Gun Control V3.0

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Master_SweetPea, Aug 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    Wow, Fred's posting from KABA! How unusual!

    [face_tired] I don't know how many times I've posted the facts here for all to see. Evidently, too few take it upon themselves to research before they post...
  2. RobinHood Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 13, 2004
    star 1
    But you're ignoring the fact that this person could have been a gun owner for several years!
    That's sort of a cop-out, isn't it? Certainly waiting periods won't affect people who are current gun owners. However, waiting periods could stop crimes that are about to be committed by people who don't own guns.
    Besides, if you're about to commit a crime of passion, I would think you'd be so blinded by rage that you wouldn't care how you got the job done.
    For some people who are about to commit a crime, that may be the case. However, I am sure there are circumstances where a waiting period would have saved someone's life. Your scenario does not fit every case.
    Did you know that 31 out of 32 models of gun locks tested by the government's Consumer Product Safety Commission could be opened without the key?
    It doesn't matter if you can open the lock without the key as long as it remains hard to open. You said that the lock could be broken by banging it hard on a table, and by using scissors, tweezers, or safety pins. Alot of four and five year old children would find the lock difficult to break open, and it would save lives. Anyway, there is one model that works. If a law is made about gun lock requirements, it should be stated models that work are the only ones that meet the government requirement. Just because most of the models don't work doesn't mean the entire concept of required gun locks is void. It suggests to me a problem with the design of the locks, not a problem with the idea of gun lock laws.
  3. Emperor_Joe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2002
    star 4
    "You forgot to mention immature.

    Wow, Fred's posting from KABA! How unusual!"

    Well well well, Sai don't have a response so he resorts to ad hominen attacks. How unusual!

    "//remembers old thread in which these exact arguments were made and then cycles about for 20 pages..."

    So where is your aurgement?
  4. Emperor_Joe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2002
    star 4
    "That's sort of a cop-out, isn't it? Certainly waiting periods won't affect people who are current gun owners. However, waiting periods could stop crimes that are about to be committed by people who don't own guns."

    For how long? You can't make an excessivly long waiting period, that would be stupid. Too short would be a detrament to the thing you described.

    "For some people who are about to commit a crime, that may be the case. However, I am sure there are circumstances where a waiting period would have saved someone's life. Your scenario does not fit every case."

    Your scenario don't fit any know case on record. We have evidance that it killed people who couldn't get a gun earlier.


    "It doesn't matter if you can open the lock without the key as long as it remains hard to open. You said that the lock could be broken by banging it hard on a table, and by using scissors, tweezers, or safety pins. Alot of four and five year old children would find the lock difficult to break open, and it would save lives."

    And how many four or five year olds do you know that shoot people? They don't need to open it! A teenager however has govermental stats that show they can open a lock and that they will shoot somebody.
  5. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    So where is your aurgement?


    In the old thread. Where most of these are contained.

    And I wasn't attacking Fred. It was more of an inside joke, since he is practically endorsed by KABA. Again, see the old thread.

    E_S
  6. Brett_Bass Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2003
    star 4
    Anyway, I pretty much agree with you, Ender. When posting in this thread, we must be very careful to differentiate between American and international 'gun control' topics and ideas. In the U.S., owning a weapon is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. In, say, Norway or Brazil, that is not necessarily true. Hence my differentiation between legal and ideological positions on the issue.

    I also agree that the supply, availability, or per capita number of firearms does not directly impact crime to any measurable degree.

    Although, having said that, I might not be above pointing out that there are a lot of firearms in Switzerland...
    :p
    ;)

    As for the 'assault weapons ban' that has been referenced before, I think that Mr44 has done a fairly succinct job of explaining its various inanities. Essentially, it banned new semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles that had more than two of the following features:

    -A bayonet lug or other mount (permanently-attatched bayonets were, perplexingly, not outlawed).

    -A military-style flash suppressor (civilian muzzle breaks were allowed, however, again, arbitrarily).

    -A "conspicuous pistol grip" that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon (what, exactly, makes it 'conspicuous'?).

    -A threaded muzzle that allows for the attatchment of a flash suppressor or muzzle break (however, a permanently attatched muzzle break is acceptable).

    -A collapsable or telescoping buttstock assembly (but an 'adjustable' stock--which essentially does the same thing to a lesser degree--is alright).

    This law just barely got passed in 1994, and only because it had a 'sunset' provision added onto it, which meant that it would cease to exist in ten years. So, as of 14 September, 2004, this utter joke of legislation will pass away into the metaphorical joke-book of history.
  7. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    -A "conspicuous pistol grip" that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon (what, exactly, makes it 'conspicuous'?).



