Race vs. Gender (a USA political thread)

a flower in hell on 16/2/2008 at 21:02

I have no problem with requiring a permit for concealed carry. I'm NOT advocating against all gun control. I'm advocating against outright bans.

To carry concealed, you need to prove you can use the thing without blowing your leg off or killing some innocent bystander, and prove that you know all the legal implications of plugging some crackhead who points a [black market] saturday night special at you and demands all your cash.

This I agree with.

Taking all firearms away because they're too dangerous for us poor dumb civilians to have is just stupid though. It's an insult, a slap in the face to tell me that I'm too stupid to be safe with firearms.

What "dangerous" object will they outlaw next? Knives? Cars? Power tools?

Are we adults or children?

Chimpy Chompy on 16/2/2008 at 21:42

Of course Captain Serial Killer or Mafia Hitman willl commit his murder with whatever tool he can. But it strikes me that the more powerful the tool, the more likely some spur-of-the-moment-anger murder is likely to happen.

So I have problems equating electric drills or hatchets with automatic rifles on the murder-weapon-o-meter.

That said I'm not as hardcore anti-gun as I used to be. I just think it all gets far too emotive. Here in the UK we're trained to think UGH GUNS DIRTY DIRTY AWAY FROM ME whereas we have Americans going MY GOD-GIVEN FREEDOM RARG and that just doesn't produce useful discussion. :erg:

Also I know we're all sick of gun control debates but I'm slightly drunk so there.

a flower in hell on 16/2/2008 at 22:15

Yeah, it's easier but go back to the old adage, a lock only keeps an honest man out. If a thief really wants to rob you, nothing is going to stop them. If someone really wants to kill someone, they'll get creative.

The whole spur-of-the-moment deal has been addressed; you need a permit to carry in public places (in some states, you can't carry at all).

I just think it's largely useless to try and hold back the ocean with buckets, so to speak. It does so little to stop crime and so much to piss law-abiding gun owners off.

Muzman on 16/2/2008 at 22:18

That really just plain isn't true when looking at gun restrictions across the world. It is true that further restrictions aren't necessarily going to get Americans to put them down.

a flower in hell on 16/2/2008 at 22:22

Quote Posted by Muzman

That really just plain isn't true when looking at gun restrictions across the world. It is true that further restrictions aren't necessarily going to get Americans to put them down.

I'm sure it's comforting that you are so willing to place that much trust in your elected officials. -_-

I don't trust politicians any further than I could throw the lard-asses.

Edit: An armed populace is a huge deterrent to crime. Taking all the legal guns away would be music to the ears of criminals who don't get their weapons legally.

Chimpy Chompy on 16/2/2008 at 22:24

Well no, a lock also keeps a casual chancer out.

[edit] dammnit people stop posting while I'm trying to reply. but FWIW I'd agree really hardcore gun-control laws would be impractical in the states.

a flower in hell on 16/2/2008 at 22:31

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

Well no, a lock also keep a casual chancer out.

[edit] dammnit people stop posting while I'm trying to reply. but FWIW I'd agree really hardcore gun-control laws would be impractical in the states.

Not disagreeing with you at all. Some control is necessary--you need a license to drive a car, right? To prove that you can drive it without wrecking shit and killing people.

The point of licensing is to make certain you're trained and know what you're doing with the damn thing. I think a lot of gun violence (and gun accidents) would be reduced significantly if kids were taught (correctly) about firearms early on.

Edit: and I don't mean "hunter's safety course." I mean real study into how they work, what they do, the more important laws regulating their use and of course how to use them properly and safely.

Muzman on 16/2/2008 at 23:31

Quote Posted by a flower in hell

I'm sure it's comforting that you are so willing to place that much trust in your elected officials. -_-

Comforting to who exactly?
You have no choice but to implicity trust somebody (lots of people) with more power than you as an individual every second of every day of your life. No amount of gun ownership would make a scrap of difference (this attitude is one of my many explanations as to why US politics is so bizzarre and potentially corrupt. Rather than proper involvement in sensible civics the populace, or at least a portion of it, can be placated with gun ownership and switch off, thinking juvenile things about how the man can't take away their freedom or something, as if people in power are sort of cartoon super villains or despots from ancient history or Sauron or something. The man is quite happy for you to be free and gun toting while they do what they like. It's the ultimate civics placebo)

Quote:

Edit: An armed populace is a huge deterrent to crime. Taking all the legal guns away would be music to the ears of criminals who don't get their weapons legally.

This isn't true either, and don't quote me any small towns that have done it. Small towns are subject to transitory crime, by and large (if we take 'crime' to mean robberies with threats and violence and things of that nature, as it's usually a very small subset of 'crime' being employed in this sort of NRA crap.) Big cities' patterns of gun posession and crime vary enourmously from disctrict to district and if you were the correlative type it'd be easy to find an association between patterns of gun possession and crime rates. But we aren't going to be so silly are we.
But yes, this quoted attitude is precisely why it'd be difficult to alter US gun owner ship in any great hurry "If I put my gun down, that'd leave me wide open!" (These are the same sorts of people who get sweaty every time they turn their firewall off for a few moments, picturing hoards of circling hackers descending upon their PC). Can't wean Linus off his security blanket easily. And maybe it's not all that important.

a flower in hell on 16/2/2008 at 23:38

Fine. Forget the usual arguments; I have my trump card right here.

I like going to the range and running a couple hundred rounds through a nine-millimeter. That's pretty much all I ever do with guns. It's a sport. Maybe I'll get into competitive shooting when I stop sucking so much.

Why should I be forced to give that up?

Can you give me one good reason why?

D'Juhn Keep on 17/2/2008 at 00:55

nice strawman ^^

The interesting thing, I think, is why the US has such insane gun crime when its populace is no more well armed than Canada or Switzerland, which have such lower amounts of similar crimes. The answer obviously isn't gun ownership but something else - BUT WHAT