The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

Sorry Milo, I must have missed that line in the storm of abuse a bunch of you inflicted on Lurker. The fact is, in both of those quotes it seems to me that Lurker is being held more to task than Manalishi, and that is problematic to me. Manalishi talks about his love for the smell of guns, but someone attempting to make an analogy which validly supports the fear of guns in the hands of private citizens is worse?

But if it continues to make you feel like a man to insult my intelligence because I disagree with you, have at me man!

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:34 (nineteen years ago)

"validly supports" is wrong

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:35 (nineteen years ago)

I'm insulting your intelligence because you seem entirely too dense to understand that finding Roger creepy and Lurker creepy are not mutually exclusive concepts, and that one's feeling toward guns has nothing to do with it.

"someone attempting to make an analogy which validly supports the fear of guns" - not loading the question at all!

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:37 (nineteen years ago)

Calling an opinion wrong, when evidently there are others who agree with said opinion, is wrong.

Milo, you're insulting my intelligence because it makes you feel better. Like a bully. You could have attempted to make your point without resorting to name-calling, but evidently you didn't feel the strength of your logic was enough.

In any case, I fully realize the futility of this. I should have kept my mouth shut after supporting Lostandfound's articulate post.

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:41 (nineteen years ago)

"Calling an opinion wrong, when evidently there are others who agree with said opinion, is wrong."

Uh

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:44 (nineteen years ago)

Never mind, I'll let you work that one out on your own.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:44 (nineteen years ago)

Milo, you're insulting my intelligence because ~~it makes you feel better~~ I say things like "Calling an opinion wrong, when evidently there are others who agree with said opinion, is wrong."

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:47 (nineteen years ago)

Guys, I think we're on the brink of some really great results here.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:48 (nineteen years ago)

"HI DERE" and "John Justen" have both been sockpuppeted for the purposes for injecting confusion into your virtual society. By tomorrow, both will return to non-sensical all caps statements or image posts as previously arranged.

-- John Justen, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:03 PM (Yesterday)

I MEAN YOU CAN'T SAY I DIDN'T GIVE YOU FAIR WARNING.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:51 (nineteen years ago)

Jeez guys, I think it's you who need to check your cognitive reasoning.

The current tag-team attack on me has to do with my (and others) opinion that Lurker's analogy validly supports the fear of guns. As an opinion that other people agree with (Nabisco, Lostandfound, etc.) the jury is still out on whether it is right or wrong. It's a fucking opinion after all. Moonship stated that I was wrong, as if his opinion is any more factual than my own. That is wrong.

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:58 (nineteen years ago)

nah i question the validity of lurker's methods

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:07 (nineteen years ago)

notice that the part i take umbrage with is "validly stated"

it's like, suppose we are having a discussion about fuel economy and cars and the rising price of oil and greenhouse emissions and dwindling supply and so forth ...

and roger gets on thread and is all "well i like my big hummer, yo yo yo, i like to drive it around cause it's big and manly manly, ho ho, so fuck all yall"

and that's bad, but then lurker gets on and is like

"have you ever seen a hummer driven repeatedly over a person's head until it smashes like a watermelon? well have you? have you? huh tough guy? have you seen a baby otter drowned in motor oil?!? have you?"

and that's just bad / offensive / gross internet skillz

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:11 (nineteen years ago)

As Nabisco stated in his first attempt to quiet this furor, that's not what Lurker was saying at all.. He was saying something more along the lines of "If I saw someone drive a hummer repeatedly over a person's head until it smashed like a watermelon.... and I had a gun..... I sure would be tempted to blow the head off of the fuckwit behind the wheel of the hummer... so it's a damn good thing that everyone isn't carrying a firearm to act during such an emotionally charged event!"

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:18 (nineteen years ago)

LOL the willie horton school of policy-making!!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:24 (nineteen years ago)

isn't this sort of like arguing AGAINST nuclear disarmament based on THREAT OF ROGUE PLANET KILLING COMET?

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:25 (nineteen years ago)

Ha, okay, Moonship, just for the record, I don't think anyone here said Lurker's been arguing his point very appealingly? All I was saying, anyway, was that I followed his point, and it seemed a little unfair to call him a total psychopath over it. And then we got to some point where it felt like Jaymc and I were being called bad people for following his point and not thinking he was a psychopath, which was a little confusing to me. I would say we've found the "yelling out of cars at people" of new-ILX, but I totally think there's a sensible middle where his rhetoric's kinda whacked but his point's not exactly evil.

ANYWAY, the following is meant to be non-argumentative and mostly just a personal story. I actually have a packet, somewhere around here, of material for a how-to-teach-writing course I was in. It contains lots of sample writing from inner-city kids, mostly around middle-school, some younger, some older. Their teachers make a point of not evading the realities the kids grow up in, so they give them some tough assignments -- things like "write about the most frightened you've ever been." There are thoughts expressed in their writing, non-fiction personal-writing stuff ... there's ugly stuff that's happened to them, and there's ugly stuff they've thought about doing, plenty of it in way worse terms than anyone here. I think maybe that's part of why I didn't react too horribly to Lurker? I'm not saying that to argue a point: these were children I'm talking about, not grown men having a topical discussion on the internet, and you could easily say those children were creepy and disturbed, thanks to having been traumatized by a whole bunch of shit most of us should be thankful to have avoided. (I.e., I don't mean this the way Lurker means his rape-victim argument.) But this whole thing just puts me in mind of reading those and wondering how those students ended up. I'm sure a depressing number of them wound up involved in violence; I'm sure some of them turned out reasonably okay, though. Anyway, when people admit to having momentary violent revent fantasies, but still seem 100% aware of the wrongness and badness of that ... well, I guess apparently I've been trained to be all therapy-style non-judgmental about it? With children, anyway. But even with adults, it seems like people should be able to say "I've had these thoughts but I know they're wrong," and not get too much flak for it. That's why I was a little mystified by everyone using the word "nurturing" before, cause there's a whole lot of ground between nurturing those thoughts and calling someone a psychopath for having them. I imagine therapists and corrections officers of all sorts spend loads of time in that area.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:54 (nineteen years ago)

i'm sorry dude, i respect the calm voice-of-reason thing and all that, but i don't log on to ILX to do group therapy with total strangers!! i log on to ILX to hang out with grownups who aren't in the habit of using vivid descriptions of real or imagined crimes against their person to win talking points!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:12 (nineteen years ago)

"hi jaymc and [nabisco], i actually never want to speak to either of you again."

lol @ the nu "i'm off the internets because of you."

jaymc & nabisco & shorty & lostandfound OTM

― gershy, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:13 (nineteen years ago)

Man alive, and to think I felt guilty because I was so nasty to Roger. This thread has gone beyond my ability to comprehend the reason behind its existence.

― kenan, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:16 (nineteen years ago)

I sincerely hope that no one on this thread ever gets too enthusiastic about guns, in any sense but the very abstract.

― kenan, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:22 (nineteen years ago)

What's wrong with how guns smell?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:57 (nineteen years ago)

I think old ILX just melted down.

(Cue TOMBOT physically "threatening" someone, ha ha.)

― Lostandfound, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:35 (nineteen years ago)

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/8/4/19/f_gocry3m_dcfcfd3.jpg

― ghost rider, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:44 (nineteen years ago)

http://lonestartimes.com/images/Benzion/angry_baby_head.JPG

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:49 (nineteen years ago)

My two cents - Lurker is a pretty twisted fucker. Some people on this board would tell you that such a condemnation from the likes of me is surely the hangman's noose. Oops, there I go with my violent imagery again. I'd better stop or Tombot will accuse me of advocating lynching.

I don't really think I should even dignify this most recent discussion with a response, but I'm awake and I've seen this episode of Little House on the Prairie twice before.

I can only speak for myself here, and I said this upthread, but I never, ever get angry and think "I'm gonna get my gun."

To use an example from above, if I saw seven white kids beating up a mentally retarded black kid for no reason (maybe even if there WAS a reason) I'd do my very best to intervene and, if neccessary, kick the stuffing out of all seven of them. I'd probably risk jail, the ICU, etc, for the opportunity to break a few noses and generally take the focus off the defenseless kid. But I would never, even for a second, entertain the notion of firing a bullet that I could never take back. It just wouldn't cross my mind.

I don't say this to appear self righteous, I say this becaue I truly feel in my heart that most responsible gun owners would tell you the exact same thing, and because I think anyone who gets into a tiff and thinks that torturing someone is an aceptable course of action has problems that run far deeper than any mesaaegboard discussion could ever properly address.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 06:52 (nineteen years ago)

THE SAGA CONTINUES

― A B C, Friday, 20 April 2007 07:09 (nineteen years ago)

HAHAHA YOU ARE THE INCREDIBLE HULK AND I CLAIM MY $5

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 07:10 (nineteen years ago)

I think there's a lot that could be done to better regulate gun ownership without violating the 2nd Amendment. For instance:

- More thorough background checking: We have a rather comprehensive system in this country for tracking a person's credit record. Unpaid bills from years ago can affect your ability to get a mortgage. We have nothing comparable to this for buying a gun. One reason is funding. The private sector (credit agencies, lenders, etc.) maintains the machinery needed to track credit histories because it's in their financial interest. Are we as a country too cheap to insist on at least as good a system for tracking warning signs before someone buys a lethal weapon? We should have a system that rates the danger level and applies appropriate conditions to gun purchase. People who had minor mental health issues in their past might still be able to purchase a gun, but perhaps they would be required to go through a psychological screening process first, and their purchases would require notification of local police or other authorities.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil.