    Maybe it's wearing a trenchcoat and trying to look nonchalant in front of an adult bookstore?

    E_S
  8. RobinHood Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 13, 2004
    star 1
    For how long?
    That's for the government to work out. You make a good point about the waiting period being too long or too short, though. I'd rather err to the side of too long, myself.
    We have evidance that it killed people who couldn't get a gun earlier.
    Yes, and it's anecdotal evidence. It seems to be only a few isolated cases.
    And how many four or five year olds do you know that shoot people?
    There have been numerous incidents where small children got their hands on guns and accidentally shot themselves, a family member, or a friend.
    A teenager however has govermental stats that show they can open a lock and that they will shoot somebody.
    So the government does research on how well teenagers can open locks?[face_laugh]
  9. Emperor_Joe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2002
    star 4
    "That's for the government to work out. You make a good point about the waiting period being too long or too short, though. I'd rather err to the side of too long, myself."

    Then you have a problem, because when people buy a gun they want it now not a year from now.

    "Yes, and it's anecdotal evidence. It seems to be only a few isolated cases."

    And how many cases to contray of our evidance? None, thats the point.


    "There have been numerous incidents where small children got their hands on guns and accidentally shot themselves, a family member, or a friend."

    And you say our evidance is anecdotal.

    "So the government does research on how well teenagers can open locks?"

    Nope, but in the fifties they tested the lock opening skills of apes. And most teenagers are alest as smart as apes.
  10. Emperor_Joe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2002
    star 4
    "Maybe it's wearing a trenchcoat and trying to look nonchalant in front of an adult bookstore?"

    Do you have an aurgement?
  11. Brett_Bass Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2003
    star 4
    Dude, Joe, he was being funny. In an overcomplicated sort of way, he was launching into a critical and ironic exposé on the inanity of the legislation, a viewpoint that I'm fairly sure you yourself would agree with.
  12. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Brett, satire is lost when it's described. ;)

    E_S
  13. Emperor_Joe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2002
    star 4
    This is continued from the Security Thread, because I want to remain on topic, which was suggested by a dashingly intelligent forum mod:

    Jabba-

    "It's not "your business" if you get into an argument with your spouse and shoot her. Of if you get drunk at a bar and shoot your pool partner, or if your kid gets hold of your handgun and blows his little head off."

    I wouldn't shoot my wife(If I had one because I'm fifteen) over a arugement! I don't play pool, and my hypotetical kid would learn gun safety as soon as he or she is able to pick up a gun.

    "All I'm saying is that private citizens who carry around handguns are cowards, plain and simple. And it IS your busines whether or not you care more about your own personal safety than the good of your family and neighbors, particularly in places where handgun ownership is fully protected by law. I'm not questioning your legal right. Too far"

    Cowards? If you need the goverment to save you when you see a law abbiding citizen carrying a gun then you must be a coward. My family is safe. My neighbors are fine. And any question of the legality of gun ownership is too far in my book.
  14. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    ditto!

    the thesis that doesn't add up!
    Choosing to stand your ground in the unlikely event that you are attacked is cowardice?
    Choosing to hand over your wallet (or maybe you body if your a woman) is bravery?

    I haven't looked it up but didn't they tell us in high school that one in four women will be sexually assaulted???
    That should be reason enough for my wife to carry!
  15. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    Thesis? He doesn't have a thesis. He's just trying to piss us off (hint: it's working) so he can point and say, "See? See? They're the irrational ones! This proves they can't be trusted with guns!" But while he's only got emotion; we've got the truth. What they call "reasonable" and "sensible" is nothing but an attempt to force us to live at the mercy of others, as they do.
  16. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    By the way, Special_Fred. I looked through your link. And every single one of those advocacy posters is a direct play on fear. Really, after seeing that, I have to rest my case. The gun lobby's advertising to gun supporters is an overt, direct, straightfoward appeal to individual cowardice. I'm surprised I never noticed it before.

    I'm not actually advocating gun restrictions in this instance, Special Fred. All I'm saying is that someone who chooses to carry a gun for protection is living a coward's life - driven entirely by fear and a selfish, obsessive fixation on being safe.

    I don't include all gun owners in this, or advocate the removal of all weapons from private hands, or any other such nonsensical extremist stance.

    If this were a nation of real men, then gun control would never be an issue. People would be making rational choices based on realistic threats, rather than letting fear rule their lives.

    I don't carry a gun because I don't fear anyone, and I'm smart enough to make a rational assessment about the real dangers lurking in the word. The only place where I really, truly, strongly advocate gun control is to protect helpless children from stupid parents.
  17. darth_paul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2000
    star 5
    All I'm saying is that someone who chooses to carry a gun for protection is living a coward's life - driven entirely by fear and a selfish, obsessive fixation on being safe.
    Funny, that's exactly what I'd say about gun control advocates.

    There are cases in which, indeed, it may be cowardly to carry a gun. But you won't deny that there are cases in which it is prudent, no?

    -Paul
  18. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Jabba, just out of curiosity (and not related to colors here, notice, no green)- what is your purpose with these assertions?

    I just don't see any connection between what you are saying.

    A person may choose to carry a weapon and never actually use it.

    A person may just want the option to make such a choice.

    WHat I don't see is the link. Basically, how you came to this conclusion.

    I could say something like

    "people buy cars with airbags out of a sense of fear. I think they are a waste, because everyone should be learning how to drive more effectively, instead of worrying about a crash."

    But what do the 2 concepts have to do with each other?

    My car has an airbag, and I don't spend my days in fear of a crash.

    I don't know if that is even an accurate illustration, because you have me baffled.



  19. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    My point: I think it's time to confront the fear-driven nature of the movement to promote carrying concealed weapons for personal safety. If you look at the advertising on Special_Fred's link, you see that fear is the primary, number one message. Those ads are specifically designed to appeal to cowards.
  20. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    But my point is, can't that be applied to anything?

    This is what you said your assertion was:

    I don't carry a gun because I don't fear anyone, and I'm smart enough to make a rational assessment about the real dangers lurking in the word.

    Ok..

    But your feelings are your own, and don't apply to anyone else.

    Real dangers meaning what?

    Polar Bears? People mixing stripes and plaids? Disco Music?

    What if someone didn't wear a motorcycle helmet because they didn't fear wiping out?

    To that person, people who wear helmets are cowards.

    That person's lack of fear isn't going to matter when his head is scrapping across the pavement.

    But just because that motorcyclist puts on a helmet, doesn't mean he was influenced by crippling fear..

    Maybe the rider just wanted to be prepared, and to him, it was a rational choice?

    All your statements still seem like you haven't dropped the other shoe yet.

    Something like "I don't carry a gun because I don't fear anyone, and it is because I have fists of steel..Everyone should learn martial arts."

    Again, I don't know.



  21. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    "I don't carry a gun because I don't fear anyone, and it is because I have fists of steel..Everyone should learn martial arts."

    That's what I would say if I lived my life in fear. I would have exposed the fact that I let fear of attack dictate my life.

    Motorcycle helmets and safety belts are more than just personal safety issues and hence don't apply well as an analogy to what I'm talking about. The problem with failing to protect yourself in this instance, is that if you suffer an injury you could have avoided, then your failure imposes the cost of your accident onto the entire society, not just yourself. Every idiot who fails to wear a helmet is potentially driving up my health insurance premiums. This is a clear example of the intersection between rational economic behavior and personal discretion.

    People who carry a gun for personal safety are selfishly imposing the risk of accidents to themselves, their children, their spouses, their neighbors in return for "feeling safe" against what is essentially a negligable risk.
  22. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    Now that I'm slightly more relaxed...

    ...every single one of those advocacy posters is a direct play on fear. The gun lobby's advertising to gun supporters is an overt, direct, straightfoward appeal to individual cowardice.

    Really? How is this image...

    [image=http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_safetyrules.jpg]

    ...a "direct play" on fear? And this image...

    [image=http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/season2_.jpg]

    ...is that image really meant to scare anyone? How about this one:

    [image=http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/_olympic.jpg]

    How are any of those images designed to arouse fear? And by the way, Oleg Volk is not "the gun lobby", he's a man who experienced oppression firsthand in Soviet Russia, so there's a chance he just might know what he's talking about. And what is your outrageous claim that CCW permit holders pose a threat to society, if not a "direct play" on fear? You still haven't presented any facts to back up your position, as I have. You're making vague generalizations, and I demand to see what you have to back them up.

    All I'm saying is that someone who chooses to carry a gun for protection is living a coward's life - driven entirely by fear and a selfish, obsessive fixation on being safe.

    [face_liarliar] "Anyone who refuses to carry a gun for protection is living a coward's life - driven entirely by fear and a selfish, obsessive fixation on being safe."

