The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

Maybe add a propellor beanie and keep having fake conversations about Maria Bartiromo, just to be sure.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:29 (seventeen years ago) link

haha i love that chris rock bit. and yeah, nabisco, the whole messing up yr ride thing is an argument i had to pull out against my roommate this morning. like, you COULD try and mow people down with yr car but eventually the thing just wouldn't go anymore

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:37 (seventeen years ago) link

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:51 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, that always makes me feel bad about breweries and tobacco companies too.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:54 (seventeen years ago) link

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, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:25 (seventeen years ago) link

So does having a belt-sander.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Right. Your point?

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:51 (seventeen years ago) link

Having a gun makes you think of situations in which you could threaten/shoot people vs. having a juicer makes you think of different kinds of juices you could make

Parallel in the abstract, but not in terms of danger posed

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:52 (seventeen years ago) link

I have to admit that there are very few things that I have touched where I haven't tried to formulate a way that I could kill someone with it. Including juicers and belt sanders.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:54 (seventeen years ago) link

Killing someone with a little manual juicer would be pretty impressive - like stuffing their face in it and "juicing" them

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:55 (seventeen years ago) link

I know, right????

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:55 (seventeen years ago) link

I think I was actually more prone to abstract fantasies of killing with small objects before I started shooting. A basic desire not to go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison (exponentially more likely if you do something stupid with a gun than something stupid with a juicer) goes a long way.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:59 (seventeen years ago) link

With a gun, you might also think about how you can start a bonfire.

Q: Now that I have a gun, how can I start this here bonfire?
A: Easy! Take a beer can, fill it with gasoline, place gently on top of bonfire. Step back about 50 feet, shoot can with handgun. Instant bonfire! Hope you brought marshmallows ;)

Pulled from the pages of real life!

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:19 (seventeen years ago) link

On top of an already in-progress bonfire?

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

we're talking about starting a bonfire here, Jesse

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

so you say now

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

guys, the can explodes

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

NO WAI

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

dude.

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

way.

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

the gun is just for show

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

yes but are the monkeys islamic?

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

"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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

Outlaw history, Tuomas.

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

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

you're the tool, roger adultery

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

PS suck my dick

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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.