The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

You start a thread about gun control, you kinda DO have to justify it

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Droone - here's hoping you never find yourself in a situation where you HAVE to handle a gun and, because of willfull ignorance, don't know how.

My wife hated guns and to a large degre still objects to the sheer amount that we have in our home. BUT she is no longr uncomfortable around guns and knows that, in a pinch, she can use one if she has to. The very notion of that brings me great comfort. But then, I love my wife.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:16 (seventeen years ago) link

Hardly "willfull".

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:17 (seventeen years ago) link

stet - i HAVE been justifying it all along. I'm just saying, I don't feel I HAVE to. If i lived in a gated community with security guards on towers, and were as far removed from violent crime as possible, I'd still own guns because I LIKE guns. That's all I was trying to say.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:17 (seventeen years ago) link

is this guy a familiar troll who I'm just not recognizing or what

either way 2nd amendment cheerleaders sure are tiresome eh

― Hans Rott, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (seventeen years ago) link

dan perry is otm and i am going to bed.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't have a great deal of knowledge on British labour, stet - how prevalent were deaths and strike-breakers physically

I know that in the coal strikes of the '80s there was violence and retaliation on both sides (Thatcher's fault, right?), but I don't know if (further back) there was violence largely from the owners/state against unionizers. (One key difference between the two - intimidation was effective here, one reason we don't have a union movement as strong as the UK.)

Granted, the examples there are from the first third of the 20th century, and the Civil Rights era is the middle third and maybe we think we're more civilized than that now. But I believe the possibility for the need still exists - and if not in the US, then certainly in parts of Latin America still recovering from our best efforts.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (seventeen years ago) link

I hate my wife. That's why I never let her near a gun.

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Ha!

I'm gonna go eat some cereal - I'll be back in a little while.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:20 (seventeen years ago) link

when come back bring arsenal

― Hans Rott, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:20 (seventeen years ago) link

Okay, as much as I'm disagreeing with Roger's stance, I believe that in addition to his hardon for guns he is stating that he is glad that his wife is comfortable with the guns around their house and knows how to use them because that makes her less likely to hurt herself with one.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Droooone: I know you were making at least a little humor in the argument, but if there were no guns, the next deadliest weapon would surely do just fine, dont you think?

Manalishi: Worse things have surely happened to me... but not on any basis that a gun would have ever helped me. I mean, I have had cancer twice, i have gotten fucked over by people emotionally. both of those really hurt me much worse than the loss of any personal possession could. Maybe, maybe if i my house was broken into when i was home alone, got roughed up and could have been helped by a gun, maybe i would think differently, but i really would hope that i wouldnt. anyway, most burglars make an effort to steal at a time when no one is home so they wont be caught.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:22 (seventeen years ago) link

but if there were no guns, the next deadliest weapon would surely do just fine, dont you think?

If there were a reasonable assumption that the elimination of guns would be equitable and complete - yes. Then you'd just be facing off Fonz style with chains and bats and stuff.

That's a very problematic assumption, though.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:24 (seventeen years ago) link

I think Milo and I are closer to each other in spirit than our posts or our final stances would lead the casual reader to think; I think we are using the same attitude to come down on different sides of this issue and I think his points make sense and are valid, I just don't come to the same conclusion as him.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:28 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't have a great deal of knowledge on British labour, stet - how prevalent were deaths and strike-breakers physically

I know that in the coal strikes of the '80s there was violence and retaliation on both sides (Thatcher's fault, right?), but I don't know if (further back) there was violence largely from the owners/state against unionizers.
The pitched battles of the 80s are probably a good example, ye: the Police were used as a state army to break the strike, but neither side was armed. I can't imagine how it would have turned out if the miners had guns -- I fear it would have meant armed police, which would have meant massacres.

In 1919 there was a riot over working hours in George Square in the centre of Glasgow, and tanks were sent in, but it was largely bloodless as well. Most of the labour history is like that -- lots of fisticuffs and thumpings and some huge marches, but very few deaths.

You talked about intimidation breaking US union movements (which I don't know much about) --- surely the guns would have helped with that?

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Milo: I definitely agree that it is a problematic assumption, but I still just cant see the justification of agreeing with our current gun situation over a situation with much, much stricter gun regulation and fewer gun deaths.

yes, i know that anyone pro-gun will say that very strict gun regulation will never cut down on deaths, but it never hurts to try, right?

Now, i know this isnt the best comparison, but look at prohibition. alcohol was viewed as something dangerous to society. it led to more crime (mainly because of gangsters and their guns) and we decided that prohibition really wasnt the answer to the problems. So a novel thing happened... they repealed it.

I think a lot of gun owners are afraid that they are wrong, so they will fight to the death so they will never have the opportunity to be proven wrong.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:31 (seventeen years ago) link

And of course, the canon example here is Ghandi, who successfully used no guns to stop us stamping all over India with lots of them xpost

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:33 (seventeen years ago) link

You guys are familiar with this, right?:

The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.)

The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000187.

Statistically, doctors are 9,144 times more dangerous than gun owners.

NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Dude, why are you crazy?

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Very strict gun regulations probably would prevents some deaths, just not ALL of them, so what's the point.

