The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

View Previous Page...

On top of an already in-progress bonfire?

― Jesse, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:28 (nineteen years ago)

we're talking about starting a bonfire here, Jesse

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:30 (nineteen years ago)

so you say now

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:32 (nineteen years ago)

Q: How can I start a bonfire on top of an already in-progress bonfire?
A: RECURSIVE FIRE, OH NOES

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:40 (nineteen years ago)

guys, the can explodes

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:41 (nineteen years ago)

NO WAI

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:50 (nineteen years ago)

dude.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:55 (nineteen years ago)

way.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:55 (nineteen years ago)

the gun is just for show

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:06 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.bigjohnson.com/assetts/images/allimages/sj7963a.jpg

― am0n, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:09 (nineteen years ago)

Q: Now that I have a gun, how can I create instant islamist terror?

A: Easy! Take a barrel, fill with rabid, ebola-infected monkeys. Place gently on doorstop of White House. Step back about 50 feet, shoot barrel lid off with handgun. Instant terror! Hope you brought vaccine! ;)

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:10 (nineteen years ago)

yes but are the monkeys islamic?

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:36 (nineteen years ago)

"Seest thou not that to God bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth,- the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals, and rabid monkeys; and a great number among mankind? But a great number are (also) such as are fit for Punishment: and such as God shall disgrace,- None can raise to honour: for God carries out all that He wills. (The Noble Quran, 22:18)"

"Seest thou not that it is God Whose praises all beings in the heavens and on earth do celebrate, and the birds (of the air) with wings outspread? Each one knows its own (mode of) prayer and praise. And God knows well all that they do. (The Noble Quran, 24:41)"

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 05:02 (nineteen years ago)

Gun industry response also makes for a good reminder to us lefty gun-owners - no matter how much you want to 'support gun rights' (or want to keep shooting things) just remember that the people responsible for making them are, by and large, evil corporate douchebags with no real conscience.

-- milo z, Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:51 PM (Yesterday)

Milo, this isn't any more true of gun makers than it is any other corporation, and in many cases, less true.

Not that literature is good evidence in favor of gun control, but there's a very resonant bit in Billy Bathgate about how holding a gun actually makes you feel angry. True or not, having a gun makes you think a lot more about ways to use a gun, and I don' think that's a very good thing.

-- Hurting 2, Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:25 PM (Yesterday)

Billy Bathgate huh? Hmmm. OK, well, Hurting, to be quite honest here, this is because you have no experience with guns or gun safety. If I was ever prone to a bout of absolute white hot rage, I'd no sooner think "Hey, I'll use my gun!" than I would think "Hey! I'll use a spatula!"

I may love guns, but the actual use of one in a life or death situation is an absolute last resort. It's an option, always, but when I can run, I will run.

I guess, in my mind, viewing a gun as a tool and taking the proper use of said tool very seriously, I don't equate anger with pulling a gun. It is something I would never do, and most responsible gun owners will tell you the same.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:52 (nineteen years ago)

Can anyone give me a proper ethical argument why a state should allow ordinary people to own guns? I mean, any state is bound to restrict its citizens in many regards, so why is this particular freedom so important, especially since it causes little good and lots of potential harm?

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:58 (nineteen years ago)

Outlaw history, Tuomas.

(oh wait, you said "ethical" argument. erase the above)

― peepee, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:04 (nineteen years ago)

you're the tool, roger adultery

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:04 (nineteen years ago)

You're going in with misinformation here, Tuomas. You say "especially since it causes little good and lots of potential harm," which is just not true. Do you have any statistics of facts to back up this whale of a claim?

99% of gun owners - by which I mean people who obtain guns legally for hunting, home defense, sport, etc - are responsible, law abiding citizens.

You want an ethical argument? Then don't start by asking why a 'state' should allow or disallow me ANYTHING that does not directly impede someone else's liberties.

I'm old school in the sense that I feel that, ideally, I should be able to go to Wal Mart and buy a bundle of heroin, three hookers, and an AK-47, and until I hurt someone, stay the fuck off my property and leave me alone. But then, I'm still a wide-eyed idealist.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:06 (nineteen years ago)

you're the tool, roger adultery

-- RJG, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:04 AM (1 minute ago)

This is really your response to what I said?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:07 (nineteen years ago)

PS suck my dick

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:07 (nineteen years ago)

You want an ethical argument? Then don't start by asking why a 'state' should allow or disallow me ANYTHING that does not directly impede someone else's liberties.

But the main function of guns is to impeded someone else's liberty - the liberty to live. This is not the case with, say, heroin, which only endangers your own health, not anyone else's. And the sport argument is kinda moot, cause you can use non-lethal guns for sport too.

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:12 (nineteen years ago)

I think we just fundamentally disagree. Surely the guns used by American soldiers during WW2 were not used to 'impede anyone's liberty,' right? And if they were, in that case, who cares?

