Page 6 of 15 [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next


If guns were made illegal everywhere.
The world would be more safe, because there would be less gun crime. 23%  23%  [ 16 ]
The world would be less safe, because only criminals would have them and the law abiding would have no protection. 39%  39%  [ 28 ]
It would make no difference. 20%  20%  [ 14 ]
I'm really not sure how it would be. 18%  18%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 71

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Jul 2012, 7:09 pm

LennytheWicked wrote:

Quote:
Well, we'd have different types of crime.

We'd have a whole new class of criminal all the sudden is what we'd have. Not everyone, to put it lightly, is going to surrender theirs like good little sheep.
Quote:
Like with the prohibition, there would become a black market for guns, but that would mostly be contained to the people connected with the black market since guns tend not to be an addiction or as popular of a social thing.

We'd have people buying guns to protect themselves and their families at the risk of imprisonment. "Better to be judged by 12 can carried by 6" as the old saying goes.

Quote:
And many of the people who buy guns live in more rural areas, whereas during the prohibition bootlegging was more common in large cities.

More of them in the cities and suburbs than you think. There has been a significant increase in first time gun owners since 2009.

Quote:
However, I see absolutely no reason why automatic weapons should be available for civilian use. You don't need a freaking machine gun for self-defense or hunting, which are the only reasons anyone should ever use their gun.

Then you don't need a freaking car that can go over the speed limit, either. Ever look into how many traffic fatalities there are?
:roll:

That was too easy.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

30 Jul 2012, 9:43 pm

This is the harsh reality of it, folks:

Until the US can sort out it's cultural problems, they probably NEED the guns, because they DO have a society full of criminals armed to the damn teeth. It's a shame, but it's the truth.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Jul 2012, 10:20 pm

Shau wrote:
This is the harsh reality of it, folks:

Until the US can sort out it's cultural problems, they probably NEED the guns, because they DO have a society full of criminals armed to the damn teeth. It's a shame, but it's the truth.


Our cultural problems are nothing that an improved economy wouldn't help considerably right now. We're a melting pot and always have been so cultural issues are par for the course.
We're going to have guns weather we need them or not because a lot of us like (or love) them, even those sinister black ones.
I find it rather ironic, even arrogant, that your'e avatar is a gangster holding a Thompson sub-machinegun while you're telling us that we're all armed criminals.
:roll:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

30 Jul 2012, 10:35 pm

Now before I start, please understand that I put a bit of zing into that last response in order to provoke responses. You put things nicely, and people tend to ignore you. Want responses? Put some zing into it.

Raptor wrote:
Our cultural problems are nothing that an improved economy wouldn't help considerably right now.


How come a tough economic situation isn't giving New Zealand the same problems? Does America NEED to be on top of it's economic game in order to prevent people from going around shooting each other?

Quote:
We're a melting pot and always have been so cultural issues are par for the course.


This is incorrect. New Zealand is a melting pot, as much as I ever experienced America to be. We're stuffed to the brim with Chinese, Koreans, Japenese, Malays, Singaporeans, Maoris, Tongans, Indians, even American expatriates like me. People flock to NZ for it's cheap and quality education, one of the few places you get both at the same time.

Quote:
We're going to have guns weather we need them or not because a lot of us like (or love) them, even those sinister black ones.


Aside from hunting and self-protection, what do you really need guns for? Even if you just like to shoot them, that's fair, but you really ought to learn how to keep the guns on shooting ranges only, and not where criminals can get them.

Quote:
I find it rather ironic, even arrogant, that your'e avatar is a gangster holding a Thompson sub-machinegun while you're telling us that we're all armed criminals.
:roll:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_2

Wikipedia wrote:
Fallout is an open world role-playing video game produced by Tim Cain, developed and published by Interplay in 1997. The game has a post-apocalyptic and retro-futuristic setting in the mid-22nd century, featuring an alternate history which deviates some time after World War II, where technology, politics and culture followed a different course.


It's no more ironic than me liking a video game. A violent one, I grant, but I'm sure you're fully aware there is a big difference between video games and going out and shooting people, so I won't go on much longer.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Jul 2012, 10:51 pm

Shau wrote:

Quote:
Now before I start, please understand that I put a bit of zing into that last response in order to provoke responses. You put things nicely, and people tend to ignore you. Want responses? Put some zing into it.

a.k.a. trolling in some circles…..

Quote:
Even if you just like to shoot them, that's fair, but you really ought to learn how to keep the guns on shooting ranges only, and not where criminals can get them.

I’ll keep mine at home when I’m not using them, thank you. I don’t subscribe to the attitude that I’m responsible for the actions of a criminal who uses a gun stolen from me which is a crime in itself. I never leave them where criminals can get them without breaking a law (theft) and I’ve never known of anybody that does.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

30 Jul 2012, 11:03 pm

Raptor wrote:
a.k.a. trolling in some circles…..


One does what one must. Surely you'd agree that was far from the most inflammatory response you've ever heard. I'm not like that other guy saying he wishes to rape gun lovers with spiked dildos or whatever else it was he said, right?

Quote:
I’ll keep mine at home when I’m not using them, thank you. I don’t subscribe to the attitude that I’m responsible for the actions of a criminal who uses a gun stolen from me which is a crime in itself. I never leave them where criminals can get them without breaking a law (theft) and I’ve never known of anybody that does.


You seem like a responsible gun owner, yet we're still left with the conundrum where my countrymen in America seem to be absolutely garbage at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, whereas my countrymen here in NZ are pretty good at that.

How do we keep it so that law-abiding citizens can have their guns in the US so that they can use them for legal purposes, without simultaneously granting ridiculous amounts of guns to the criminals?

The solution here in NZ seems to have been as simple as: "Get rid of most of the guns". It's worked great for us. We've got a few guns, and those few guns are securely in the hands of very responsible individuals. It seems to be that America's problem is that they have way too many guns laying around for them to be able to responsibly manage all of them. We've only got a few, and can keep those few under wraps. America has them everywhere, and it's impossible to keep control of them all. I don't think this is a coincidence.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Jul 2012, 12:45 am

Dox47 wrote:
Someone else posted this link in the News forum, but I think it offers an interesting glimpse of the future futility of gun regulations:

Popular Science wrote:
A Working Assault Rifle Made With a 3-D Printer

Image

Get ready. It's now possible to print weapons at home.

An amateur gunsmith, operating under the handle of "HaveBlue" (incidentally, "Have Blue" is the codename that was used for the prototype stealth fighter that became the Lockheed F-117), announced recently in online forums that he had successfully printed a serviceable .22 caliber pistol.

Despite predictions of disaster, the pistol worked. It successfully fired 200 rounds in testing.

HaveBlue then decided to push the limits of what was possible and use his printer to make an AR-15 rifle. To do this, he downloaded plans for an AR-15 receiver in the Solidworks file format from a site called CNCGunsmith.com. After some small modifications to the design, he fed about $30 of ABS plastic feedstock into his late-model Stratasys printer. The result was a functional AR-15 rifle. Early testing shows that it works, although it still has some minor feed and extraction problems to be worked out.

HaveBlue has also been testing the "marketplace" for 3-D printing weapons. To do this he asked Thingiverse, the 3-D design sharing site run by Makerbot Industries, whether it was permissible to post weapons designs or not. According to HaveBlue, Makerbot's senior leadership decided to not disallow, but to discourage, the posting of weapons designs. Haveblue then posted a design for an AR-15 part on Thingiverse, but in the intensive legal discussion that followed Haveblue's posting, Thingiverse decided to ban weapons designs outright. However, since Haveblue's design is still on the site, it's unclear whether Thingiverse is enforcing a ban or not.

While there are still some details to sort out, it's pretty clear that making weapons at home using 3-D printers from commonly available materials is going to become much more commonplace in the near future. In fact, as 3-D printing technology matures, materials feedstock improves, and designs for weapons proliferate, we might soon see the day when nearly everyone will be able to print the weapons of their choice in the numbers they desire, all within the privacy of their own homes.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... -d-printer

8O



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

31 Jul 2012, 12:52 am

Because the guns are not the big problem to worry about. The problems are things like:

Drugs, substance abuse
Gangs
Lack of parental guidance and support
Poor education system
No vision for the future
No prospects for the future
Poverty
Despair
Extremely high unemployment rates in an area
Lack of mental health services (public and private)- especially aimed at minorities
Mental health stigma
Fear of legal and social persecution from seeking psychiatric help
A lack of support groups
A subculture that glorifies bad and even outright antisocial behavior
A lack of role models
I'm sure there's more but that's what I thought of off the top of my head! Getting rid of guns would be an extremely inefficient and by far the most objectionable way to address these problems.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Redshirt
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

31 Jul 2012, 1:56 am

LennytheWicked wrote:
Well, we'd have different types of crime. Like with the prohibition, there would become a black market for guns, but that would mostly be contained to the people connected with the black market since guns tend not to be an addiction or as popular of a social thing. And many of the people who buy guns live in more rural areas, whereas during the prohibition bootlegging was more common in large cities.


People aren't addicted to guns like they are with alcohol.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

31 Jul 2012, 2:30 am

Redshirt wrote:
LennytheWicked wrote:
Well, we'd have different types of crime. Like with the prohibition, there would become a black market for guns, but that would mostly be contained to the people connected with the black market since guns tend not to be an addiction or as popular of a social thing. And many of the people who buy guns live in more rural areas, whereas during the prohibition bootlegging was more common in large cities.


People aren't addicted to guns like they are with alcohol.

