The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

When you want to do something less daft than home defence with a gun like going hunting.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:50 (nineteen years ago)

doubt that'll appeal much to roger adultery's aesthetics

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, given that Manalishi's point rests more on being able to defend your home than being able to go hunting, having to keep your guns and ammo separate isn't likely to appeal.

(and, given Manalishi, surely anything to do with guns being mandated isn't likely to appeal)

― c sharp major, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:55 (nineteen years ago)

the guy who owned the supermarket I was briefly in with said gun-wielding maniac, said "man, you should have told me! I always got a gun right here!" and slapped his ankle. "I woulda taken him out BOOM BOOM" and I was like "yeah, that's sort of why I didn't say anything to you."

nothing saves lives like a shootout in a store full of people.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

Another point of clarification - taking a driver's test is not necessary for the ownership of a car, it's needed in order to operate a motor vehicle. The requirements mentioned above (training, renewal, etc.) are already in place for the perceived equivalent for gun owners (conceal/carry), and are in fact quite stringent. If you are trying to argue for ownership licensure with the same stringent requirements, Driver's licenses really aren't a functional analogue.

Again, I'm mostly trying to stay out of this because the level of hysterics on both sides make me uncomfortable, but I thought I'd throw that in.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

wait... jaymc's uncle built his own CANNON?

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

It's not that hard to do, really. Get some PVC pipe, a lantern igniter, some hairspray, and a potato and you can go to town.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

JJ doesn't that usually go hand-in-hand with regular vehicle inspection and mandatory insurance, though? I know it varies a bit from state to state but in order to keep driving your car you have to have insurance, registration, title, and the sign-off from a licensed garage that your car is safe to drive, right? Having the same things for guns shouldn't cause the 99% of peaceful, law-abiding gun owners too much bother I wouldn't think.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

wiring the lighter correctly in the chamber is a pain in the ass, though

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

And, while Manalishi has been a bit, uh, "strident," I am a little weirded out by how quickly everyone else has been to assume that he's a mouth-breather with a jones to shoot some fucking burglars. Yeah, the "cold dead hands" stuff is a little whacked, but seriously? You guys are very quick to assume that he's got a boner for some killing.

Most of the people doing this have spoken to Manalishi aka Roger Adultery aka Roger Fidelity before and are reacting to more than just his words on this thread.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

i get the feeling that jaymc's uncle did more than rig up a contraption to fire a potato out of a tube, but who knows.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, to keep driving your car, you need all (or most, depending on the state) of these things. The reason for that is that you are taking your car into public and interacting with other people who have a right to be safe. The point I'm making is that the majority of gun owners rarely fire their guns (in some cases, not at all), and do not do so in public spaces. The comparable situation with guns is conceal/carry, which requires rigorous vetting and obligatory training.

xxpost

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

also, i wish i had that info when i still had roof access and a condo with terraces full of braying yuppies behind my building.

xpost

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

not to get all .xls but i think roger adultery and roger fidelity were 2 different guys

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't think so

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, that igniter thing suuuucks. My dad would stand out on the back deck and fire it onto the neighboring golf course, getting a good few hundred yards of range, laughing all the while.

I wonder whatever happened to that thing, anyway.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

John 8080, BTW.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

Most of the people doing this have spoken to Manalishi aka Roger Adultery aka Roger Fidelity before and are reacting to more than just his words on this thread.

You mean shit like calling the Virginia Tech shooter a "borderline mongoloid" in the other thread?

And no, Fidelty/Adultery are the same dude.

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

I like using a tennis ball and spraying it liberally with the aqua velva before loading, then you get a spinning fireball, the potato gun answer to tracer ammunition

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

I stopped reading the other thread; I'm talking solely about the way people are treating RF.

SNAP: TOMBOT, what about the resulting paste?

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:23 (nineteen years ago)

sweet, i hadn't heard of that one. That'd be good for 4th of July fun. What kind of range do you get with that?

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/04/gun_debates_aga.html

― caek, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

I really don't get this constant reassurance that gun-averse people would be more comfortable with guns if they just dealt with them a bit. Seriously: what in the world would someone like me gain from that? I don't have any interest[ in being comfortable with gun use! I don't ever intend to use one! The chances of a situation developing where I would want to use one -- like some kind of murderous bank holdup where an injured cop falls next to me, gun in hand, and OMG here's my chance to take the shot and save everyone -- not really something I expect to happen! And if someone pulls a gun on me, I think my gun-aversion will be pretty much situation-appropriate! So sure, I could go to a firing range, or take a gun-safety course, and get totally comfortable with them, but it would be largely pointless and make zero difference in my life, including in my level of trust in other people's gun-handling and gun-ownership. It's just ridiculous to imagine that being able to handle them oneself will make a person more comfortable with how common they are; there's no level of comfort you're going to achieve on the firing range that's going to make it so that lives don't end when people shoot one another.

So I dunno, a lot of the comfort stuff seems to me like the equivalent of saying "well if you just had sex with enough corpses, you'd get used to it, and be comfortable with a society in which everyone has sex with corpses."

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:37 (nineteen years ago)

I really don't get this constant reassurance that black person-averse people would be more comfortable with black people if they just dealt with them a bit. Seriously: what in the world would someone like me gain from that? I don't have any interest in being comfortable with black people! I don't ever intend to interact with one! The chances of a situation developing where I would want to talk to one -- like some kind of bank transaction where the teller is black and OMG I have to deposit my freelance check! -- not really something I expect to happen! And if a black person walks up on me, I think my black person-aversion will be pretty much situation-appropriate! So sure, I could go to an A.M.E., or take a African-American studies course, and get totally comfortable with them, but it would be largely pointless and make zero difference in my life, including in my level of trust in black people. It's just ridiculous to imagine that being able to interact with them oneself will make a person more comfortable with how common they are; there's no level of comfort you're going to achieve on the city streets that's going to make it so that lives don't end when black people are approved for mortgages.

So I dunno, a lot of the comfort stuff seems to me like the equivalent of saying "well if you just had sex with enough corpses, you'd get used to it, and be comfortable with a society in which everyone has sex with corpses."

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

(yes i am a bitch)

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think anyone is saying that, really. I think it stems from the frustration that the perception of guns as these instantaneous, ready-to-go-off-at-any-second devices does cloud the issue. I certainly wouldn't expect the greater understanding of a gun to make someone change their mind, but it's worth exploring the possibility that some of the more hysterical responses might be muted somewhat. Also, it bears repeating that despite what portrayals might rise from television and video games, shooting accurately (particularly a handgun) is difficult, and I think that sometimes isn't clear if you haven't been exposed to one.

I don't want anyone to feel compelled to go shoot a gun, but I also think that it's fair to expect that if you choose not to do so, you can't hold forth any sort of expertise on how "dangerous" they are, other than in a grander statistical sense.

Not directed at anyone, just responding to nabisco.

xpost haha

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

I don't want anyone to feel compelled to go get assaulted, mugged or taken hostage by someone with a gun, but I also think that it's fair to expect that if you haven't been, you can't hold forth any sort of expertise on how "dangerous" they are, other than in a grander statistical sense.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

i'm puzzled by the idea that guns aren't inherently "dangerous" - that it's only blind ignorance that makes people feel uncomfortable around them.

xpost

th otm

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:52 (nineteen years ago)

guns dont kill people, black people kill people

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

i mean, i'm a licensed driver and am often a passenger in cars and can handle one appropriately and know my road safety rules etc etc, but it doesn't take away from the fact that cars are dangerous. it's just a matter of risk/harm reduction.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

and luck.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

I'm talking specifically about the dangerous nature of the object/device itself, and meant the "grander statistical sense" to incorporate understandable fears of gun violence/muggings/etc., but I couldn't figure out a way to state that clearly.

many xposts

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

OK - so was I, JJ!

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

xpost stuff: John, I don't think anyone here has been at all hysterical here. And I think the "grander statistical sense" is the one most people are talking about, really: they're dangerous in that plenty of people get killed by them, and whether or not they go off at any moment, there's a significant number of gun-related accidents. Getting comfortable with them would make me slightly less edgy when there's one in the room with me, yes -- but my worries about US gun ownership aren't based on my personal in-the-room edginess, you know? Which edginess is fairly minor, and not so debilitating that I have any need to go "work" on it.

And just for the record, the "city dwellers" argument is a bit strange to me, too. It's true that in a crowded, well-policed city, you're much less likely to run into wild everyday situations where a gun might be useful (e.g., woodland bear attack or whatever) -- but I have also lived and spent time in very small towns, and I have to say, I was no more expecting gunplay situations to crop up there than I am in NYC. I understand the old rural-homestead pioneer-spirit "miles and miles from the tiny police station" rationale for gun ownership, and am all for people having basic rifles when cougars start prowling through their yards and whatnot, but I think that spirit has extended on into levels of urban and suburban civilization where they're not nearly as appropriate. And I really do wonder about the thing everyone's been asking Roger, the thing people always want to ask people with multiple guns, which is something like: what are you expecting? A home invasion? Mob violence? Post-apocalyptic survivalist free-for-all? The emergence of a totalitarian horror? Most of the potential answers tend to be kind of anti-society on some level or another. (Others just unreal, like the girl I knew whose father spent her college fund on heavy arms to combat a potential UN invasion.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:59 (nineteen years ago)

so anyway this happened yesterday

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two Secret Service officers have been injured in an accidental shooting outside the White House.

Tuesday's incident occurred in a security booth at the southwest gate.

Secret Service spokeswoman Kim Bruce says one officer was injured in the leg and the other received a shrapnel wound in his face.

Bruce says the injuries appear to be non-life threatening. Both officers were taken to nearby George Washington University Hospital.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

I suspect that a gun that wasn't inherently dangerous would not sell very well. Guns are inherently dangerous to anything in range and in front of the muzzle, that, is kind of the point.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

gun enthusiasts with collections of different weapons typically are not so stupid as to keep them all loaded or even have appropriate ammunition around, you buy the rounds when you go to the range and get rid of them there. a bunch of empty guns in the house is no different to my perception than a big collection of guitars or synthesizers or whatever, honestly.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:04 (nineteen years ago)

then how do you explain the evergreen popularity of Nerf, ed

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

you have me there.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

wait... jaymc's uncle built his own CANNON

Haha, I like that you just caught this now. Yeah, he built a few and sold them over the Internet to the Civil War reenactment community. I'm not sure whether they were actually operational or not.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

then how do you explain the evergreen popularity of Nerf

a seething, barely sublimated or acknowledged hatred of one's co-workers?

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

I am eagerly awaiting my permit to conceal and carry black people.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

P.S. the edginess is not gun-specific, either! If I were drinking with friends and one of them pulled out a machete and slapped it on the table, that would make me nervous, too. It's less a matter of misunderstanding guns, and more a matter of recognizing a weapon when you see one, and knowing that the stakes and the care you need to exercise have just racheted up. (I'd imagine a gun safety course tells you the same thing: when the weapon comes out, you have to be more alert and more careful!) And of course compared to any other weapon, a gun tends to have the shortest leap from "everything's fine" to "ok something really bad and dangerous is happening now."

(xpost haha Tom yeah I understand gun-collecting on the level of car-collecting, just trying out different types, but seriously up in Michigan I met plenty of militia-type people who were genuinely stockpiling, and I imagine that's not a Michigan-specific phenomenon. I guess this is where gun-collecting meets survivalism, these people where they raid their homes and find practically revolutionary caches of weapons -- to be fair, usually illegal stuff in those cases.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:09 (nineteen years ago)

^^^ agreed. also, JJ and Tracer both otm.

and, fwiw, it's helpful to know who the stockpilers are because when the Rapture comes, they'll have all gone to heaven and you'll be the one with an armory at yr disposal for use against satanists and the undead.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

those arrows were for TOMBOT, btw

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

(Actually, I do think that they were operational, because I seem to remember him using one to fire a pumpkin or something.)

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

Some people who own multiple guns are collectors, pure and simple. I would venture to say that the desire to collect guns can come from many sources. There are certainly the militia types out there, but there are also people that are avid hunters, people who are into military history, people who enjoy the aesthetics of guns, and simply people that for whatever reason are simply interested in and enjoy them.

All hardcore collectors are seen as somewhat "off" to the general public, but being a gun collector does carry with it a higher level of scrutiny than other things due to the controversial nature of what they are into. Still, statements like

And I really do wonder about the thing everyone's been asking Roger, the thing people always want to ask people with multiple guns, which is something like: what are you expecting? A home invasion? Mob violence? Post-apocalyptic survivalist free-for-all? The emergence of a totalitarian horror? Most of the potential answers tend to be kind of anti-society on some level or another.

do make the argument more acidic than it needs to be, and do show a certain problematic bias that makes these arguments more difficult.

xxxxxxxxxxposts, and probably not vital anymore, but I spent a long time typing it.

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

survivalist stockpiling is something I am not familiar with! I guess that's my point, that I know plenty of "gun nuts" but genuinely don't suspect any of them of being any more bonkers than my one friend's dad with the basement full of like 50 guitars or my other pal who amassed a boatload of antique synths and drum machines or dude who started buying $300 editions of books on ebay

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

I would also like a cannon as the squirrels in the tree outside my bedroom woke me up this morning and MUST BE DEALT WITH.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:15 (nineteen years ago)

being a gun collector does carry with it a higher level of scrutiny than other things due to the controversial nature of what they are into.

who would've thought that collecting things designed to kill people would invite more scrutiny than collecting baseball cards or comic books

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:16 (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.