOD LOCKS.

xpost

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

Unfortunately, good locks are sort of a moot point these days. Search "bump key."

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:29 (nineteen years ago)

guns are way oversold as a mechanism for "self-defense." on my list of 10 best ways to keep myself from being shot, having a gun places about 27th. i wish more gun advocates would admit -- like roger does -- that they just like having guns. i also wish they acknowledged -- like roger doesn't -- that it's a kinda creepy hobby, and stopped comparing it to collecting stamps or something.

given the constitution and u.s. history, wishing for a gun-free america is like wishing for a unicorn cavalry. and the knee-jerk gun control "debate" that gets reignited by every freak massacre is at this point just tiresome civic ritual. but the persistent paranoia of the gun brigade is even more tiresome. i don't want to take away anyone's (legally owned) guns, but it's not very reassuring to keep being reminded that the most armed segment of society also seems to be the most paranoid and given to juvenile red dawn fantasies.

― tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

oh man do i ever want a unicorn cavalry

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

(also i know this is just anecdote, but i've known several people who have confronted burglars in their homes. the only one i know who got shot was also the only one i know who was carrying a gun at the time of the confrontation.)

― tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:32 (nineteen years ago)

I know about bump keys. They only work on pin-and-tumbler locks. If you have a mortice key in addition you're doing all right. Those two plus a police-style bar across the door and you can save a lot of money on both burglar alarms and the 20 years of therapy you'll need after you accidentally shoot your son.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:33 (nineteen years ago)

But do more housewives have handguns than burglar alarms or... uhh, attack dogs? Angry dogs included. If the answer is "yes," then holy shit. xpost to infinity

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

First of all, Guns are for Cowards. Nothing quite like the warm rush of blood from the throat of some commie pinko liberal immigrant down your hand as you plunge the blade into the larynx of evil.

Second of all, whilst I've never been personally attacked by someone with a gun, my neighbour back in the day (who was mentally disabled and often the target of abuse by rowdy kids) would, every so now and again, get his house shot up by kids driving by. Now, perhaps my spider-sense failed me, but a bullet could have gone astray into my house/window/me, and even if I owned a gun would have had no possibilty of using it to defend myself. If the kids were throwing knives, I probably wouldn't have worried so much. If they had thrown ninja stars, I probably would have thought they were awesome.

Thirdly:

"What is it with men and guns?"
"I think I speak for everyone here when I say, they are metal penises."

River Wolf was OTM way upthread.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:37 (nineteen years ago)

Oh ha, I only have one comment here, running straight back to Manalishi's invocation of the Bible of wanting everyone armed -- More Guns, Less Crime -- which people like him invariably point to, and which few people who aren't social scientists or gun freaks bother reading. Let me assure you, from personal experience with this book and its author, that there is no safe assumption that this book and its argument aren't a crock. Lott is probably spending this week doing what he does whenever any time anyone in the universe gets shot, which is sending opinion pieces to the local paper talking about how just waving a gun at a criminal prevents crime (in between making up online personas to defend his work). His research on this stuff isn't totally nutty, but it's still a great length from rock solid. And even in its iffy claims of a crime rate reduction from letting people carry concealed weapons (iffy both in his methods and his assignments of cause), he really doesn't take on any of the objections people might have to a concealed-weapon self-policing society, or do anything to compensate for the types of places that wind up allowing concealed weapons, or ask, in his national advocacy for this sort of thing, whether that dynamic would be preserved elsewhere.

But beyond that I'll totally admit to having completely selfish personal reasons for not wanting the concealed-weapon self-policing society: I'm willing to admit that I have serious trouble trusting the public in general to hold life-and-death power over what's going on around them. I'll stick to getting kicked in the nuts for reaching past someone for an ATM envelope, not dying.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

Hey, I have a point to bring up that probably came up upthread, but who gives a fuck about the Constitution? I mean honestly. How about we base laws on what's going on now? Fuck a John Hancock. That shit is old. If we followed all of the old rules in all of the old books, women would be killed without mercy if her husband got in a fight with another man and in an effort to stop the other man the wife grabbed and pulled the other man's testicles (Deut 23:17 iirc, somewhere around there anyway).

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:44 (nineteen years ago)

What people like Manalishi are arguing for is essentially a Free Market of Death, an experiment that runs contrary to most every successful precedent in the rest of the entire world.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

All gun-owners should be required to quarter military personnel in their homes for a portion of the year. Just for fun, really.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

but they already HAVE the guns nabisco, the guns are already out there, so you might indeed get a gun barrel tucked right into your gut as you reach for that envelope. and THEN wouldn't you rather have had a gun tucked into your boot, that you could then reach down, pull out, cock and shoot your assailant with? life would be so much less violent!

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:47 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 3146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.