Gun Control - a discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2012, 11:01 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
(25-07-2012 10:22 AM)morondog Wrote:  Uh... ergo we should have gun shops? I mean, yeah people will hurt other people, but supplying guns seems rather... odd ? I mean, if they're gonna find a way we shouldn't make it *harder* to find that way? Such that only the really determined can do it?

I agree, let's make it more difficult. I just don't think outlawing guns entirely is the answer. How do you get rid of all of the guns that people already own?

Why is there so much more gun violence in the US than other countries? The violence is there, take away one medium, and another will be used.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 11:07 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
Tackling the "if someone wants to kill people, they'll find a way" argument...

EOU = Ease of Use
EOA = Ease of Acquisition
KPM = Kills Per Minute

On a scale of 1 to 5:-
1) Guns, EOU = 5, EOA = 5, KPM = Very High
2) Knives, EOU = 5, EOA = 5, KPM = Very Low
3) Explosives, EOU = 1, EOA = 1, KPM = Very High

Some methods-of-killing are very easy to learn and to acquire. When the KPM is very high for those types of weapons, it makes sense to question their use and acquisition. For guns, in America, their acquisition is the biggest problem.

Sure, there are other ways of killing people, if you have access to explosives or the knowledge of how to make bombs and to create a ranged triggering device... but they are a lot more difficult than walking into a gun-shop and pointing at semi-automatic weaponry.

It would have prevented Columbine. It might have prevented Aurora.

I mean, if the US constitution is all that divine and unchangeable, how about it only applying to bolt-action sniper rifles? So you can still get the pleasure of taking out a vicious and combative red deer (so you can feel all macho about yourself)... but you can't walk into a movie theatre or a school and take down lots of people without them punching you in the throat as you're chambering the next bullet?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 11:17 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
(25-07-2012 10:08 AM)HDT Wrote:  I would disagree slightly on hunting as is can play a role in helping to preserve biodiversity by capping populations of animals that have less fighting against them thanks mostly in part to our other activities.

The fact is there is no real purpose whatsoever that a sane human being has for owning an assault weapon other than as a "toy". They're fun, I'll admit. There is an adrenaline rush that comes from shooting them which is what I would assume the majority of people who own them cite as their real reason. The losses seem to outweigh the gains heavily here though. The Aurora shooting you're speaking about involved a heavy assault weapon.

It is not very hard at all for a mentally unstable person to purchase a gun in the United States right now, even if there are certain factors clearly deeming that they are not in the right mind to buy one.

OK, enough with this 'assault weapon' bullshit. You are demonstrating a misinformed and ignorant reaction.

An assault rifle is a fully-automatic weapon - and AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not a 'heavy assault weapon'. It fires a light (55 or 65 grain) .22 caliber bullet.

There are semi-automatic rifles far more powerful that the AR-15 that you would not have classified as 'assault weapons', but would have identified as 'hunting rifles'. You really don't want to get shot with a round from an actual high-powered hunting rifle.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 11:18 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2012 11:21 AM by KidCharlemagne1962.)
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
(25-07-2012 11:07 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  Tackling the "if someone wants to kill people, they'll find a way" argument...

EOU = Ease of Use
EOA = Ease of Acquisition
KPM = Kills Per Minute

On a scale of 1 to 5:-
1) Guns, EOU = 5, EOA = 5, KPM = Very High
2) Knives, EOU = 5, EOA = 5, KPM = Very Low
3) Explosives, EOU = 1, EOA = 1, KPM = Very High

Some methods-of-killing are very easy to learn and to acquire. When the KPM is very high for those types of weapons, it makes sense to question their use and acquisition. For guns, in America, their acquisition is the biggest problem.

Sure, there are other ways of killing people, if you have access to explosives or the knowledge of how to make bombs and to create a ranged triggering device... but they are a lot more difficult than walking into a gun-shop and pointing at semi-automatic weaponry.

It would have prevented Columbine. It might have prevented Aurora.

I mean, if the US constitution is all that divine and unchangeable, how about it only applying to bolt-action sniper rifles? So you can still get the pleasure of taking out a vicious and combative red deer (so you can feel all macho about yourself)... but you can't walk into a movie theatre or a school and take down lots of people without them punching you in the throat as you're chambering the next bullet?

Who in the above replies said the Constitution is devine and unchangeable? Do you have problems with hunters too or just individuals owning guns? We can own guns, many countries don't allow for that. Enough Americans supprt gun ownership that the Democrats backed off on gun control. If I moved to the UK I wouldn't expect to own guns and to follow the laws there. Your last KPM is a matter of scale, many morons around the globe have proven that.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
No one has an absolute right to anything, all the time. We have the right to what is reasonable, under the constitution, as Samuel Alito recently reminded Piers Morgan. Even the most conservative legal scholars agree with that. It is not reasonable that assault weapons are available, at all, for anyone, other than the police, and the military. If we can have any weapon we want, then I can have nuclear dirty bombs, cuz "ya just never know, I might need one". The question is, where do you draw the line.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 11:23 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
(25-07-2012 11:07 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  Tackling the "if someone wants to kill people, they'll find a way" argument...

EOU = Ease of Use
EOA = Ease of Acquisition
KPM = Kills Per Minute

On a scale of 1 to 5:-
1) Guns, EOU = 5, EOA = 5, KPM = Very High
2) Knives, EOU = 5, EOA = 5, KPM = Very Low
3) Explosives, EOU = 1, EOA = 1, KPM = Very High

Some methods-of-killing are very easy to learn and to acquire. When the KPM is very high for those types of weapons, it makes sense to question their use and acquisition. For guns, in America, their acquisition is the biggest problem.

Sure, there are other ways of killing people, if you have access to explosives or the knowledge of how to make bombs and to create a ranged triggering device... but they are a lot more difficult than walking into a gun-shop and pointing at semi-automatic weaponry.

It would have prevented Columbine. It might have prevented Aurora.

I mean, if the US constitution is all that divine and unchangeable, how about it only applying to bolt-action sniper rifles? So you can still get the pleasure of taking out a vicious and combative red deer (so you can feel all macho about yourself)... but you can't walk into a movie theatre or a school and take down lots of people without them punching you in the throat as you're chambering the next bullet?

You left out compound bows and cross-bows. Pretty high kill rate.

It seems you are anti-hunting. Consider that if I kill a deer, dress and butcher it, I will be eating all-natural food.

I can effectively work a bolt action rifle nearly as quickly as a semi-automatic rifle. The majority of time between shots is taken by re-acquiring a target after recoil. The time to work the bolt is less than that and overlaps it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-07-2012, 11:25 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
(25-07-2012 11:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No one has an absolute right to anything, all the time. We have the right to what is reasonable, under the constitution, as Samuel Alito recently reminded Piers Morgan. Even the most conservative legal scholars agree with that. It is not reasonable that assault weapons are available, at all, for anyone, other than the police, and the military. If we can have any weapon we want, then I can have nuclear dirty bombs, cuz "ya just never know, I might need one". The question is, where do you draw the line.

The AR-15 is not an 'assault weapon'.

And, yes, the question is precisely "Where do we draw the line?"

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-07-2012, 11:29 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
(25-07-2012 11:18 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Who in the above replies said the Constitution is devine and unchangeable? Do you have problems with hunters too or just individuals owning guns?

I'm not actively anti or pro hunting. I just see it as a questionable activity with very few good grounds... none of which outweigh the problems of gun ownership. I can see that it would be "fun" to go hunting, but I also don't admire those who do. So... you bested a non-violent, non-problematic creature of nature using a high-tech piece of machinery? Oh, you are so awesome, you really are. Here... advance a few rungs on the Ladder of Manliness ™.

There are better ways for people with low self-esteem to improve themselves. That's all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
(25-07-2012 11:29 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 11:18 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Who in the above replies said the Constitution is devine and unchangeable? Do you have problems with hunters too or just individuals owning guns?

I'm not actively anti or pro hunting. I just see it as a questionable activity with very few good grounds... none of which outweigh the problems of gun ownership. I can see that it would be "fun" to go hunting, but I also don't admire those who do. So... you bested a non-violent, non-problematic creature of nature using a high-tech piece of machinery? Oh, you are so awesome, you really are. Here... advance a few rungs on the Ladder of Manliness ™.

There are better ways for people with low self-esteem to improve themselves. That's all.

I do not hunt so I cannot speak to that. As far as the problems of gun ownership go, people of your ilk are always on about how many guns are in private hands, they usually bandy about several for each person. The violence level here does not match those numbers unless most gun owners are responsible.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 11:40 AM
RE: Gun Control - a discussion
Ooooo, he used the word ilk... bad news from here on in boys Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: