The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

"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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

What's wrong with how guns smell?

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

I think old ILX just melted down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

THE SAGA CONTINUES

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

I am now entertaining ironic revenge fantasies about Ted Nugent

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

wow. this is still going.

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

lolz @ Nuge the "master debator" yeah right

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

"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 (seventeen years ago) link

cold hard facts made out of bullets

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

Come again?

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

every time you think about guns, I bet

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

Glad you missed the point, Tracer. No shit it's politics - now how do you contain them, how do you keep personal agendas out of it? How do you keep from stigmatizing people with mild issues that could (potentially) cause harm to themselves or others? If people who might do themselves harm can be constrained from owning guns - do we need to remove them from all other possible forms of self-injury?

Nabisco, do you not see a major difference between a an invasive and extreme background check for security-sensitive jobs and for purchasing something? I've had two jobs that made me pee in a cup for weed - should we make everyone who buys a car take a drug test? (which isn't to make the absurd argument that 'cars kill too' - but those with illegal drugs in their system are presumably more prone to driving under the influence, right?).

o.nate - how is an 'independent body' any better than 'the government'? Who are they beholden to? What makes them more secure? Is there no chance that an 'independent body' can leak or misuse information? (again, Dubya overstepping boundaries to seize personal records from 'independent bodies' just like this)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:41 (seventeen years ago) link

xp - A similar question exists on the background check form for buying a gun - have you ever been forcibly committed or judged mentally ill or something along those lines.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Sure, there's always a chance information could be leaked or misused. The job of the bureau and those who run it would be to minimize that chance. Still I'd take that risk over the risk of fire-arms being made available to unstable individuals.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:42 (seventeen years ago) link

should we make everyone who buys a car take a drug test?

why not!!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (seventeen years ago) link

So you think the potential to save 33 lives every six years is justification to create a system that could be abused regularly and requires that anyone who wants to own a firearm submit to an invasive background check?

I mean, what you're describing here is an instant-access system with information on your mental and physical health regularly updated. That requires that doctors transmit your info every time they see you to a central database - not just of gun buyers, but of everyone who falls under the guidelines who might potentially purchase a gun (like the current criminal database). So the 35-year old mother suffering post-partum depression goes into the database, even though she's never going to think about buying a gun.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (seventeen years ago) link

'twas an xpost, of course.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (seventeen years ago) link

OK, if it's the record-keeping part that really bothers you, then forget the detailed psychological records. They would track only the most obvious things, like criminal records and records of being placed in mental institutions (stuff they're already supposed to track), but in addition to that, anyone who wants to buy a firearm would be required to pass a psychological screening test. The test would be paid for by the required application fee.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (seventeen years ago) link

This thread is pushing me into the gun-rights camp, despite Manalishi.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (seventeen years ago) link

i'd be curious to see the number of murders committed by unstable individuals using firearms (more than 33 every six years, just maybe)

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (seventeen years ago) link

And while we're at it, there would also be a required course in gun safety.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:47 (seventeen years ago) link

What does a psychological screening test cover? Who devises and judges it? How do you keep people from, you know, lying?

"Have you ever had fantasies of assaulting people you consider bullies and forcing them to beg you for mercy?"
"Uh, no. Really."

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:49 (seventeen years ago) link

I think milo kind of has a point here. medical records-as-basis-for anything is a dodgy proposition. (one caveat that hasn't been brought up at all so far is the um, accuracy and reliability of medical opinion. I mean, I don't trust doctors to properly identify anything.)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:49 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, presumably, the test would be designed to work even if people were lying. Perhaps it would include a polygraph test.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:50 (seventeen years ago) link

and electric shocks to the gonads

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:50 (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.