    See? All I did was change one word, and look at how ridiculous that argument sounds. Now do you see how your logic doesn't hold water? This is just one example. The assertion I just made has no logical reasoning behind it, nor are there any facts or statistics whatsoever to support it. I'm just throwing insults out there to aggravate people on the other side of the fence, and that's exactly what you're doing.

    If this were a nation of real men, then gun control would never be an issue.

    You know, there are millions of women who legally carry guns for personal protection. Are they trying to act "macho" and "tough", or could it possibly be that they believe in being prepared?

    ...I'm smart enough to make a rational assessment about the real dangers lurking in the word.

    So am I. Every single person in this country is a potential victim. The chances that you will actually be victimized may be very slim, but so are the chances of your house catching on fire. Does that mean keeping a fire extinguisher around makes you a coward?

    The only place where I really, truly, strongly advocate gun control is to protect helpless children from stupid parents.

    Gun control will not protect kids from stupid parents. Parents that are irresponsible enough to leave their guns unattended with unsupervised children around aren't going to think, "Oh, wait! There's a law that says I shouldn't do this!" If they're already dumb enough to leave a gun with a kid who thinks it's a toy, more laws won't make any difference. Education, not legislation, is the proper way to deal with this problem.

    More later.
  23. Brett_Bass Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2003
    star 4
    Jabba:

    There's good and bad types of fear, you know. Fear lets us know when something is or could be dangerous. I'm afraid of spiders. Why? A large percentage of them are poisonous. I'm afraid of excessive heights without excessively well-built railing.

    Am I a coward? No. I avoid both, and I'm alive and reasonably healthy.

    Fearing something to the point where it prohibits you from doing the right thing is cowardice. Even Audie Murphey was afraid sometimes. But he didn't let his fear control him. He took reasonable precautions, and he survived World War II.

    I think carrying a defensive firearm is a very reasonable precaution. My PFT socre is in the low two-hundreds. I'm not the strongest guy on Earth. If a more powerful opponent decides he wants to gut me for the fun of it, I've at least got a fighting chance. And if some lowlife with a firearm decides to mug me or those I care about, I at least have the option of fighting back with comparable odds of success (unless a SEAL team member snaps!). If absolutely nothing else, I can die trying.

    Not that you can't do that without a firearm or anything. But I'd rather be a living man than a dead hero. It isn't irrational fear or some faceless phobia that made me decide to carry a pistol, it was common sense. Same reasons why I don't smoke, do drugs, or drink excessively. It increases my odds of survival.

    As for you ideas about automobile insurance and social cost on an economic level, I present you with the following:

    According to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for Fiscal Year 1997, privately-owned firearms were used approximately 5,000 times annually for self-defensive purposes without a shot being fired. The police--funded by the government, that's money out of everybody's pocket--didn't need to pay for any ammunition or broken kevlar vests. They didn't have to pay their people hazardous duty pay. They didn't need to pay them overtime for tracking down suspects. They didn't need to pay for as much gas as it would have taken to chase down a fleeing suspect. They didn't need to pay for helicopter support, and they didn't need to pay for any officers' medical expenses from injuries routinely--or otherwise--experienced during pursuits. When a private citizen apprehends a criminal, it saves you and me money. And it's not like these people are being forced into harm's way; they chose to confront the criminals of their own volition.

    In my book, that takes a degree of courage, and I think that even you will admit as much.

    "Courage," a wise man once told me,"isn't not being afraid. It's setting your fear aside and doing what needs to be done regardless. Courage is the defeat of fear."

    As for not 'letting fear control your life,' I believe that we all let fear dictate how we live. I refer you to my above commentary on venemous arachnids and unsafe vertical drops, and add in insinuations about playing in traffic and drinking drain cleaner.
    :)
  24. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Special_Fred, don't attack a broader argument than the one I'm making. I'm not interested in gun ownership for sport, I'm interested in the part of the gun movement that encourages gun ownership for personal protection.

    Those ads in your link relating to guns for personal protection are all direct appeals to fear. And that's the approach that has been adopted by the entire second amendment movement in its messages in favor of guns for personal protection: cowardice sells.

    Does cowardice sell? Look at this:

    Not appropriate to quote that.
    Ouch. "I'm just a little guy, so of course I need to carry a gun to protect myself from the hoards of people who otherwise would beat the crap out of me."

    Promoting gun ownership for personal protection panders overtly to cowardice over confidence and encourages wild emotional responses to risk at the expense of rational common sense.

    Just look at the gun lobby advertising and I think the case is closed.
  25. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    That is enough, jabba. There is no call to use the words of another user as an example of "cowardice". That is essentially calling them a coward, which is flaming.

    Kimball Kinnison
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.