The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

Rifles and shotguns (and large-caliber handguns) are incredibly useful and necessary for work/travel/life in remote areas in Alaska, Canada, and many western states due to danger from bears and other large animals. I know it may be sort of hard to believe to a city dweller but it is very, very real.

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:04 (nineteen years ago)

jaymc: you're doing that thing again.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:04 (nineteen years ago)

(ie, it DOESN'T MATTER if a private citizen is armed, the state makes it is business to be BETTER ARMED)

This is super-OTM and sort of the only response to people who want to be armed for potentially revolutionary purposes; which is to say that a state can't really operate as a state unless it has a monopoly on violence.

― max, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:05 (nineteen years ago)

that was about ten years ago and i think you can even find it on youtube (north hollywood shootout)

xxxxp

― rps, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:05 (nineteen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Government_Warehouse.jpg

― and what, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:06 (nineteen years ago)

"top....men"

― rps, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:06 (nineteen years ago)

Moreover, forget about protection from animals (which, as Dan said, is actually a legitimate threat but for, let's face it, a v v small segment of the populace): what about shooting them and eating them? I know ppl don't hunt much in the city, but they do practically everywhere else. And, so we don't get embroiled in a whole separate discussion about hunting, can we just agree that some people think hunting is barbaric and unnecessary and some don't, but that it's something we've been doing for literally forever and that banning it right now would be a little weird?

nb I have never been hunting.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:08 (nineteen years ago)

rest in peace, Porkins and that pipe-smoking government guy

― kingfish, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:09 (nineteen years ago)

"That thing again" = being curious?

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:10 (nineteen years ago)

xxpost I was trying to avoid broaching that subject :)

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:10 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, I assumed you were going to talk about hunting, but I wanted to know what else you had in mind. Thanks for the explanation.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

I have. It's fun! My dad still goes "hunting," but it's basically an excuse for him and his fiftysomething buddies to get away from their wives, drink Glenlivet, and bitch.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

^^^^ that is most hunting, i think

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:13 (nineteen years ago)

plus you come home with meats

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:13 (nineteen years ago)

otm

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

guys really i just want a steak and can't afford them so i figure shooting an elk and strapping it to the hood of my ford focus would probably solve my problems for a while. also i want an excuse to walk around in the mountains.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

I know a guy out in Bigfork who could probably hook u up

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

here get elk with this glock 17

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

No I think he has the elk already.

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

(the elk dealer)

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

roger adultery

― RJG, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

shoot elk dealer and take his elk

use this glock17

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

...I sound like one of those text adventure video games from the 80s.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

YAOW?

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

are we done here? looks like we're done here. i'm just gonna go ahead and post this again:

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

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

seems like a good a time as any.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

Thank you for that.

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:39 (nineteen years ago)

A lot of people who know shit about hunting often describe it as a pathology instead of a sport (I'm accusing no one here). I don't care for hunting, but into my teens I always went with my dad; it was an excuse to hang out with him and his buddies. As usual, look to the langauge. I never heard anything but the greatest respect for the deer, boar, and turkeys: their mating patterns, what they smelled like, the kinds of prints they left, the grace of their movements. These guys weren't sadists blowing shit away. They never poached: they went during the eight-week period in which Florida allows licensed hunters to bag legal game. If they didn't catch anything -- which is often the case -- there was no recrimination. It may sound bizarre to say so, but I'm glad my dad hunted instead of, I dunno, sat on a sofa watching the Dolphins all Saturday. I find that behaviour more depressing.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:43 (nineteen years ago)

vahid: that paper was v v excellent, and pretty much sums up the reasons i'm interested in public health

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:05 (nineteen years ago)

wow thanks anecdotal story

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:12 (nineteen years ago)

Humanity caught in being killing machines shockah

― sexyDancer, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

NFL games are on Sunday.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:17 (nineteen years ago)

OK, this thread is so much more rational and nuanced than I imagined it would be.

The anti-gun contingency needs to realize that, for most gun owners, being around guns is natural and maybe even mundane and that interest in guns for sportsmanship, or hunting, or self defense, or for just plain aesthetics is not pathological.

"More guns = more safe" is one of the weaker and most commonly abused arguments by gun rights advocates. Also, while the second amendment has been an effective political tool, it just isn't the coverall that gun rights enthusiasts make it out to be.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:22 (nineteen years ago)

Shows how much I know.

EDIT: Waitwait: I've watched NFL games on Saturdays. Are they "championships"?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:23 (nineteen years ago)

playoffs

― horseshoe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:23 (nineteen years ago)

xxpost again no problem dude - i actually came across it in my studies because it has implications in managing behavior problems in teens - it shows that escalating the consequences (ie the "risk" of behaviors like jerking mr f0zis chain) isn't useful if the teenager hasn't bought in to the reward system. ie if one of my students assumes that they won't learn math/science/study skills NO MATTER WHAT, then there is no expected payoff for the low-risk behavior of being a good student, whereas the high-risk action becomes more attractive because at least there is a *possibility* of a positive outcome (ie impressing chix0rs/boiz and/or mr f0zi himself with yr devil-may-care attitude)

i am sure you can make a similar argument to show that if yr young stick-up-kid is habituated to gun violence (several parents, male relatives, friends already dead by age 21) and sees it as a likely outcome for their life story NO MATTER WHAT (because they grew up in a dangerous neighborhood) then the housewife cowering in the bathroom with a 357 is very little dis-incentive indeed

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:25 (nineteen years ago)

i clicked on this by mistake but after the college season ends there are the occasional saturday games as well.

― chicago kevin, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:26 (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.

My father scared off a burglar with a knife.

John Justen and I scared off a burglar by waking up.

Plus what moonship just posted.

I think the mindset of the criminal (or potential criminal) and the subsequent motivations and incentives are a little more complicated then as posited in your argument. If guns scared off criminals (or potential criminals), then armed nogoodniks would probably spend less time shooting at each other and more time pointing the gun at us unarmed folk.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:37 (nineteen years ago)

my anecdotal story which i'll drag out here is my student who was shot on christmas day in the arm and hand. he was hanging out on the street with some buddies, a dude comes out of his house and sees that his car has been tagged in his driveway, accosts the pack of 16-year-olds in the street. the teenagers tell the dude (who is 25, i think) to go smoke a cock. he goes inside and comes out like two hours later with a revolver and starts blasting away at the teens. the guy is fine (he doesn't hang out on the street anymore and won't play football for a months yet) but it could've easily ended up in "4 teenagers dead" bernard goetz type horror.

i'm not sure what my story illustrates, except that the 25 year old dude is going to be in jail for a while (he was caught fleeing to mexico) and that it obviously shows very poor decision-making skills on his part - "i am pissed about my car being damaged, so i think i will go to prison for several years"

i think having access to concealable handguns probably exacerbates this poor decision-making problem in a way that access to bolt-action hunting rifles doesn't, so i think we could also exercise some nuance when we talk about gun control.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:41 (nineteen years ago)

OH and this is another the interesting anecdote: three weeks later on a friday night a 15 year old was shot and killed in the street. the cousin of the SHOOTER was caught at his high school (which is in our neighborhood) with a handgun in his backpack on monday - he had brought the gun to school for HIS OWN protection, since he was fearing retaliation.

interstingly enough, in this case, roger's attitude of

Shooting back - and effectively neutralizing a threat - DOES stop someone shooting at you.

-- Manalishi, Monday, April 16, 2007 6:54 PM (Yesterday)

leads to MORE CRIME in this instance (unless what, we make it legal for 9th graders to carry handguns to school?)

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:46 (nineteen years ago)

~~then~~ than

plus a bunch of other illiterate shit

GAH

(xpost to me)

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:52 (nineteen years ago)

geez don't skip a beat or anything, NRA-lobby whore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/virginia_tech_gun_control

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:10 (nineteen years ago)

v4h1d u rock

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:35 (nineteen years ago)

cosign

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:39 (nineteen years ago)

yeah vahid is killing it basically

i forget who said this, but:

can we just agree that some people think hunting is barbaric and unnecessary

these people are just wrong, frankly. depends on the species. there's no danger of environmental damage or self-harming populations with say black rhino or american buffalo, but deer? yeah, there is.

― gff, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:42 (nineteen years ago)

The problem we run into with hunting is that a lot of gun control advocates see a pretty clear line between hunting weapons and people-killing weapons -- as insinuated just upthread. (I don't even consider myself a big gun control advocate, and I don't know a ton about hunting, but I'm fairly confident that no one's hunting elk with semi-automatic handguns and such.) So you wind up with a debate where some people are comfortable with government deciding which guns go in which category, and some people are very uncomfortable with how those distinctions might be made. (Part of why the NRA seems totally nuts to most people is that it's inevitably their mission to support practically ANY kind of arms, even insane ones, on principle -- kinda the equivalent of the ACLU looking bad for defending NAMBLA or whoever.)

Two things here that I have to admit bug me. One is the way that any time someone expresses concern about the availability of powerful weapons, there's this belligerent assumption that they're advocating gun control; I think there's room to fret about psychos having access to guns without necessarily wanting to legislate a gun-free society. Another is all the lame "you pussy city-dwellers" rhetoric that crops up, insinuating that anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with guns is either a weakling or ignorant of the hard facts of life: I understand the reasonable impulses that lead to this, but we should mostly spot them all kinda bullshit. I said on the other thread that I don't know a ton about guns and don't really want to, and Manalishi sarcastically urged me to "remain ignorant": and yes, it's true, I hope that I and all my loved ones never experience being on either end of a gun. I would think people who support guns as a form of crime prevention would hope the same thing, really -- sort of the same way I'm glad there are oncologists in the world but hope never to have to see much of them professionally.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

insinuating that anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with guns is either a weakling or ignorant of the hard facts of life

Thing is, I totally cop to both of those charges, and I'm mostly OK with it.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

pussy

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

One of the things I'm curious about, incidentally, is how much people's ideas about guns relate to how much they trust other people to use them wisely. The life-and-death stakes of a gun are a lot higher than most of the other objects non-professional people can be licensed to use (cars seem like the only competition), and I'll admit flat-out that I have trouble trusting a lot of people to hold that power; that doesn't mean I want to outlaw them, just that I'm uncomfortable with the situation.

And that's not just about lack of familiarity: I went to a high school where we got the first day of hunting season off, and I've spent weeks in a third-world country where groups of guys with AK-47s jump into the back of your truck and tell you to drive them somewhere. But I've also gone to the funeral of a kid who got shot in the face by a friend who said "hahaha it's not loaded," and no matter how much gun-friendly folks say "c'mon, basic gun safety, it's the parents' fault for not securing the gun better," we just come back to that original trust issue: how much do we trust people on this? And as far as the law goes, at what point of accident, murder, or death do we say there are legitimate public-health reasons to act? (Keeping in mind that there are countless objects and substances NOT covered by the 2nd amendment where the government doesn't even begin to defer to people's good judgment -- I'd much rather be in a bar where everyone had unprescribed Ambien in his pockets than one where everyone had a concealed weapon.)

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:29 (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.