I don't agree that the function of guns is to impede anyone's lberty, but to prevent a person from impeding yours. Gun owners ae not, by and large, criminals. If they were, there'd be 80 million criminals at large in this country right now.

Non lethal guns for sport? What fun is that? You gonna take down an elk with an airsoft rifle?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:19 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe this is a stretch, but indulge me.

I can't help feeling that a lot of what has the antis on this board all stirred up is that they have to confront the fact that not every gun owner conforms to their stereotype of what gun owner is. Most of the people on ILX seem pretty bright to me, and most could easily vanquish your garden variety Bush-supporting hillbilly, who they rarely have to even confront in the first place. But when it's someone who probably buys a lot of the same records and magazines they do, the vitriol seems to reach a fever pitch.

I feel that, unless attacked directly, I've been fairly civil, and yet, this is one of the more venemous ILE threads I've ever seen.

How far off am I here?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:27 (nineteen years ago)

Here we have the essential dichotomy between the European (post)-monarchy social democratic social model and the Anglo Saxon puritan/parliamentarian (in the sense of the english civil war) Liberal democratic social model.

In the first the state grants or rescinds based on it's view of the collective (or selfish benefit) in the latter each individual has unlimited rights which can be ceded collectively or individually to duly constituted authority, and the constitution is a document that places the ground rules limitation on that authority.

Under the former system the state may not grant the right to own weapons because they might endanger society under the later the freedom to own guns is unquestionable until a majority of the people start to question it.

In reality most governments lie between these poles, which is why, for example, guns (not hand guns) are permitted for sporting and pest control purposes under strict licensing despite the danger to, say, fleeing burglars and that in the US you can't walk out and buy artillery.

It is useless trying to apply European ethics to the American situation and vice versa.

Personally don't think that a strict licensing and training regime would impinge upon the second amendment right to bear arms, especially given the part about the 'well regulated militia' surely good regulation would included the training of people in the safe and effective use of their weapons?

On a personal level I would love to be able to hunt for meat, however hunting is a very upper class and artificial sport in the UK, and that does not really appeal.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:28 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah Manalishi, I haven't seen where anybody's said "no guns for anyone". Would you be against the kind of licensing and check-ups for handguns that car owners have to deal with? i.e. yearly re-ups of your license, six weeks of safety training at the beginning, eye check-ups, etc. If not, why not?

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:34 (nineteen years ago)

I'm against that because it's degrading. I'm also against having to take off my shoes and belt at the airport, but perhaps that's for another thread.

Where I live, and in most places, you'll have a very hard time buying a gun if you're a convicted felon or if you've ever been charged with domestic violence. I'm okay with that. I'm reluctant to give an inch, but common sense has to prevail now and again.

Anything beyond that, even well-intentioned, is a slippery slope.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

So degradation is worse than the risk of people getting killed?

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

A slippery slope to what though, Manalishi? Do you mean that if we institute those kinds of regulations and safety measures that the government could then start to politicize the process (i.e. discriminate against Muslims, for instance?)

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:42 (nineteen years ago)

schmippery schmope.

Do you think it's degrading for car drivers to have to go through those hoops? Would you rather anyone could get and drive a car without any tests or checks?

― ledge, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

xpost For instance, yes.

and yes, Tuomas, those who are willing to give up liberty for security etc etc etc. There are certainly alternatives to harrassing blue haired grannies at our nation's airports.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

ledge - I don't know about you, but when I took my driving test, no one made me pull my laptop out of my bag and put my shoes into a plastic bin to be X-rayed. Oh, wait - do you live in Massachusetts?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:46 (nineteen years ago)

But local and federal govt. bodies are in charge of all kinds of processes, Manalishi - food inspection, taxation, financial oversight, weapons manufacturing, uh, I could keep going. By your argument we shouldn't trust the government to do any of these things.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:51 (nineteen years ago)

I'm against that because it's degrading.

Mind blowing. Seriously. Is there anyone on this thread taking Manalishi seriously?

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:53 (nineteen years ago)

There's that reactionary, witch hunt mentality again. Why so angry, Ben? Do you think the so-called founding fathers wouldn't have something to say about 5,000 people standing around an airport in socks?

I'm not a criminal and i resent being treated like one.

xpost Don't even get me started on taxation. But I generally believe in limited government as a rule, yes.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

We were asking sensible questions about driving tests, stop bringing up your strange shoe fetishes.

― ledge, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:57 (nineteen years ago)

and yes, Tuomas, those who are willing to give up liberty for security etc etc etc.

It's not a case of liberty vs. security rather than weighing in different liberties. In my opinion the liberty to live weighs so much that other liberties can be restricted to guarantee that. The way I see it letting people own guns necessarily leads into more killings, whether or not they were "justified" (and it's kinda hard to draw the line there - is killing to protect your property really justified?), and life should always be given the utmost weight. Compare American murder rates to, say, Finnish ones, for proof. Of course I'm not saying the rate of gun ownership is the only cause for murder rates, but giving potentially violent people the option to kill quickly and easily certainly doesn't improve the situation.

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

That's all highly subjective. Someone trespassing on your property is not a good reason to shoot them and I think you'd have a hard ass time convincing a jury otherwise. Like I said upthread, using a gun is a last resort. That said, I'm not sure I can really agree with any 'sanctity of life' posturing when it comes to violent criminals, especially in light of the horrible thing that occurred yesterday.

xpost OK - what about driving tests? Do I believe we should have them? Sure. And sometimes I think we should have to renew them, too. Does that blow your mind, ledge?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

Where I live, and in most places, you'll have a very hard time buying a gun if you're a convicted felon or if you've ever been charged with domestic violence.

How hard is it in your area to buy a Glock 9mm and box of ammo for $500, right out the door?

6 weeks of safety training before licensing / 6-month licence re-ups / regular eye checkups... degrading? Tough fucking shit.

It's quite clear you have no interest in even considering the kind of changes that could lessen handgun murders/deaths/crimes of passion/etc., but the best you've got is that they might make you feel degraded?

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

Don't even get me started on taxation.

i can't imagine anyone in their right mind would get you started on taxation.

i'd rather stand in an airport in socks than wave a loaded gun around while wearing a bathrobe.

― estela, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:06 (nineteen years ago)

1. To answer your question, Ben, for me to buy a Glock 9mm and ammo at the place I usually frequent, I'd be subject to a tedious form and fingerprinting. I endure it every time because those are the rules. I don't have a huge problem with it beyond the usual Big Brother-ness of the government having my prints on file. But I got over that a long time ago.

2. If you read upthread, I am ALL FOR gun safety. I could teach the class myself, and would volunteer to do it any time. Six weeks is a long time to keep repeating 'don't point the muzzle at anything you don't want destroyed,' though. Who mandates this?

6 month license re-ups? No way, no how. Sorry.

Eye exams? Sure. But who are you going to exclude beyond the blind?

3. My 'feeling degraded' comment was in reference to airport security. And yes, I feel ashamed of my country when I'm standing barefoot with my pants falling down having to explain what a 'delay pedal' is to a troglodyte who barely finished high school.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:10 (nineteen years ago)

It's interesting that driving tests don't make you feel degraded, Manalishi, they totally did for me! I was like "I've been driving stick since I was 14!!" but they didn't care, they still wanted to see me back into a parking space. Bunch of officious jobsworthies. Still I'm glad they're doing that job because as my dad always says, he's not afraid of my driving, he's afraid of all the OTHER fuckers out there.

estela that's an interesting choice to consider.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:10 (nineteen years ago)

Tracer - agreed. And your dad is 100% right. I'm a good driver, but my wife would fail a driver's test today, I'm convinced.

Maybe I didn't feel degraded because I'd been driving less than a week when I took my test. I was lucky to pass, actually.

I think you should have to retake it every twenty five years.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:14 (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.

― estela, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:15 (nineteen years ago)

I must be allowed to destroy things with as little interference as possible

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:17 (nineteen years ago)

Huh. I feel ashamed of my country right now, living in Europe* and having people from the rest of the world ask me why this kind of thing seems to happen an awful lot.

*(I did leave after the Bush re-election, Manalishi - which reminds me of an old offer you made on a thread long ago...)

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

what countries other than the US have the right to lethal weaponry in their constitution/social charter/whatevs?

― Alan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:28 (nineteen years ago)

lol, sometimes in australia people indignantly quote their constitutional rights but it's the us constitution they are quoting.

― estela, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

haha estela, so true. the australian community's almost total ignorance of the australian constitution is comical. but really it has nothing even approximating that (frightening imo) right to bear arms thing. it gives legislative power regarding defence to the federal govt, so i guess that would be who would make laws about militias and whatnot. pretty sure our gun laws are made by the federal legislature... though i suspect guns would fall within the 'dangerous goods' duty of each state's criminal code/law. even though guns are legal here, i gather their ownership and use is FAR more heavily regulated than in the US. i reckon we would sit somewhere between the UK and the US on this one. I have never ever seen a gun in australia that wasn't holstered to the hip of a policeman or licenced to a farmer to shoot kangaroos. i can't imagine anyone i know ever entertaining even the slightest notion of acquiring a fire arm due to some mentalist 'i must protect myself from the marauding hordes of burglars' hysteria. that stuff strikes me as utterly bizarre.

― gem, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:39 (nineteen years ago)

it's a global religion, our constitution

― am0n, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

"...due to some mentalist 'i must protect myself from the marauding hordes of burglars' hysteria"

What if I just wanted to own guns? What if I have a carry permit and never carry a gun? Why is this hard to understand?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:50 (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.