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:36 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean seriously, why are you posting bullshit statistics games like they are meaningful or like that will make someone find you credible?

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:37 (seventeen years ago) link

but doctors are NECESSARY, u dumby

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:38 (seventeen years ago) link

accidental gun deaths
vs.
intended gun deaths

accidental doctor deaths
vs.
intended doctor deaths

Hey, this is fun!

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah guys. gun leg is gonna be hard. so let's not try.

besides, there's powerful lobbying behind that shit.

I really dont see how the upside of owning guns privately outweighs all of the death and stuff that happens that involves guns. t0dd on the mark to this point.

now, excepting for legitimate reasons (say viable and verified threats against family, self – but not raw property, fuck property – and for the procurement of food, hunting, etc.,) why [/i]can't[/i] we have a significant lockdown on guns? seriously, let's quit hiding behind the second amendment as gospel; use it for the philosophy intended. the philosophy is intended toward the protection of the people from universal threat. so let's read it in the spirit of mitigating a universal threat: gun violence. logos, not inflexible literality.

anyway, we're reading an evolutionary article; or at least i try to consider it that way when i'm reminded of the 3/5ths representation it entitles me.

― remy bean, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (seventeen years ago) link

also bullshit on the 80 million guns claim

― remy bean, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost galore

Manalishi: That is really the worst stat i have ever seen... and possibly the most transparent. I am pretty sure you realize this.

While accidental gun deaths do matter to me and are definitely a problem, they are not the real problem. The problem is non-accidental gun deaths... where people are meaning to harm others. are drive-by shooting accidental? are school shootings? are cases of passion?

sure, doctors are people and they make mistakes. the human body is fragile and when doctors accidentally prescribe a wrong drug or make a mistake in surgery, it is not with intent to harm. how many doctors are out there who harm intentionally?

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:43 (seventeen years ago) link

lol guns

http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/shoot.gif http://forums.seriouszone.com/images/smilies/sconf.gif http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/uzi.gif http://forums.seriouszone.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:43 (seventeen years ago) link

i think that 80 million might be right - the best estimates are something like 30% of households, but that # doesn't differentiate between an old hunting rifle in the garage and a loaded 357 in the dresser.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:44 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.renegadechickens.com/chickens/Toons/foghorn.jpg

pictured l-r: ilx, roger

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Nonviolent protest only works against opponents who have qualms about slaughtering you, yeah?

― Kerm, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:47 (seventeen years ago) link

No, it works against people who have qualms about being seen to slaughter you. It's all PR

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:49 (seventeen years ago) link

Kerm: in a democratic society such as ours, mowing opponents down rarely results in positive gains for your side. remember what happened in Harlan County after an anti-union bully killed a miner? the company gave in and let the miners unionize because there was national attention and scrutiny.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:51 (seventeen years ago) link

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/con7/gungirl1.jpg

^^ properly educated amirite????

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:53 (seventeen years ago) link

I've been following this debate with interest, during my lunch break of vegetable pasty and orange juice, but sadly Manalishi has just lost all credible debating points with his fucking rubbish statistics.

― Huey in Melbourne, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:54 (seventeen years ago) link

This article is about the Australian gun buyback. It might be of some interest to the gunny people on this thread.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Dr Baker and her co-author, Samara McPhedran, declared their membership of gun groups in the article, something Dr Baker said they had done deliberately to make clear "who we are" and head off any possible criticism that they had hidden relevant details.

hmm.

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:59 (seventeen years ago) link

Who do you think (hope) has the biggest dick in Nickelback?

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:00 (seventeen years ago) link

The stats were just for fun, folks. Get over yourselves.

That said - the statistics are correct. But clearly supposed to be funny.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:01 (seventeen years ago) link

SO you are just trolling then.

― Trayce, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Boy, you fellas just LOVE that word, huh?

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:08 (seventeen years ago) link

you proved you are no jimmy kimmel.

― estela, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:10 (seventeen years ago) link

lock thread

― strgn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:16 (seventeen years ago) link

lol @ 'great ilx gun control debate' = milo and dan perry more or less agreeing and everyone pretending to take manalishi seriously

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:48 (seventeen years ago) link

guns: cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:52 (seventeen years ago) link

http://outbackdobbs.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/awb1.jpg

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:59 (seventeen years ago) link

So the next time I go to the docs, do I need to pack heat or something?

― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 05:24 (seventeen years ago) link

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000187.
The number of accidental deaths per car owner is 0.000055.

almost three times as high!

clearly, we should outlaw cars before we outlaw guns.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 05:29 (seventeen years ago) link

number of airplane deaths per airplane rider is 0.000002 ... this is about 1/10th the odds of dying in a car accident!

so ... why is it harder to get an airplane pilots license than a driver's license? LIBERAL CONSPIRACY?!?!?!

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 05:32 (seventeen years ago) link

http://thenewgamer.com/thenewsite/img/screens/000029_2.jpg

― gershy, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 05:48 (seventeen years ago) link

"The younger the better. I like shooting them. I like how they look and smell."

-manalishi

seems pretty clear to me.

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:03 (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.