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who.

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

why are they letting Nugent on CNN now?!? wtf.

angry baby.jpg made this thread all better

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:04 (nineteen years ago)

tramp on the second amendment
skank on the fourth
tart on the ninth amendment
harlot ont he sixteenth

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:12 (nineteen years ago)

I am now entertaining ironic revenge fantasies about Ted Nugent

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:13 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIEHI0vfCBk&NR=1

btw guys im going to post entirely in youtube videos from now on ive always wanted to be one of those gimmick poster guys

― deeznuts, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

The Nuge made me very proud on the Glenn Beck show earlier this week. While not the ideal spokesman for gun rights, he tends to decimate anyone he debates on the issue.

Not that it isn't hard. Gun control debates are usually just knee jerk screeching hysteria vs. cold hard facts anyway. As evidenced by this thread.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

wow. this is still going.

― Gukbe, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

lolz @ Nuge the "master debator" yeah right

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

I'd love to see a Zombie Reagan / Motor City Madman ticket for 2008. That'd get me out.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

o. nate, you're describing a serious invasion into medical records, psychological confidentiality and giving the state a great deal of power to judge individuals on those merits. How do you keep the government from expanding those powers well past gun buyers? Doesn't that have some clear analogue to Bush's intrusions on civil liberties?

Maybe the records should be maintained by an independent body -not by the government itself. In any case, do you really think that the government wouldn't be able to get that information anyway, if it really wanted to?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:22 (nineteen years ago)

I'm sure the government can - we generally just protest when it chooses to (again, Dubya).

I don't even know where you start deciding what medical or psych conditions (which would have to be on record and available to someone). If you go on an anti-depressant for a short time? If you're clinically depressed? Bipolar? Do we want to start stigmatizing people for medical troubles?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:27 (nineteen years ago)

Manalishi, many of us - o. nate is the latest - have had you bang to rights, as it were, over and over on this thread. Trolls have an uncanny ability to be completely oblivious to getting sonned, though

I don't even know where you start deciding what medical or psych conditions

milo, it's called "politics" - that's where it starts, and that's how it gets played out - sorry there's not a big conversion table somewhere, pre-fabricated to make decisions easier

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:30 (nineteen years ago)

Milo, technically that wouldn't be an "invasion" and would be something you'd submit to in order to make the purchase -- people currently have to open themselves to that kind of scrutiny in order to get sensitive government jobs, security clearances, or authority to do certain kinds of hazardous work, right?

Not saying your point isn't valid, just that it wouldn't be inventing whole new powers on the part of government -- it'd be a vast expansion of existing ones, I guess. The argument that this is a step toward background review of everything is a worthwhile one, it's true.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

or even a step toward background review of everyone, which is even scarier

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

Hey Tracer - again, I've been here since around 2004, I think, on and off.

I can deduce that your sentence is somehow intended to insult me, but for the life of me I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say. Maybe I've never heard the term "bang to rights?"

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

"just that it wouldn't be inventing whole new powers on the part of government -- it'd be a vast expansion of existing ones, I guess."

DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:35 (nineteen years ago)

cold hard facts made out of bullets

― RJG, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:36 (nineteen years ago)

Come again?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

every time you think about guns, I bet

― RJG, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:38 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco's point is good. I would imagine this new service being set up as an independent body whose only purpose in using this information would be to provide clearances to purchase fire-arms. The details of the information would not be provided to the gun dealer, only the result, which would be one of three possibilities: Approved, Denied, or Contact the Bureau of Firearm Safety for further screening. Law enforcement would need to get a warrant to request any information from these records.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:38 (nineteen years ago)

i had to sign an affadavit last night stating that i

have not been determined to be a sexual psychopath under the provisions of Article 1 (commencing with Section 6300) chapter 2, Part 2, Division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or under similar provisions of law of any other state

just to be granted the privelege of attending grad school.

i don't think this part of the code includes stalking and/or domestic violence, i wonder if it should??

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:39 (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.