You'd be surprised! :P

Well the addiction isn't the point. It's the continued availability and putting the whole supply and distribution in the wrong hands. And unlike the demand for alcohol, the continued demand for guns would be driven by numerous causes.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

31 Jul 2012, 3:51 am

Dox47 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the real point that was missed by many here, is that there are crazy numbers of people being ventilated by guns, and that it is morally bankrupt to just say "that's life in the big city" and leave it at that.


Blabs, even if you threw out every murder committed by firearm and assumed no substitution, that criminals wouldn't switch to other weapons if guns were not available, our level of violence would still be very high comparatively speaking (IIRC 3X that of Japan). What we, the gun people, have been trying to get across is that violence is violence, the victim of an assault is usually not relieved to have been stabbed or bludgeoned rather than shot, and that focusing on the implement used rather than the systemic conditions which fuel the violence is foolish. End the drug war and you'll stop more violence than magically putting the gun genie back in the bottle ever would, foster economic growth in the stagnant areas that breed violence and you'd save even more lives. Focusing on guns to the exclusion of everything else feels like partisanship and culture war, and it causes people like me who are pretty socially liberal to vote more conservatively than we'd like to in order to both directly prevent gun control by defeating its proponents at the ballot box, and also send the message that it's politically inadvisable and will hurt the party that champions it. Look at it this way, as long as the Democratic party has gun control as a plank and the GOP doesn't, millions of people won't even consider voting Democrat, and is gun control really that important to you that you'd see the rest of your political agenda sink behind it?


the point that i'm getting at, is that the progun people usually are also the ones against social programs that would nip our violence problem in the bud.



aSKperger
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 326

31 Jul 2012, 10:48 am

Quote:
Okay, so let’s all stop wearing our seatbelts and disable the airbags since preparation is “BS” and seatbelts and airbags don’t always save the day in an accident.
That’s the same kind of logic.

no wrong analogy. Seatbelts are not equal to guns. Seatbelts/airbags are "equal" to bulletproof vests. And guns on the streets are equal to trucks driven by nondrivers. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of professionals with guns. But there are plenty of morons too. And that's the problem. And you admit it too.

Quote:
How do you find/identify them? Do they wear signs that say Murderer Trainee, Active Shooter Candidate, Undergraduate Rapist?
Wipe them out how? Sounds like you want to suspend due process based on suspicion alone and have them all exterminated.
Who’s giving them guns?

Nice question. How? Psychology tests, deep background checks, there are many options.
No, suspicion is not enough.
We do. They demand and we simply sell it to them. If you look closely at civil shooting massacres, at least half of the perpetrators were diagnosed with depression and several disorders BEFORE the attact. And still had legal guns (not all of them). So? Lets arm more?


Quote:
We're going to have guns weather we need them or not because a lot of us like (or love) them, even those sinister black ones.


Well, nothing to disscuss about then. Passion wins against sense.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

31 Jul 2012, 12:05 pm

aSKperger wrote:
Nice question. How? Psychology tests, deep background checks, there are many options.
No, suspicion is not enough.
We do. They demand and we simply sell it to them. If you look closely at civil shooting massacres, at least half of the perpetrators were diagnosed with depression and several disorders BEFORE the attact. And still had legal guns (not all of them). So? Lets arm more?


Most active shooters will pass a deep background check. And quite frankly, there is not enough law enforcement resources to do that!

All mental health information is strictly confidential anyway unless a subpoena is ordered.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

31 Jul 2012, 12:16 pm

auntblabby wrote:
the point that i'm getting at, is that the progun people usually are also the ones against social programs that would nip our violence problem in the bud.


And? That's still a tacit admission that the guns themselves are not the problem, regardless if their owners political choices. There's also the chicken and egg question; do gun owners tend to vote more conservatively because the less conservative party is anti-gun, or were they conservative in the first place? I think you'll find the answer more evenly split than you might imagine, given that guns are a pretty passionate subject for those who are into them.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


ShamelessGit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 718
Location: Kansas

31 Jul 2012, 1:32 pm

I'm surprised that there are so many gun nuts on aspie affection. Gun nuts are really anti-fact because you can just look at stats and see that countries with lots of guns have more gun crimes. Even if you don't understand why reducing the number of tools used to commit violence reduces violence, you can just look at the empirical evidence.



Mack27
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 382
Location: near Boston Massachusetts USA

31 Jul 2012, 2:57 pm

ShamelessGit wrote:
I'm surprised that there are so many gun nuts on aspie affection. Gun nuts are really anti-fact because you can just look at stats and see that countries with lots of guns have more gun crimes. Even if you don't understand why reducing the number of tools used to commit violence reduces violence, you can just look at the empirical evidence.


The fact is we could dance around statistics all day. My state has strict gun laws and more gun crime than neighboring states with lax gun laws. Another fact is that governments have killed more people than individual gun owners ever will.