User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 107

  1. #41
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    It is equally “built” to defend, protect, secure, deter, and inhibit
    ... by threatening to attack, harm, destroy, kill, and so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    It is a neutral tool. It is a tool to be used which may be neither to attack, harm, destroy, kill, or otherwise. The user is the one who determines what it will be used to do. And in the vast majority of cases, that is to aid society. And in the ones where it is not, they get them illegally anyway.

    At the root of this issue is the notion that we can and will eradicate evil. We cannot. We must rather defend against it and hold it off by active force.
    That is all fine and well in theory, but statistics prove the American approach wrong, at least insofar as the safety of your people is concerned.

    Personally, I do not believe in evil, but I do believe that easy killing leads to more killing, and that unpleasant living conditions breed criminals. To solve the problem, both factors have to be addressed.

  2. #42
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    No, but for all of its many flaws, it was the best.
    Oh?
    Why?

    I'm guessing many have said the same about their society.
    What makes them wrong and you right? (Genuinely curious)

  3. #43
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    I have an unusual relationship with guns. I grew up in a town (and lived in the town at the time, as well as know people who were present) where a fairly famous gun-based mass murder occurred, which is enough to give anyone pause, but I think in the long term I've been able to not over-emphasize that event in terms of how I look at guns.

    I've never bought a gun, but I do own one. When I turned 21 my father, who enjoys guns, bought be a Walther PPK because as a boy I was a very big fan of the James Bond films, and that's the weapon James Bond traditionally uses. I've never loaded or fired that weapon, however I have fired other guns (though it's been at least probably 7 or 8 years). I have fundamentally dislike the idea of hunting and don't have any keen interest in whatever inherent beauty some find in guns or the firing of guns at targets.

    As far as control, I'm wholeheartedly favor closing loopholes on gun ownership and the implementation of strict screenings before ownership and keeping track of individual weapons. I don't see why anyone would oppose such things.

    In terms of restricting legality of firearms (and in reference to the Constitution), I tend to lean toward slightly stricter measures than are currently in place. The "right to bear arms" aspect of the constitution was written when arms were, basically, just a one shot musket. "Arms" as we know them today include a great many things. Technically a nuclear weapon is a kind of arms, but no sane person in the world would argue private purchase of nuclear weapons should be permitted.

    So our job because defining a line for what kinds of weapons seem of reasonable use for defense and/or hunting. Fully automatic weapons, semiautomatic weapons, weapons so powerful they can bust through an airplanes hull, sniper rifles, have zero practical or reasonable application in hunting (unless you just want to mow things down like a psychopath with zero challenge) or self-defense (unless you are a character in a video game), and so they should be illegal. The only benefit guns like that afford is they can kill lots of things quickly and/or effectively, and someone who has a need to kill lots of things quickly and/or effectively should probably be denied that ability. And gun collectors who just like their beauty or shooting at the range, well, it's a relatively minor cost to incur.

    But I'll also note that if I had a position of power, gun control would be so far down my list of priorities. There are so many other issues that cause or can cause more pain and even more death in this nation than lax gun laws. Plus, gun lobbies are so entrenched in this country you can spend every ounce of political capital you have and still get absolutely nowhere.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  4. #44
    Senior Member Winds of Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Don't move to Arizona. I laughed the first time I saw a guy with a gun hanging from his hip in McDonalds. Yippee-ki-yay.
    As for the original question, I have no problem with anyone exercising their legal right to own a gun.
    Was in the Arizona desert..sheriff drove by on a trail and expressed concern why I wasn't carrying a gun out there. There was a snake..about 6-foot, scorpion, and a buck too. And there's mountain lions. I went back to my friends' place and got a pistol. But after that...didn't run into any commotion or skirmishes lol.

    Other times have gone shooting with a friend who's dad was retired FBI and has lots of guns, and we shot an FN-FAL L1A1, Franchi Spaz-12, Colt .44 Magnum Anaconda, Browning 12, 410...Blek! too many to mention lol.
    "..And the eight and final rule: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."
    'Men are meant to be with women. The rest is perversion and mental illness.'

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    ... by threatening to attack, harm, destroy, kill, and so on.
    .
    My point stands that it is neutral tool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    That is all fine and well in theory, but statistics prove the American approach wrong, at least insofar as the safety of your people is concerned.
    .
    Actually, if we want to bring stats in, they also show that countries that enact stricter gun control laws do not experience a drop in violent crime – if anything, it goes up. Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

    There is also no lack for people who have shot home intruders who would attest otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Personally, I do not believe in evil, but I do believe …..that unpleasant living conditions breed criminals. To solve the problem, both factors have to be addressed.
    I agree we should always be working on unpleasant living conditions, that is part of the solution. I disagree that gun control is part of the solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    That's true. And most criminals who use guns get them on the black market.

    There are a lot of guys in San Quentin and Folsom for armed robbery. If you were to ask them if they thought they could get a gun after they got out, they would tell you (truthfully) that they would be able to get guns on the black market and being doing armed robberies again within a couple hours of being released if they wanted to.
    *Ding ding ding*

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    The difference lies in the numbers, and the difference in numbers lies in the ease with which one can kill. I certainly prefer a killer with a knife to one with a rifle.
    You’re right, the difference lies in the numbers. We need many, many more good-hearted, able, empowered, and responsible people packin’ heat.

  6. #46
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    That is all fine and well in theory, but statistics prove the American approach wrong, at least insofar as the safety of your people is concerned.
    You seem to be confusing correlation with causation....the statistics show that guns are used in self-defense in the United States far more often than they are used in crimes, and that crime decreases in localities that allow people to carry concealed weapons. I think I'll keep my means of self-protection, thanks.

  7. #47
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Getting past the current arguments I'm going to get down to the last most basic argument.

    Our nation was founded by violently rebelling against it's government. A government that reacted violently when the people under it's control asked for just representation in parliament.

    Today we face a government that is increasingly in the pocket of monied interests, and the people (while still able to vote) are losing they're voice in the direction the government takes the nation relative to monied interests.

    They are losing representation in they're government.

    If things keep going the way they have, I don't want to be one of the last first world populace's that gives up it's ability to physically overthrow it's government.

    And let me be clear with you...

    If we relinquish the right to bear arms we will not be able to physically overthrow the government should it decide to resist us.

    Without firearms, it would take the mobilization of a huge portion of the populace to overthrow the gov't. Such a large proportion that I don't think we would ever be able to make that happen.

    Lastly, I think it was said by @Nicodemus that if he could take all the worlds weapons away he would.

    As a large strong man, with some background in combat sports, I would thank him.

    Because however powerful I was with guns, with no weapons at all, my power would be increased geometrically.

    And there are many other large men out there more given to violent crime than I am.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    We need many more good-hearted, responsible people packin’ heat.
    That is sig line material.

  9. #49
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    Fully automatic weapons, semiautomatic weapons, weapons so powerful they can bust through an airplanes hull, sniper rifles, have zero practical or reasonable application in hunting (unless you just want to mow things down like a psychopath with zero challenge) or self-defense (unless you are a character in a video game), and so they should be illegal.
    Your criteria are perplexing. You think a semiauto like a Kimber 1911 loaded with 7+1 rounds of .45 ACP is unreasonable, but you apparently have no problem with a double-action Smith & Wesson L frame loaded with 8 rounds of .357 Magnum, because you didn't object to revolvers. You also think people shouldn't have guns that can penetrate the fuselage of an airplane, but even most of the weakest plinking rounds (such as .22 LR) can penetrate certain areas on an airplane.

    Being able to penetrate the fuselage of an airplane is nothing to write home about, not only because even really weak calibers can do it, but also because if you did it would largely be a non-event. You wouldn't be able to shoot down and airplane because punching a hole (even a .50 caliber one) would not compromise its structural integrity. It also would not cause catastrophic rapid depressurization or suck anyone out. And it would be virtually impossible for someone on the ground with even a .50 caliber rifle to hit something like an airliner flying along at 400+ MPH five miles up. And it is already illegal to carry guns with you on commercial flight, so you don't have to worry about someone inside the plane shooting.

    And then there's the issue of you saying peope shouldn't have sniper rifles, but it's okay to have hunting rifles. The thing is that there isn't much difference. For example, the Remington 700 is a very successful and popular hunting rifle. It is also used as a sniper rifle by the military and tons of law enforcement agencies.

    The only benefit guns like that afford is they can kill lots of things quickly and/or effectively, and someone who has a need to kill lots of things quickly and/or effectively should probably be denied that ability.
    You seem to think that being attacked by multiple assailants is unprecedented, and/or if it did happen the person being attacked must deserve it. You also seem to think that one-shot-stops are common and easy to achieve. They are not, especially with a handgun.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  10. #50
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    You seem to think that being attacked by multiple assailants is unprecedented, and/or if it did happen the person being attacked must deserve it. You also seem to think that one-shot-stops are common and easy to achieve. They are not, especially with a handgun.
    They are when your groups look like this at 30 feet with .357 coming out of your 6" ruger gp-100.




Similar Threads

  1. [Other] Firearm - Lord of War
    By Maha Raj in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 04:35 AM
  2. Title of this sector.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 05:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO