Poll: Should guns be legal for civilians to own?
No, none whatsoever
Hunting rifles only
All guns according to current US laws
All guns, full auto included
[Show Results]
 
Firearms?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2011, 01:18 PM
RE: Firearms?
In England it's a countrywide running joke that Americans can't solve any sort of problem without resorting to guns, lawyers and therapists.

Anyone who thinks gun control doesn't reduce gun crime needs to look at the figures, we have strict gun control and far lower gun crime over here.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 01:22 PM
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 12:19 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 11:34 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Venison and other game meat is hard to get in stores - and what you can get comes from hunters (no deer farms, boar farms, etc afaik). The taste is very different and very good. Don't expect you'll understand as a vegetarian, but the taste is different and people like it.

Everything, in real life, is a tradeoff.

The thrill of a sport on one had -- gun violence on the other.

The exotic taste of a dead animal on one hand -- the wasted resources, and the primitiveness of enjoying the hunt on the other.

The short-sighted convenience on one hand -- the long range vision, befitting a species with science and technology, on the other.

I am not saying that there is a solution at the moment. I am questioning the complacency with which we dismiss the issue of manufacturing, selling, buying, even worshiping (damn near in the USA), gadgets that serve only one purpose: destroying life. And our justifications are such decadent and flimsy whims, like the special taste of venison, the thrill of the sport and the hunt, the good feeling that comes from owning a gun, even if it is probably useless in self defense.

What you are suggesting would greatly impact the lives and happiness of many and may not have anywhere near the effect that you desire. I'm troubled about violence as well, but we need to solve the "why are people killing each other" problem more than apply a bandaid solution that is not going to solve the problem. Again, if guns and ammo are unavailable, I can make a makeshift gun to do the job - do you really think criminals couldn't?

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 01:26 PM
RE: Firearms?
There is something wrong with the framing of the issue, as it is stated in the poll question.
Why ban only civilian firearms?
Why not disarm the police, as well? Right after they've discovered, collected and destroyed all the weapons in the private sector. Easy enough to shut down the stores and warehouses and factories; monitor the periphery of army camps (of-bloody-course there will be a black market in military issue) and put extra patrols on the borders for gun-runners. Divert police-power from the brothels and protection racket, as needed. Anyway, shut down all the sources of ammunition and new guns.
They could, but they never will.

Sy2502 is right -
Quote: The thrill of a sport on one had -- gun violence on the other.

False dichotomy.

- gun violence is the thrill of the sport. Men aren't going to give that up, until technology provides them with a new, even more fun, way to kill.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 01:31 PM
 
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 01:22 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  What you are suggesting would greatly impact the lives and happiness of many and may not have anywhere near the effect that you desire. I'm troubled about violence as well, but we need to solve the "why are people killing each other" problem more than apply a bandaid solution that is not going to solve the problem. Again, if guns and ammo are unavailable, I can make a makeshift gun to do the job - do you really think criminals couldn't?

First of all, I was not suggesting anything. I assumed that if guns and ammunition were not easily available, then a lot fewer people would be killed by them. And, even this, was not a suggestion, because a./ It would never be done, b./Ingenious humans would find ways around it (just as you suggested).

Second, I am curious as to how so many people's happiness would be affected by not having killing machines all over the place, especially in the USA.

Third, I agree with you 100% about investigating/solving the "why are people killing each other" problem and, we could start by analyzing the root causes of human violence (the crazy-making/pain-causing world created by our leaders and our elite?).
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 01:56 PM
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 01:15 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 12:49 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 12:19 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Everything, in real life, is a tradeoff.

The thrill of a sport on one had -- gun violence on the other.

False dichotomy.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 01:57 PM
RE: Firearms?
I have an interesting comparison to consider. Keep in mind that not eating meat in not an option. I won't get into the veggie debate, but suffice to say myself, and the vast majority of the population, do not feel that eliminating a natural food from our diets, and replacing them with things like soy and grains for the nescessary protien our bodies require is a feasable option.

Scenario #1
I go to the grocery store and purchase a steak. Beef that was raised on a cattle farm, fattened on a feedlot that is commonly many miles away, then shipped to a slaughterhouse, and finally shipped all over the country (and sometimes even across international borders) to the local grocery store (where approximately 15-20% will be discarded due to a short shelf life). The beef is fed grains, which is not only unnatural, but borders on abuse (we shall leave the horrible life beef cattle have to endure for another discussion) which means less pasture (which maintains soil structure, recycles manure into healthy soil, and produces oxygen) and more grain fields (which has the exact opposite effect of pasture, destroying soil structure and all the microbial life in it, thereby needing chemical fertilizers produced from fossil fuels to grow the grains that are neither natural for the beef or us to eat). These are but a few of the ramifications involved in eating store bought beef.

Scenario #2

I walk out my back door, across the field, shoot a deer, bring it home, and feed my family for months. All the while helping to control the explosive deer population caused by the grain fields that have destroyed the deers habitat, and compensating for the severe lack of natural predators due to human stupidity. The deer dies faster than the cow, it lives a natural life, and by removing it from the population I have created a better balance of animal to habitat, thereby doing my part to keep the entire deer population from suffering starvation.

Not sure how scenario 1 has less impact than scenario 2, but if you take my deer rifle away (one that was manufactured 14 years ago, and will not need to be replaced for another 25) I won`t have the option. And before anyone goes on about how my situation is unique, take a breath. It`s not nearly as unique as you may think, not to mention my whole argument is based on the fact that eliminating guns means taking them away from EVERYONE.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
04-11-2011, 01:58 PM
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 01:31 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 01:22 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  What you are suggesting would greatly impact the lives and happiness of many and may not have anywhere near the effect that you desire. I'm troubled about violence as well, but we need to solve the "why are people killing each other" problem more than apply a bandaid solution that is not going to solve the problem. Again, if guns and ammo are unavailable, I can make a makeshift gun to do the job - do you really think criminals couldn't?

First of all, I was not suggesting anything. I assumed that if guns and ammunition were not easily available, then a lot fewer people would be killed by them. And, even this, was not a suggestion, because a./ It would never be done, b./Ingenious humans would find ways around it (just as you suggested).

it seemed like you were suggesting guns & ammo shouldn't be available...

Second, I am curious as to how so many people's happiness would be affected by not having killing machines all over the place, especially in the USA.

I'm at work & on phone, but it should be easy to google # of hunters, # of competitive marksmen, # of amateur marksmen and an allowance for some people that don't hunt, but enjoy game meat (me, for example). Then calculate overlap. That should give an idea, with a generous margin for error. I might be missing a couple categories, but that'd be a good starting point.

Third, I agree with you 100% about investigating/solving the "why are people killing each other" problem and, we could start by analyzing the root causes of human violence (the crazy-making/pain-causing world created by our leaders and our elite?).

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 01:59 PM
 
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 01:56 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  Yes, it is.

Oh Sy! (Big Sigh)

Sy, if this is the extent of your reply to my post to you then, just as before, no point for us debating any more. Sorry, but there you are! Undecided
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 02:09 PM
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 01:26 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  There is something wrong with the framing of the issue, as it is stated in the poll question.
Why ban only civilian firearms?
Why not disarm the police, as well? Right after they've discovered, collected and destroyed all the weapons in the private sector. Easy enough to shut down the stores and warehouses and factories; monitor the periphery of army camps (of-bloody-course there will be a black market in military issue) and put extra patrols on the borders for gun-runners. Divert police-power from the brothels and protection racket, as needed. Anyway, shut down all the sources of ammunition and new guns.
They could, but they never will.

Sy2502 is right -
Quote: The thrill of a sport on one had -- gun violence on the other.

False dichotomy.

- gun violence is the thrill of the sport. Men aren't going to give that up, until technology provides them with a new, even more fun, way to kill.

Not at all. Most people that shoot competitively wouldn't hurt a fly. I'd estimate gun violence is no higher for them than the general public. Most gun violence is the fault of gangs and cartels, not responsible gun owners. The thrill is the same type of thrill someone gets out of completing a model train set or a good 1/4 mile run at the track - it's about the competition, not an urge to commit homicide.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
04-11-2011, 02:12 PM
 
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 01:57 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Not sure how scenario 1 has less impact than scenario 2, but if you take my deer rifle away (one that was manufactured 14 years ago, and will not need to be replaced for another 25) I won`t have the option.

You are absolutely right about this Stark, Sceanario 2 is INFINITELY more preferable to Scenario 1. I was merely talking about long term, when neither scenario would be needed, because science and technology would find perfect alternatives (undistinguishable by blind test) to EVERYTHING, except for the enjoyment of killing (for those who do).

Quote:...my whole argument is based on the fact that eliminating guns means taking them away from EVERYONE.

You are absolutely right about that too, just as Peterkin said.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: