The Big Gun Control Thread

Sorry Jayhawker, I'm trying to be cautious. It's that kind of thread.

I'm pro gun ownership but also pro regulation on the types of guns and size of clips.

Frankly I don't see why anyone not employed by the military or a security organization needs a clip size of more than 6 rounds or should have a semi/fully automatic reload mechanism. There are also plenty of options for non lethal rounds, which if you're a legitimate gun owner who wants a firearm for self defense I don't see why it couldn't be required to carry non lethal rounds.

Paleocon wrote:

Indian gang rapists? Yeah, pretty much need killing.

Paleocon wrote:

Indian gang rapists? Yeah, pretty much need killing.

Finally read up on the news about that. In the context of gun control, I'm with LouZiffer. Pulling a gun in a moving bus full of people with an aim to stop an ongoing rape sounds like a really bad idea, especially if it's pulled with an aim to kill prospective criminals rather than to stop crime.

Stengah wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:

I see guns being compared to other potentially deadly things like, alcohol, cars, knives, etc. The key difference is the only purpose of a gun is to kill something. That is it. It has no other redeeming value to our society.

And alcohol is essentially a poison. The only purpose of consuming it in non-lethal doses is to alter one's mental state. People get enjoyment out of it though, just like some people get enjoyment out of hunting with guns, target shooting with guns (which is a purpose that isn't killing something), or simply owning a gun. The argument to ban civilians from owning any gun makes as much sense to me as banning civilians from drinking alcohol.

Alcohol is beneficial for a couple of health reasons and you can consume for pleasure safety. There is no safe way to take a bullet and it has zero positive health benefits.

You can also die from consuming too much water. Your counterpoint is ridiculous. Guns have no safe application with any real benefit to human life.

When the zombie apocalypse happens everyone can have a gun. Until then, they are safest in the hands of professionals.

heavyfeul wrote:

Guns have no safe application with any real benefit to human life..

Have you ever eaten deer venison? It's pretty good. I like it in chili.

heavyfeul wrote:

When the zombie apocalypse happens everyone can have a gun. Until then, they are safest in the hands of professionals.

"I'm the only one professional enough to carry this in this room safely"

*shoots self in foot*

LarryC wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Indian gang rapists? Yeah, pretty much need killing.

Paleocon wrote:

Indian gang rapists? Yeah, pretty much need killing.

Finally read up on the news about that. In the context of gun control, I'm with LouZiffer. Pulling a gun in a moving bus full of people with an aim to stop an ongoing rape sounds like a really bad idea, especially if it's pulled with an aim to kill prospective criminals rather than to stop crime.

bandit0013 wrote:

I'm pro gun ownership but also pro regulation on the types of guns and size of clips.

Frankly I don't see why anyone not employed by the military or a security organization needs a clip size of more than 6 rounds or should have a semi/fully automatic reload mechanism. There are also plenty of options for non lethal rounds, which if you're a legitimate gun owner who wants a firearm for self defense I don't see why it couldn't be required to carry non lethal rounds.

Six rapists armed with 2 foot sections of iron rebar. They beat the living snail snot out of her boyfriend, brutally rape her, and then rip her anus open with a section of the rebar after they are done violating her with their penises. All the while, other folks on the bus just watch.

I have a hard time picturing anyone else I would rather shoot. And no, 6 shots wouldn't be enough.

Killing someone isn't a punishment. If you want someone to suffer, lock them in a windowless room for the rest of their life and deny them any human interaction and any diversions to keep themselves occupied. That's punishment. All killing does is remove them from the earth. You can't really suffer or regret your actions if you don't exist.

ruhk wrote:

Killing someone isn't a punishment. If you want someone to suffer, lock them in a windowless room for the rest of their life and deny them any human interaction and any diversions to keep themselves occupied. That's punishment. All killing does is remove them from the earth. You can't really suffer or regret your actions if you don't exist.

I don't give a rat's ass if they suffer or if they have the opportunity to figure out why they are behind bars. All I know is that had someone put a bullet in each of their brains, that girl would still be alive today.

Paleocon wrote:
LarryC wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Indian gang rapists? Yeah, pretty much need killing.

Paleocon wrote:

Indian gang rapists? Yeah, pretty much need killing.

Finally read up on the news about that. In the context of gun control, I'm with LouZiffer. Pulling a gun in a moving bus full of people with an aim to stop an ongoing rape sounds like a really bad idea, especially if it's pulled with an aim to kill prospective criminals rather than to stop crime.

bandit0013 wrote:

I'm pro gun ownership but also pro regulation on the types of guns and size of clips.

Frankly I don't see why anyone not employed by the military or a security organization needs a clip size of more than 6 rounds or should have a semi/fully automatic reload mechanism. There are also plenty of options for non lethal rounds, which if you're a legitimate gun owner who wants a firearm for self defense I don't see why it couldn't be required to carry non lethal rounds.

Six rapists armed with 2 foot sections of iron rebar. They beat the living snail snot out of her boyfriend, brutally rape her, and then rip her anus open with a section of the rebar after they are done violating her with their penises. All the while, other folks on the bus just watch.

I have a hard time picturing anyone else I would rather shoot. And no, 6 shots wouldn't be enough.

6 shots would be plenty for 6 melee attackers. They'd likely surrender after you killed one or two.

I'm glad I live far out of gun range from you guys.

heavyfeul wrote:
Stengah wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:

I see guns being compared to other potentially deadly things like, alcohol, cars, knives, etc. The key difference is the only purpose of a gun is to kill something. That is it. It has no other redeeming value to our society.

And alcohol is essentially a poison. The only purpose of consuming it in non-lethal doses is to alter one's mental state. People get enjoyment out of it though, just like some people get enjoyment out of hunting with guns, target shooting with guns (which is a purpose that isn't killing something), or simply owning a gun. The argument to ban civilians from owning any gun makes as much sense to me as banning civilians from drinking alcohol.

Alcohol is beneficial for a couple of health reasons and you can consume for pleasure safety. There is no safe way to take a bullet and it has zero positive health benefits.

You can also die from consuming too much water. Your counterpoint is ridiculous. Guns have no safe application with any real benefit to human life.

When the zombie apocalypse happens everyone can have a gun. Until then, they are safest in the hands of professionals.

Just wanted to say that I'm seeing two common themes in this thread:

1. Having a gun is pretty ridiculous unless it's the zombie apocalypse, which of course is something that will never happen.
2. The government/police/military etc will always have my back and be there to protect me.

To quote my law enforcement friends - when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Of course, that's if America remains a first world nation with a public safety system you can rely on. Sorry if I have my doubts, but right now the federal government can't even do something as simple as balance its checkbook. And that's not includng all the possible scenarios of massive disruption that could come our way in the upcoming decades - climate change, collapse of the global financial sector, peak energy, the pandemic we're way overdue for. Now, maybe none of these things will come to pass and we'll all live to 135 thanks to biogenetics, finally get our flying cars, and have robot butlers do all our laundry in a utopian future paradise. Or maybe several worst case scenarios (for example, peak energy tanks the global economy) will hit at the same time. Or the damage could be local - with only America's economy going down the tubes due to overspending and local government services becoming almost non-existent. Just ask anyone from a Third World country how well their police force works.

Now, I'm not advocating for gun owners to be able to wear a gun openly on their hip (which from what I understand is now legal in several states). But I'm also wary of unilateraly disarming at a time in history when the ability of the American government to protect its citizens long-term is in doubt.

As long as we're dealing in hypotheticals here, we can't ignore the very real danger that guns may suddenly become sentient, or possibly possessed by some ancient evil, and then rise up against us. Seems like we'd be a lot better off without all these guns around in case something like that happens.

Just sayin'.

Someone from a Third World country here. Police force is crap. Works best for people who have money, essentially hired guns for the highest bidder, with some loyalty and ties to the incumbent winner of the Presidency. I do not depend on police forces for my security. Don't have a gun at home. Wouldn't want a gun at home. The idea that guns are the only and best way to make yourself safe is narrow, tunnel-visioned. There is a time and a place for using guns to defend life and property. With few exceptions, there hasn't been that many examples here.

While Paleocon's example of a violent mob threatening lives in the context of a completely indefensible location (no walls, multiple breaches, flammable material) has some merit, it would have been more prudent (and is now more prudent) for the Korean community to simply build their shops and homes as fortresses and castles rather than depend only on firearms for protection. You don't need to shoot anyone if your store-front is vandal-proof and does not offer stupidly easy points of entry.

While Paleocon's example of a violent mob threatening lives in the context of a completely indefensible location (no walls, multiple breaches, flammable material) has some merit, it would have been more prudent (and is now more prudent) for the Korean community to simply build their shops and homes as fortresses and castles rather than depend only on firearms for protection. You don't need to shoot anyone if your store-front is vandal-proof and does not offer stupidly easy points of entry.

