The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

(xxxxxxxxxxxxxp)

trying to change the issue to be able cheeseburgers and cars is ridiculous - yeah we have to fix lots of other huge problems in our society! we should also get on that! that doesn't mean we should let crazy people buy machine guns!

― iatee, Sunday, January 9, 2011 9:54 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark

w/e dude, that was not what i was suggesting. and yeah guys duh i fucking know that it's apples and oranges.

like yeah I'd totally be down with only banning handguns and letting the high power competitive rifle shooters have at it or w/e. but then it makes it harder to resist the boot of tyranny oh no

With even a little planning and skill, you can do a lot of damage with a "high power competitive rifle." Charles Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, perhaps you've heard of them.

How is it 'pretending' dayo? We don't live in a lawless society with gun violence on every street corner. What would be 'good enough' for you? What numbers are you looking for?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 11:56 AM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark

how about a homicide rate similar to the UK's or any other developed country that outlaws guns

seriously, i grew up around people who hunted -- all of whom were law-abiding and sane, and knew how to handle guns responsibly. i never saw any point in needlessly antagonizing them, even if i thought that NRA rhetoric was either wrong or wacked out.

that doesn't mean we should let crazy people buy machine guns!

i agree! and we don't let them, or in fact almost anybody buy machine guns, so i dont really know what that has to do with anything

With even a little planning and skill, you can do a lot of damage with a "high power competitive rifle." Charles Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, perhaps you've heard of them.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:57 PM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dogg compare the homicide rate w/ handguns vs rifles

oh why am i being serious on this thread again

the point isn't that they're the same, it's that the outright banning of guns would be about as feasible as banning guns. neither will ever happen. and, more to the point, banning fast food or guns or cars doesn't really address why exactly people die from those things.

lol typo

and I think comparing guns to other causes of death in america like cheeseburgers or cars or tobacco is fallacious because guns possess certain properties that those other things just don't. guns are designed to cause damage to other things. that is their only purpose. they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't damage the user of the gun. the damage done is potentially lethal. etc. etc/

When you're talking public health and safety, the spirit of the inanimate object is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't matter what purpose on Earth guns have, or cheeseburgers have, or whatever. If the argument is about what poses the greatest harm to the greatest number of people, metaphysics don't come into play.

this remains epically retarded, fwiw
With even a little planning and skill, you can do a lot of damage with a "high power competitive rifle." Charles Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, perhaps you've heard of them.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 11:57 AM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark

how about making gun training mandatory, making people go through very thorough background checks, psychiatrical evaluation, or how about allowing guns and banning ammo except for use at gun ranges where competitive high power rifle shooting takes place? there are lots of ways to make society safer without banning guns outright.

youd think "ban handguns" would be a good compromise but apparently "rifles can kill people too" is an argument to... not ban anything??

ps guns dont have spirits

woah, quick thread. super xp:

Eco-hunting isn't just about killing animals though. I know that with elephants you have to cull an entire family, otherwise the remaining members go on a big psycho rampage, so you can't just give a bloke a rifle and say 'cull elephants plz'. Dunno about deer but I assume there are also correct and incorrect ways to manage deer populations.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, January 9, 2011 8:51 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

sorry if this sounds harsh, but this post reads to me like you feel like you have a greater understanding of 'animal population management' or w/e you wanna call it than the people who are deeply invested in it just because you remember some fact about elephants in an article you read somewhere? i'm sure they have at least some, slight, tiny idea about what they're doing when they're out there bagging deer

there's no 2nd amendment about the right of a well-fed militia and the right to eat cheeseburgers not to be infringed, though

also apparently 75% of the 10k gun homicides are due to handguns, which, if it hasn't been made before, is probably the single most compelling argument for their severe restriction or banning.

how about a homicide rate similar to the UK's or any other developed country that outlaws guns

So, are those rates entirely based upon access to weapons, or are other factors in play?

i believe i pointed this out in another thread, but deer hunting is a literal necessity in this country - they're giant rats whose population can no longer be kept in check by diminished predator populations

xp

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 14:48 (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

OTFM. my house is in an area where deer are EVERYWHERE. at night they hang out in herds on people's front lawns and shit everywhere. then they run out into the road and get run over. so in addition to live deer there are dead deer everywhere too.

they're a nuisance.

When you're talking public health and safety, the spirit of the inanimate object is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't matter what purpose on Earth guns have, or cheeseburgers have, or whatever. If the argument is about what poses the greatest harm to the greatest number of people, metaphysics don't come into play.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 11:58 AM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark

wait why doesn't it matter?

how about ban handguns and when gangbangers start killing each other with high powered assault rifles we ban those too

youd think "ban handguns" would be a good compromise but apparently "rifles can kill people too" is an argument to... not ban anything??

nabs already made the most compelling post about the inherent evil of guns-as-objects, can we not even bother

It doesn't matter what purpose on Earth guns have, or cheeseburgers have, or whatever.

It absolutely does! Cheeseburgers at least do positive things like keep people alive in some way. Guns only exist to inflict damage.

oh i know all about deer and the problems they cause

max, you lived in Princeton when they were having the debate about allowing sharpshooters to kill deer from helicopters right?!?

sorry if this sounds harsh, but this post reads to me like you feel like you have a greater understanding of 'animal population management' or w/e you wanna call it than the people who are deeply invested in it just because you remember some fact about elephants in an article you read somewhere? i'm sure they have at least some, slight, tiny idea about what they're doing when they're out there bagging deer

― sleepingbag, Monday, 10 January 2011 14:59 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You're a sock, right? Not responding to this.

haha yeah that was awesome xp

wait why doesn't it matter?

If your argument is that guns pose a risk to the health and safety of the general population, leave out whatever you think their purpose is.

enh if some guy uses a gun to shoot a deer and then eats it (tho man why would you w/CWD) its proven itself as useful as a cheeseburger. stupid argument imo

Bang Gangbanners.

It's drawing a distinction irrationally. Handguns are bad because criminals use them! But rifles, particularly with wooden stocks, don't look nearly as scary or seem as weird. But in reality, if someone wants to go batshit insane - and this started out arguing about mass shootings, mind you - a .308 hunting or competition rifle is going to be more than adequate to fuck up whatever the nutzo wants to fuck up.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:02 PM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark

it's also harder to conceal a high powered rifle *shrug*

what does it even mean, policy isn't spiritual

it's pretty hard to misuse a cheeseburger and kill someone with it. it's pretty easy to misuse a gun and kill somebody with it. idk why I'm even bothering

It's drawing a distinction irrationally. Handguns are bad because criminals use them! But rifles, particularly with wooden stocks, don't look nearly as scary or seem as weird.

yeah its totally irrational

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

if you ban fast food before banning guns, there's gonna be a lot of pissed-off people with guns.

It's not that hard to conceal a rifle, actually.

"Ban handguns but leave rifles" is the kind of half-assed intellectual dishonesty that lets pro-lifers argue "but abortion is okay in the case of rape and incest." If it's about the ability to inflict damage (or the life of the fetus), the psychological issues in play (handguns are scary, etc.) don't come into play.

Max, can you kill someone with a "high power competition rifle"?

enhhhhhhh milo, the concealment thing is actually pretty central to handgun violence, i'd hazard. you can't shove a .308 down the front of your pants and walk into a convenience store like it isnt a thing. it might be "intellectually dishonest," but it certainly doesn't ignore how handguns are used

blunt objects due for a comeback

this isnt about "psychological issues"--i am equally scared of all guns--this is about the fact that the vast vast majority of gun deaths in this country are handgun deaths

blunt objects due for a comeback

― Princess TamTam, Monday, January 10, 2011 4:09 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

I'm not sure why you think I've disagreed that handguns are used more often. Guess what: there are more of them. And they are more easily concealable.

But guess what, once you've banned handguns, people who wish to do bad things will start using rifles instead, because you've left them available. Do you not comprehend that rifles are actually more dangerous than handguns when it comes down to ballistics?

theres no question that the world would be better off if handguns didnt exist - everyone should have an AK though, for armed insurrection

Because policy isn't spiritual. If your argument is that guns are evil because of their one true purpose, make that argument and leave statistics and public safety out.
If your argument is that guns pose a risk to the health and safety of the general population, leave out whatever you think their purpose is.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:03 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

also I really really don't get this point - why can't it be both? why can't the fact that guns are designed to be dangerous go hand in hand with referencing statistics that show a correlation between gun ownership & homicide. idgi

it's ridiculous that we're having the argument 'ban all guns' vs 'don't ban guns' cause on a political level that's never the fight. and I mean, we're having that argument cause some of us do actually believe the former, but that's never been the real-life issue. in reality it's 'very incremental regulation on how easy it is to buy guns' vs. 'any regulation, ever, is bad' and we can't even get that cause of (one interpretation of) the second amendment.

i think we should just ship all of our handguns to alaska and let them slowly take each other out

But guess what, once you've banned handguns, people who wish to do bad things will start using rifles instead, because you've left them available. Do you not comprehend that rifles are actually more dangerous than handguns when it comes down to ballistics?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:10 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i still dont see why this is an effective argument for keeping handguns legal instead of being an excellent argument to ban all guns

An AR-15 can easily be concealed inside of a gym bag or under a coat. Or carried in a backpack in two pieces and assembled once inside of whatever building one wants to do bad things in. As can any number of other rifles in different calibers.

nb: AR-15s are used as "high-power competitive rifles" these days, along with M1 Garands and bolt actions and such

Do you not comprehend that rifles are actually more dangerous than handguns when it comes down to ballistics?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:10 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah and that rifles would not really function the same way in all situations in which handguns are currently now used? like okay I get it, ban handguns and you're still gonna have your bell tower shooters. but it's gonna make it harder for casual robberies and other instances of gun violence that depend on the metaphysical factors of a handgun versus a rifle.

i still dont see why this is an effective argument for keeping handguns legal instead of being an excellent argument to ban all guns

i dont want to ban those guns because "they spook me" i want to ban those guns because they are currently being used to kill thousands of epople a year