Senate Gun Control

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I'm relatively certain that I have not hit "like" on so many posts on a single page since the move away from IGN boards made such things possible.
    Last edited by KnightWriter, Jan 2, 2013
  2. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    I'll accept firearms in the same class as bow and arrows when their widespread use outside of sporting is a few centuries in the past. Honestly, I'd prefer those people to make a little sacrifice and settle for BB's. :)
    Blithe and V-2 like this.
  3. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Having been shot by a BB, I'm not sure how I feel about that.
  4. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    It's better than being shot by an AR-15.

    Oh, what the hell. Ban those ****ing BB guns too. Not like I have any say in policy.
    V-2 and KnightWriter like this.
  5. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Outside the US, this is the case?
  6. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    There are still gun-related deaths in other Western countries, just much less than the United States. Anyway, I was referring to the fact that guns are still practical weapons worldwide-- weapons that rendered an archer's skill obsolete.
  7. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    they're not the problem, but let's not pretend like they did some great thing. i mean i guess that's somewhat subjective and it's good for them that they shot the thing just right, but it's not like it improved anyone's lives.
  8. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    I've never seen such an inane argument from Hoth. Hoth, was it a hefty New Year's Eve?
    "Okay people, let's leave the US with their hundreds of millions of guns - because target shooting is fun!"

    I'm not sure whether or not target shooting is a key factor in the intensity of US gun culture. I'd say that until we've figured that out, questioning the sport can be instructive.

    ITT, ES seems to be the most objective poster, because he's the only one to have owned guns but doesn't jump through (that many) hoops to defend them.
    tom likes this.
  9. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Yeah it was pretty hefty but you seem to have missed the point of my post.
  10. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    It's a sport. That is the point. Whether you think it is worthwhile is a matter of opinion and personal preference. You can support gun control and also support recreational target shooting as a sporting endeavour.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Jan 2, 2013
  11. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    yeah, that's what i meant by "it's somewhat subjective". but "it's a sport" seems like a pretty flimsy defense to be honest. would you defend dwarf tossing on the same grounds?
  12. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Dwarf tossing! Excellent example.
    By the way, is a practicioner of that sport called a dwarf tosser?
  13. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Yes. If people started throwing dwarfs illegally and people were getting killed then I would support measures to prevent the illegal use of dwarfs. But I would also cheer on the Australian dwarf throwing team at the next Olympics.
    Rogue1-and-a-half likes this.
  14. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    well alright then. but i think australia is the only country that has a team, so you're safe. kind of like the u.s. and our mass murder teams.
  15. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Well you could argue that most sports don't change the lives of citizens worldwide, but that doesn't invalidate it. Target shooting, at the Olympic level, requires a degree of fitness (to hold the rifle steady until you're ready to fire; bear in mind, most of the movement is a combination of regulated breathing and input from your left arm) as well as precision and patience.

    There's a difference between hitting a can with a .223 round, hitting a clay pigeon with buckshot, and hitting a target area the size of Sarah Palin's brain. And let's not even go into the guys who do biathlons...

    But yeah, to your point, it is harder than you think
  16. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    No, let's! Let's go into biathlons.
    Proof that you can make anything into a sport.
    Doing my tax report also requires fitness, precision, and patience.
  17. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    oh, i actually have no doubt that it's difficult. that just isn't enough to justify it's importance to me. i'm sure we could think of any number of hypothetical sports that would be just as hard, but ultimately just as pointless. i know it's something that some normal people find fun, but should this activity be normalized? should people who are good at it be given medals and idolized? i'm not sure.
  18. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Eh I'd argue it is normalised outside the US and I would bet that shooting's inclusion as an Olympic sport wouldn't be a US-driven thing. Yes, the US has dominated the medal tally but that's comparative advantage for you; much larger pool of shooters to draw from (same reason why Britain dominates Formula 1; more support for it).

    The thing is, you need to separate competition shooting from the gun nut culture, and bear in mind most sporting/target shooters look in the phallic gun culture with disdain. Kind of like when a rapper buys a Bentley.
    LostOnHoth likes this.
  19. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    It's not important and I'm sure the US shooting team is as ignored and unknown as the Aussie shooting team (except when we win a medal) but that is not the point. I raised this issue in response to a post which appeared to ridicule the notion of shooting a gun as a sport. The whole "guns are manufactured for killing and wounding" routine seemingly ignores the world wide target shooting community who do spend obscene amounts of time shooting at paper targets. Now you or I might find that to be a stupid way to spend your time but it seems kind of ridiculous to make it sound like anyone who enjoys target shooting is a freak.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Jan 2, 2013
  20. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Also, ridiculous amounts of money. My Walther GX-1 was about AU$3600, then you have to buy your competition sights; glove; shooter's jacket; shoulder strap; map; a small tripod mounted scope to review where on target the shot landed; earmuffs,and a mat (I shot prone).

    .22 ammo is cheap but the rest isn't.

    AR-15 - what, $1K US? That's why I might scoff at the notion of it being a target rifle.
    Last edited by Ender_Sai, Jan 2, 2013
  21. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    It's a fair point. I rode my point a little far in the post you're talking about. However, I still find the argument that guns are somehow not manufactured in order to be used as weapons to be incredibly disingenuous. Somebody with a gift for statistics should compile world-wide gun ownership stats broken down by how many are used exclusively for target shooting and how many are used (or kept to have the option of using) as either an offensive or defensive weapon. Okay, a lot of people shoot at paper targets; that does seem silly to me, but it takes all kinds etc. What I find too silly to ignore is the argument that guns themselves are really only or mainly used in order to target shoot; we're talking about a lot of officers of the law, a lot of soldiers, a lot of criminals and a lot of armed civilians who would disagree with you, who would state quite openly that they have a gun specifically so they can use it as an offensive or defensive weapon, not as a piece of sports equipment. Maybe target shooters have managed to turn guns into a piece of sports equipment; but the overwhelming motivation for manufacturing and/or owning a gun is still what it has always been: to have the option of killing or wounding someone else. It isn't a distortion of the facts to say that this is the reason behind the existence of guns; it is the reason.
    V-2 likes this.
  22. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Let me provide you an example out of my own gun safe.

    I own 7 firearms (3 rifles and 4 handguns). Of those 7, one I bought specifically for self-defense. One I bought for a combination of self-defense and target shooting (before I got my self-defense gun), but is now used only for target shooting, and the rest I have either for target shooting or hunting. They range in caliber from .22 LR up to 45 ACP, but they were all bought for the primary purpose of shooting holes in paper (or melons, if we're at my friend's place in the country). Only my every day carry sidearm was purchased for the purpose of defending myself, if needed.

    If you look at the statistics, the fact is that guns are mainly used for hunting or to shoot holes in paper. Police use? There are only about 700000 police in the US (most of whom only fire their gun twice a year for qualification). It's also important to note that the figure of 300 million firearms in the US only covers those in civilian hands. It doesn't include police- or military-owned firearms. Criminal uses? There were about 1.2 million violent crimes in the US in 2011, and not all of them involved firearms.

    Again, there are 300 million civilian-owned firearms in the US. In Virginia alone, there were over 200000 deer killed with firearms in 2011. You can look up other states here. And that only counts the hunters who get a deer. Others (like one of my coworkers) haven't gotten a deer in the last two years. Even at the high end of estimates, there are 2.5 million defensive firearm uses each year. There are millions and millions of rounds of ammunition spent in target shooting each year, compared to only a fraction of that for defensive or offensive use.

    Remember also that we have been talking about civilian ownership of guns, not police or military use. As such, you can't start mixing police usage in to pad the statistics on your side. (If you are talking about manufacturing, the primary purpose is to make money, which can be done by selling to police, military, or civilians.)

    Among civilian-owned firearms, the primary uses are hunting and target shooting. That applies even to "assault rifles". (Another coworker took a very tasty deer last season in New York using a target model AR-15 in .223. I still have a little venison he gave me in my freezer. It makes good chili.) That's what the statistics actually show. If you want to dispute that, then the burden is on you to provide evidence refuting it.
  23. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    Is it too obvious to point out that shooting at paper targets is often practice for the 'real thing'?
    [IMG]
  24. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Most targets used are more like this:
    [IMG]

    It's also quite common to see people using paper plates or similar objects. The NRA HQ range that I go to (as it's the best and most affordable in the DC area) doesn't even allow targets that look like living creatures (including people). The closest they will allow is a silhouette target like you posted, but even those aren't used as much (because they tend to cost more).
  25. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    You make some good points, KK. I was more talking about world-wide than just the U.S. But your statistics do seem to paint a different picture than the one I was positing and the statistics for the entire world might be much the same. However, I think the point should be made that I'm including hunting when I talk about "killing or wounding." That's still a gun being used as a weapon. That it's not being used against a human doesn't mean that it's not being used as a weapon. I'm not attacking the morality of hunting. I'm just saying that owning a gun for hunting is still owning a gun to use as a weapon.