The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

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)

every day would be a hong kong john woo fee film.

totally. awesome.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

fee? scratch that

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

My bad, it's Deut 25:11, and you don't kill her, you chop off her hand

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:50 (nineteen years ago)

well that's a relief

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

deut=stupid.

woman with no hand=man washing dishes + awkward hand jobs

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:52 (nineteen years ago)

This thread is weird. I don't think Kenan was being smug or preening. I find Evan's stance confusing. To my knowledge, there's only one person I've met who owns a gun, and that's my redneck uncle who lives in Peoria and is very much a John-Deere-hat-and-overalls-wearing fetishist who shoots deer in his backyard. I don't really see why anyone needs to have them. I understand that people always have. I understand that it's near impossible to change that. I don't know why we wouldn't try to at least curb new gun sales, as Slocki suggests.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:55 (nineteen years ago)

military-grade assault weapons seem excessive, and i find it hard to understand how any rational private citizen can aruge a case for their legal status.

then again, i loathe most people, so perhaps i'm out of touch?

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

lol life-long liberal urbanites

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:56 (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

Yeah, this statement way upthread confused me, too. What housewives are actually packing heat? Maybe I don't hang out with enough housewives.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

this needs to posted again:

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, April 17, 2007 1:38 AM (7 hours ago)

Manalishi: ??

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:57 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, that's it in a nutshell. once a handgun comes out, whether wielded by "good guy" or "bad guy", something very big has failed.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

I really shouldn't even get involved in this, but oh well.

First of all, a whole bunch of people seem to be conflating two different arguments here (well, probably more like seven, but two stick out.)

1. Ownership of firearms
2. Conceal and Carry laws

These are very distinct, separate issues, and using a sucessful argument against one to imply an argument against the other is simply sloppy or misleading logic.

― John Justen, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

I was a little hard on kenan (sorry, dude), but he quickly reverted to "gun owners are just plain BANANANANAS lol!" and ad hominem attacks and didn't seem particularly interested in actually engaging the issue. Smug because he'd already made up his mind, and preening because most of his posts seemed like excuses to make quips and let everyone know how REALLY AGAINST guns he was. Not very constructive. But whatever, I was exhausted, had been at the bedside of a woman coughing up blood all night (non-gun-related assault), and was totally wasted off a beer and a half.

That being said: what is it that's confusing about my stance, jaymc?

brtrps JJ, yes.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

lol life-long liberal urbanites

As someone who's never even touched a gun, and so the vast majority of my real-life experience with them is reading the news when people get murdered, I admit that it's very hard for me to expand my perspective on this issue.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

Your stance in and of itself isn't confusing, it's the way I felt when I read it that was confusing, because I consider you a bro and meanwhile you were giving props to Manalishi.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:05 (nineteen years ago)

dammit JJ i wanted to stick to simple, obvious declarations that make me feel good about myself

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:05 (nineteen years ago)

http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/adc/10103223A~Charles-Bronson-Death-Wish-Posters.jpg

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

Hey, I have a point to bring up that probably came up upthread, but who gives a fuck about the Constitution?

Anyone in America with an ounce of sense, considering it is the foundational document of law for the country...? I think this stance is just as batshit insane as Roger's borderline "I CUM ON GUNS" shenanigans.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

I care about the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's a perfect document.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

To my knowledge, there's only one person I've met who owns a gun, and that's my redneck uncle who lives in Peoria and is very much a John-Deere-hat-and-overalls-wearing fetishist who shoots deer in his backyard.

More people own guns than you think, dude. I mean, I'd own a rifle if I could afford one right now, but that's just because I wanted to eat delicious elk meat this winter.

xps the lack of exposure to guns really colors the issue, yeah. I grew up with them, so I'm just sort of "meh, it's a gun" when I see one. As far as giving props to Manalishi: dude is winding everyone up, as far as I can tell. True, I think the "more guns, less crime" argument is batshit, but I think a lot of what people say here is batshit and I like them anyway. The many colors of the rainbow, blah blah blah. Unlike some (not you, necessarily), I don't see issues like this in black and white; disagreeing with someone over gun control is like disagreeing with someone over most other gov't policies. It's not a moral issue for me, it's a policy issue.

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

What's wrong with making a constitution 2.0 (other than the fact that nobody would ever agree on one) that's set in present time? or wait, if the agreement thing the reason? fetishize a certain document so that nobody can argue its validity, and just try your damnedest to follow everything on it? i really don't understand, but my country didn't have a charter til 1982. and i think they still change it sometimes. xp

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

so dude who killed all these people bought the guns legally, right?

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.texasfrightmareweekend.com/images/savini.jpg

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:14 (nineteen years ago)

deej: yes, I think so.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:14 (nineteen years ago)

Poor elk. ;_;

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

I think given the lunatic infighting over all sorts of social issues these days, constitution 2.0 would be way more fucked up than constitution 1.0.

Plus, good luck getting through the hot-button issues (gun control, or, say, abortion) within our lifetime.

xpost

― John Justen, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

What's most wrongheaded is the assertion that carrying a gun somehow makes you LESS likely to be shot by an evil criminal. If I were an evil criminal and someone pulled a gun on me in self-defence I'd be more likely to shoot them to save my own skin and less likely to think twice about it.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

Apparently the serial #s had been filed off the guns. Just sayin'.

xp yeah but John, we're not getting through those things with CON1.0.

xp again augh so many xposts

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

I find Evan's stance confusing. To my knowledge, there's only one person I've met who owns a gun, and that's my redneck uncle who lives in Peoria and is very much a John-Deere-hat-and-overalls-wearing fetishist who shoots deer in his backyard. I don't really see why anyone needs to have them. I understand that people always have.

This level of generalization surprises me, jaymc. I've grown up around them. My dad, a hunter, likes them for their own sake, like some people collect stamps and others buy music. He owns a concealed-weaposn permit. I've never once thought of owning one, though.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

OK SRSLY IT'S NOT HARD TO FILE A SERIAL NUMBER OFF A GUN, MOST GUNS WITH THE SERIAL NUMBERS FILED OFF WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY AT SOME POINT AND THE NUMBER WAS REMOVED AFTER THAT POINT--LITTLE KNOWN FACT?

sorry for the caps but seriously??

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

Plus, good luck getting through the hot-button issues (gun control, or, say, abortion) within our lifetime.

Within our lifetime, the issue will surely alter significantly to heat-ray control.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

Also: I'd be curious to knwo the gun fatality statistics for those who've grown up around them. From an early age I knew guns were loud and hot to the touch, therefore STAY AWAY.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

I care about the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's a perfect document.

Read upthread where I compared the 2nd Amendment to Deuteronomy about a bazillion posts before Will did. Caring about the Constitution does not imply that the carer thinks it is a perfect document.

What's wrong with making a constitution 2.0 (other than the fact that nobody would ever agree on one) that's set in present time? or wait, if the agreement thing the reason? fetishize a certain document so that nobody can argue its validity, and just try your damnedest to follow everything on it? i really don't understand, but my country didn't have a charter til 1982. and i think they still change it sometimes. xp

It is virtually impossible to change the Constitution in this day and age, given the overwhelming majority who need to ratify any edits made to it. Also, if you read upthread, you will see that I'm not fetishizing it. My point is that not caring about the document that defines the way law works in your country is really fucking stupid regardless of how you feel about the laws described within that document.

xpost: Ally I'm trying to ignore that.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

I think you're probably right, Matt. Crucial to the concealed carry argument (which I've heard LOTS of times (hi dad!)), is the fact that a CCW owner will actually know how to use their weapon--correct grip, stance, will have practiced with it at the range, etc., while your average thug with a .38 is just sort of hoping that having the gun will be enough to scare someone.

Like I said on the VT thread (which came off all wrong, sorry): shooting handguns is hard!

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

word up schef, but if COULD also mean it was purched illegally. Who knows? It is kind of a moot point now, but yeah. Why would he buy it legally, then file it down?

xp Sorry Dan if it seemed like I was implying YOU were fetishizing it, I most certainly do not think you are. But to say nobody does would be wrong, no?

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:21 (nineteen years ago)

Many people back home ask me about America and guns. Some of them even think that there is a gun in every American household and that there are multiple gun murders every day in every American city. There are many things I do not understand about the gun debate, but I have twice been in a situation where an older male relative (one my cousin, one my father in law) has pulled a revolver from his wife's underwear drawer in order to show me it and how freedom works blahblahblah. On neither occasion did I request or want to see a gun. Nonethless, I think this says something about US gun culture, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what it is.

― admrl, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:21 (nineteen years ago)

and, btw, simply having a gun really is enough to scare someone, and it ought to be. my friend had a gun shoved in his face while riding his bike (ie - moving) and it was seriously disturbing, especially since there was (what looked to me) a 16 yr old on the other end of it.

bet you he didn't get that at the gun shop, though.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

some people be needing a civics class, among other things? seriously, constitution 2.0? nigh impossible simply in practical terms, leaving aside John Justen's point about how scary such a document would likely be.

― horseshoe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry Dan if it seemed like I was implying YOU were fetishizing it, I most certainly do not think you are. But to say nobody does would be wrong, no?

Considering that the person on this thread who is fetishizing the Constitution is the one I described as having an "I CUM ON GUNS" stance... I'd say no one ever said no one fetishized the Constitution.

(xpost: I give leeway on the Constitution 2.0 thing because the person suggesting it isn't an American and mostly likely doesn't know how impossible it would be to generate a document like that without another revolution.)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

my guess is that if the serial number were filed down, he probably got it illegally? like, if he's going to on a murderous rampage, why would he care about covering his tracks back to where he go the gun?

serial numbers are filed in order to allow guns to traffic; the end user probably doesn't give a shit.

brtrps constitution 2.0 is the worst idea on the planet. hi dere marriage amendment!

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:24 (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.