That type of building material is very accessible to immigrant family's just starting out in a new country with little to no savings.

While Paleocon's example of a violent mob threatening lives in the context of a completely indefensible location (no walls, multiple breaches, flammable material) has some merit, it would have been more prudent (and is now more prudent) for the Korean community to simply build their shops and homes as fortresses and castles rather than depend only on firearms for protection. You don't need to shoot anyone if your store-front is vandal-proof and does not offer stupidly easy points of entry.

That type of building material is very accessible to immigrant family's just starting out in a new country with little to no savings.

LarryC wrote:

Someone from a Third World country here. Police force is crap. Works best for people who have money, essentially hired guns for the highest bidder, with some loyalty and ties to the incumbent winner of the Presidency. I do not depend on police forces for my security. Don't have a gun at home. Wouldn't want a gun at home. The idea that guns are the only and best way to make yourself safe is narrow, tunnel-visioned. There is a time and a place for using guns to defend life and property. With few exceptions, there hasn't been that many examples here.

While Paleocon's example of a violent mob threatening lives in the context of a completely indefensible location (no walls, multiple breaches, flammable material) has some merit, it would have been more prudent (and is now more prudent) for the Korean community to simply build their shops and homes as fortresses and castles rather than depend only on firearms for protection. You don't need to shoot anyone if your store-front is vandal-proof and does not offer stupidly easy points of entry.

Imagine, if you will, being ethnically Chinese in Indonesia.

I watched the news about the May 1998 riots and thought to myself, "if gun control has worked, that would be Koreans in 1992".

heavyfeul wrote:

Alcohol is beneficial for a couple of health reasons and you can consume for pleasure safety. There is no safe way to take a bullet and it has zero positive health benefits. You can also die from consuming too much water. Your counterpoint is ridiculous.

I never said alcohol can't be consumed in safe amounts, but even those safe amounts alter ones mental state and judgement, making it harder for them to realize when they've had an unsafe amount. You'll note that I originally said "alter" and not "impair," in an effort to avoid applying my own stance on it. I lost a very close family friend (my older brother's best friend) to a drunk driver in the 5th grade, so I realize I'm not even close to unbiased.

Guns can be owned and shot safely as well, just as alcohol can be consumed safely. We don't ban people from consuming alcohol, despite the large number of people that can't consume it safely, so I don't see why we should ban people from owning guns, despite the smaller number of people that can't own them safely. According to the CDC, there are approximately 80,000 alcohol related (meaning the incident involved excessive alcohol use) deaths in the US every year. Even without counting the people who drank themselves to death, it's over 43,000 deaths. Compare that to the nearly 32,000 gun related deaths and you'll see that they're both serious problems. If you discount suicides from both (and chronic alcohol use causes), alcohol-related-death stands at 36,000 deaths to gun-related-death's 12,000.

Despite those numbers any my own experience with alcohol-related death, I still think people should be able to drink alcohol.

Guns have no safe application with any real benefit to human life.

In addition to jdzappa's hunting counterpoint, guns are rather useful to have when living in an area with a lot of predatory animals. I'm sure there are people who find their time shooting targets or hunting relaxing, which I'd consider a positive health benefit. I wouldn't be surprised at all if target shooting had some of the same psychological benefits video games have, like improved spatial reasoning and decision making skills.

LarryC wrote:

Paleocon:

Unlikely.

The entire point of arming yourself with a gun is to have disproportionate power in relation to other people. If gun control had worked the way it's supposed to (limit criminal and undergound gun access, allow licensed owners under strict regulation), your situation in 1992 could only have gotten better, not worse.

The reason the Chinese in Indonesia were so brutally targeted is multifactorial, but I have no doubt that if they had had guns, their Indonesian enemies would have even better guns, and the only thing that would have resulted is an even greater massacre.

I was living in Taiwan at the time and many of the ethnic Chinese Indonesians that fled (there were at least 10,000 of them that simply shut down their businesses, locked their doors, and never returned) reported that it was precisely the forced disarmament (all the way down to not allowing them to own cricket bats or hockey sticks) that made it possible for mobs of ethnic Malays to drag them out of their houses and rape their daughters and wives with impunity.

This is not surprising. The origins of the original gun control laws in the US also have a similar racist beginning. They were intended to keep military firearms out of the hands of uppidy negroes returning for various wars because getting shot kind of took all the fun out of night riding.

Paleocon:

Unlikely.

The entire point of arming yourself with a gun is to have disproportionate power in relation to other people. If gun control had worked the way it's supposed to (limit criminal and undergound gun access, allow licensed owners under strict regulation), your situation in 1992 could only have gotten better, not worse.

The reason the Chinese in Indonesia were so brutally targeted is multifactorial, but I have no doubt that if they had had guns, their Indonesian enemies would have even better guns (possibly even mortars, RPGs, small artillery pieces), and the only thing that would have resulted is an even greater massacre.

The core idea in security is to have disproportionate power. Ideally, you have recognized institutions wielding all the armed might in an area, with only small pockets of minor armed criminal elements. The main problem you have in the US is that you are disarming organized institutions, but letting criminals get the guns.

This is what the NRA's interference has wrought. Far from "allowing the good guys to have guns," the limited penetration of guns in the US at large allows criminal elements to leech guns off of the same sources NRA-friendly shops and owners get, and then turn around and use those same weapons on non-armed centers and targets.

There are two possible solutions or approaches to this problem. You either disarm the criminal elements, or you arm everybody. Just having guns be available is not sufficient, since gun culture is not strong enough to arm enough people (notably the teachers at Sandy Hook). So you militarize the entire citizenry, to train them, track them, and arm them. The other approach is to control gun availability and movement so that criminals don't have such easy access.

By the by, I hope you're aware that all the talk regarding "people needing killing," and "evil people need to be shot," won't win you confidence from people (both gun owners and non-owners alike) who dislike using guns to shoot people. We have a phrase for this turn of thinking. Loosely translated, it's "gunpowder brain" or "gunpowder head." Inappropriately and consistently violent thinking (especially relating to gun use) is the defining symptom. When you start thinking that your gun is the first solution to any problem, you may have it.

Paleocon:

That is correct. The disarmament laws were made in the spirit of racist conflict and thinking. Giving those Chinese guns would not have removed the racism and the thinking - it would only have escalated the violence. It's naive to think that Chinese in Indonesia would have easier access to weaponry than their Indonesian counterparts, with or without disarmament laws. They had kitchen knives, their Malay attackers had sickles. If they had guns, it's probable that their Malay attackers would have even deadlier weapons.

It's notable that the racism there went both ways. Whereas the Malays were hostile to the Chinese, the Chinese themselves refused to assimilate, intermarry, and similar related activities.

LarryC wrote:

Paleocon:

That is correct. The disarmament laws were made in the spirit of racist conflict and thinking. Giving those Chinese guns would not have removed the racism and the thinking - it would only have escalated the violence. It's naive to think that Chinese in Indonesia would have easier access to weaponry than their Indonesian counterparts, with or without disarmament laws. They had kitchen knives, their Malay attackers had sickles. If they had guns, it's probable that their Malay attackers would have even deadlier weapons.

It's notable that the racism there went both ways. Whereas the Malays were hostile to the Chinese, the Chinese themselves refused to assimilate, intermarry, and similar related activities.

This is precisely the sort of crap that folks say about Koreans, Jews, Indians, and Chinese here in the United States. If it is any kind of justification for this kind of racial violence (as you seem to be suggesting), is there any doubt that reasonable folks would be arming themselves with "assault weapons"?

MaverickDago wrote:
While Paleocon's example of a violent mob threatening lives in the context of a completely indefensible location (no walls, multiple breaches, flammable material) has some merit, it would have been more prudent (and is now more prudent) for the Korean community to simply build their shops and homes as fortresses and castles rather than depend only on firearms for protection. You don't need to shoot anyone if your store-front is vandal-proof and does not offer stupidly easy points of entry.

That type of building material is very accessible to immigrant family's just starting out in a new country with little to no savings.

Not to mention the fact that doing so would run you afoul of local building codes and franchise agreements. Hell, I can't even buy my curb paint from anyone other than Sherwin Williams.

Paleocon:

Not justification. Causation. Not the same. Is the falling of a ball from a height justified by its height? It's not a moral question; justification doesn't factor into it. The imposition of racist and hostile behaviors unilaterally will tend to incite the same in return. This is just human mimicry at work. If you tell people that you and they are different by word, deed, and practice, chances are they'll believe you eventually.

Nonetheless, I did say that the way the Koreans were treated did justify the use and possession of guns, did I not? I merely suggested that it was a rather poor failsafe; that other measures would have been better. Given that history, I would not stop with acquisition and training in guns, if I were you. It is reasonable at this point to begin assimilation post-haste.

Not to mention the fact that doing so would run you afoul of local building codes and franchise agreements. Hell, I can't even buy my curb paint from anyone other than Sherwin Williams.

That is most unfortunate. I did not expect fire-prevention and security features built into an installation to be against law and tradition in your locality. That seems very strange to me.

LarryC wrote:

Paleocon:

Not justification. Causation. Not the same. Is the falling of a ball from a height justified by its height? It's not a moral question; justification doesn't factor into it. The imposition of racist and hostile behaviors unilaterally will tend to incite the same in return. This is just human mimicry at work. If you tell people that you and they are different by word, deed, and practice, chances are they'll believe you eventually.

Nonetheless, I did say that the way the Koreans were treated did justify the use and possession of guns, did I not? I merely suggested that it was a rather poor failsafe; that other measures would have been better. Given that history, I would not stop with acquisition and training in guns, if I were you. It is reasonable at this point to begin assimilation post-haste.

And as long as folks are going to use it as "causation" and refuse to be responsible for their own violent (and often sexually violent) actions, I and like minded minorities will continue to arm ourselves with firearms that might scare overly sensitive suburban white people.

edit: I refuse to believe it is my fault if my sister gets raped because I am acting "too Korean". That is a problem of the ignorance and evil of an individual who, frankly, needs a little killing. It is not the result of my choice to marry another Korean.

We're here. Get over it.

Oh, and btw, thanks for illustrating precisely the kind of anti-minority excuse making that folks like I have to deal with on an almost daily basis. Most folks in the majority don't ever get to see it directed at them (and invariably get indignant and huffy when they do). And it a large part of why I feel the need to have a tool that can kill people.

We get it, Paleocon. You're angry, and justifiably so. But that isn't an argument against gun control. You aren't talking about defending yourself anymore. You're describing revenge fantasies and imagining yourself as someone who could mete out justice with your arsenal. I don't care what you look like. I don't care who you married. But I know that the kind of change you want isn't going to come at the end of one of your guns. And yes it frightens this white suburbanite to hear about people waiting for the law to fail them, so they can take matters into their own hands. To me you're an excellent argument for gun control.

Paleocon:

lostlobster's being rational here, Paleocon. Your present argument contains nothing responsible or rational; it's not painting a good picture of someone who considers himself a model for responsible gun ownership. I live in a country where the police are basically nonfunctional, and I do not own nor operate guns. If my sister gets raped, I will pursue means of restitution and justice; but I will not, myself, do so at the point of a gun. In essence, your gun represents your vote of no-confidence in the state coupled with no small amount of secession.

If Koreans were so concerned about the state of police in their bailiwick, perhaps Koreans should run or apply for Sheriff? Participation and assimilation are sounder means of security than predisposition to violence and self-segregation. Pursuing security at gunpoint in preference to other means suggests that you may not be as responsible a gun owner as you think you are.

And as long as folks are going to use it as "causation" and refuse to be responsible for their own violent (and often sexually violent) actions, I and like minded minorities will continue to arm ourselves with firearms that might scare overly sensitive suburban white people.

This is part of an entirely separate debate, but it is somewhat related. I hope you've not forgotten that I'm neither white nor a suburbanite. I'm not even American. I'm simply viewing the phenomenon dispassionately through root cause analysis processes. People who attack you are directly responsible for their actions. We are in agreement there. That doesn't mean that refusal to assimilate and participate are not contributory factors - factors that YOU can control. You can't control other people's decisions. You can only control your own. It stands to reason that if there are factors which can lower your risk, you might consider taking them, even while we do not consider them justifiable provocations.

I'm not asking you to stop being Korean; I'm just suggesting that perhaps those Chinese Indonesians could stand to be fair in their business dealings (they were infamous for favoring other Chinese) and assimilating into the culture while bringing their traditions with them into the mainstream. That is all that is expected of all immigrants everywhere.

How about this as a compromise? Until you folks can deal with your "causality" issues, I get to keep my guns.

So we're back to a completely black-and-white argument from both sides again?

I'm starting to understand why our politicians get so jaded and turn into party-line voting obstructionists.