User Tag List

First 36444546474856 Last

Results 451 to 460 of 623

  1. #451
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    A less effective way. Ask the parents of the killed children whether they think it makes a difference how effective the killer is.
    I am not arguing that I think guns are amazing or that I personally want to own a gun. I am not saying that the tragedy that these families are feeling is somehow not tragic.

    I was merely trying to point out that I don't think banning guns will solve the problem because there are too many other avenues for mass killing.

  2. #452
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    I was merely trying to point out that I don't think banning guns will solve the problem because there are too many other avenues for mass killing.
    Stepping back into strategic thinking here:

    I attend to approach solutions in a circular pattern -- "Happy Path" reasoning. IOW, shut down the largest obvious avenues of violence that have the easier solutions, to lock those down as we can. Shut down the broadest, most obvious roads first.

    It certainly doesn't get them all, but you've knocked off the largest options with the least amount of energy.

    Then you proceed to analyze more carefully the avenues of violence that are left, and decide how to dedicate your remaining resources for maximum impact.

    For example, I'd guess it's far easier / likely for someone to buy an assault rifle (even through legal means) than it is for someone to buy enough fertilizer (and have the know-how and inclination) to make a nitrate-based bomb such as the one that took out the gov building in Oklahoma City... and especially easier than building a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, assault weapons seem to have the potential for far more havoc than single-shot revolvers, so leave the revolvers for later.

    There's never a silver bullet that will take every thing out in one shot, it's just strategic use of resources to stop the maximum number of potential destructive avenus.

    That's pretty high-level thinking, and one needs to dig into the details in order to build a concrete plan, but... that's the way we could approach it.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #453
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Stepping back into strategic thinking here:

    I attend to approach solutions in a circular pattern -- "Happy Path" reasoning. IOW, shut down the largest obvious avenues of violence that have the easier solutions, to lock those down as we can. Shut down the broadest, most obvious roads first.

    It certainly doesn't get them all, but you've knocked off the largest options with the least amount of energy.

    Then you proceed to analyze more carefully the avenues of violence that are left, and decide how to dedicate your remaining resources for maximum impact.

    For example, I'd guess it's far easier / likely for someone to buy an assault rifle (even through legal means) than it is for someone to buy enough fertilizer (and have the know-how and inclination) to make a nitrate-based bomb such as the one that took out the gov building in Oklahoma City...
    Depends on what what one is trying to do with it. Getting enough material together to blow up a massive federal building is a different problem than getting enough to blow up a school.

    McVeigh and co. used over 2000lbs of ammonium nitrate. Not to mention the sizable quantities of more exotic accelerants such as nitromethane.

    The fertilizer cost less than $500.

  4. #454
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Depends on what what one is trying to do with it. Getting enough material together to blow up a massive federal building is a different problem than getting enough to blow up a school.

    McVeigh and co. used over 2000lbs of ammonium nitrate. Not to mention the sizable quantities of more exotic accelerants such as nitromethane.

    The fertilizer cost less than $500.
    Well, they were just examples, but I still imagine it would be easier to buy a weapon and fire it without training than it would be to purchase materials for and assemble explosive material in private without blowing yourself up, without training.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #455
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Default

    I posted my thoughts in another thread on gun appreciation as this concerns gun owners, but perhaps they would serve better here. Mind you, this is from a gun owner's perspective and is not necessarily meant to explore every facet of the argument of gun ownership. Some of these topics have already been discussed earlier in this particular thread from what I've seen. I'm not attempting to derail or resurrect closed topics. But if it serves to bring up new facets of discussion, then it has done its part. I do not wish to get into an argument and I have tried to make my writing as open minded as possible while remaining true to my principles. I humbly request that my views not be maliciously attacked with close minded ad hominem arguments. Not saying that most of you would do this, but there's always that person. Thanks for reading.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...=1#post2011384

  6. #456
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Stepping back into strategic thinking here:

    I attend to approach solutions in a circular pattern -- "Happy Path" reasoning. IOW, shut down the largest obvious avenues of violence that have the easier solutions, to lock those down as we can. Shut down the broadest, most obvious roads first.

    It certainly doesn't get them all, but you've knocked off the largest options with the least amount of energy.

    Then you proceed to analyze more carefully the avenues of violence that are left, and decide how to dedicate your remaining resources for maximum impact.

    For example, I'd guess it's far easier / likely for someone to buy an assault rifle (even through legal means) than it is for someone to buy enough fertilizer (and have the know-how and inclination) to make a nitrate-based bomb such as the one that took out the gov building in Oklahoma City... and especially easier than building a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, assault weapons seem to have the potential for far more havoc than single-shot revolvers, so leave the revolvers for later.

    There's never a silver bullet that will take every thing out in one shot, it's just strategic use of resources to stop the maximum number of potential destructive avenus.

    That's pretty high-level thinking, and one needs to dig into the details in order to build a concrete plan, but... that's the way we could approach it.
    The widest path? So....secure the borders, ban new sales of semi-auto weapons, legalize drugs, take the cops, federal agents and money that was being used on the drug war and secure the schools with armed guards?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  7. #457
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    The widest path? So....secure the borders, ban new sales of semi-auto weapons, legalize drugs, take the cops, federal agents and money that was being used on the drug war and secure the schools with armed guards?
    Yes, that's exactly it.

    Thank you for reading my mind.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #458
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    The widest path? So....secure the borders, ban new sales of semi-auto weapons, legalize drugs, take the cops, federal agents and money that was being used on the drug war and secure the schools with armed guards?
    I actually like this libertarian solution, aside from one thing.

    Semi-auto weapons includes a very wide range of firearms, including .22 LR firearms, which are not being used for these mass shootings. Also, they include many different types of hunting weapons which cannot be classified as assault weapons. Of course, technically speaking a civilian AR-15 cannot be classified as such if you take into account the US Army's definition of an assault weapon.

    But I digress. Semi-auto weapons also include handguns. And for the record, there is such a thing as hunting with a handgun. Despite what Hollywood shows, the infamous Desert Eagle was actually intended for sportsmen in this nature.

    Looking at it that way, though, if you take the funding from the drug war and put it into securing our schools, then the ban on semi-auto would kind of be overkill, no pun intended. There would be no need to make such a ban on all semi-auto weapons. But if you had to start with some sort of measure, why not focus simply on high capacity magazines?

  9. #459
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByMySword View Post
    I actually like this libertarian solution, aside from one thing.

    Semi-auto weapons includes a very wide range of firearms, including .22 LR firearms, which are not being used for these mass shootings. Also, they include many different types of hunting weapons which cannot be classified as assault weapons. Of course, technically speaking a civilian AR-15 cannot be classified as such if you take into account the US Army's definition of an assault weapon.

    But I digress. Semi-auto weapons also include handguns. And for the record, there is such a thing as hunting with a handgun. Despite what Hollywood shows, the infamous Desert Eagle was actually intended for sportsmen in this nature.

    But I digress.

    Looking at it that way, though, if you take the funding from the drug war and put it into securing our schools, then the ban on semi-auto would kind of be overkill, no pun intended. There would be no need to make such a ban on all semi-auto weapons. But if you had to start with some sort of measure, why not focus simply on high capacity magazines?
    I don't agree with banning semi-automatic weapon sales anyway. By the time they pass a law banning them there's going to be already a surge in semi-automatic purchases, including new gun owners....

    I would do pretty much everything I said except banning new sales. I believe in the right of people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Banning all guns would effectively turn us into a police state. But yes, there is handgun hunting, black powder revolvers are fun for rabbit hunts. And rabbit tastes good mmmmm.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  10. #460
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    How many of our servicemen do you think will want to murder their neighbors?
    Right now, none. But in the hypothetical civil war situation, who knows.

    In any case, if you had the servicemen against the government, then that in iself would be enough to overthrow them.

    A few guns you can buy from shop would make no difference at all, either in defeat or victory.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Yes.



    It's worked against US/USSR the in the Middle East for decades. And the US has far fewer qualms about collateral damage in the Middle East.

    What pilot is going to raise his hand to go on a strafing run through an American suburb?
    Well firstly, this begs the question would you want to resemble Iraq of Afghanistan?

    Second, we are talking about failed states where the US and its local allies do not have control over the local "elites" of whole sections of the country.

    Hypothetically, if this were to happen in the US, then like I said above, it would be the equivalent of sections of the army and local police forces etc., resisting the US government.

    Not to mention that I am pretty sure the govenrment owuld in such a situation attempt to ban you from getting guns weapons anyway, so it's kind of a moot point to have a "liberty" that would be revoked the second you needed it! (and don't say you already own them, because wars use up quite a lot of ammo!)

    So essentially this could only ever be relevant in a situation of complete breakdown and civil war, which could onlya rise if the state were to split into warring factions which would make shop - bought rifles irrelevant (because if the state did not divide and the army stayed loyal, the "resistance" would be crushed completely, within days), and by which time the govt. would ban your right to arms anyway!

    As for the point about "creeping oppression" which @Beorn made - I struggle to see this at all. How is it a check on the govenrment in any way? Because they fear you are going to start shooting up Congressmen? Or that you are going to disobey the oppressive law and shoot at the police if they try to force you?

    And in this case I think the police are different from the army, in revolutions through history the army, historically, may divide. The police, very rarely, because their focus is simply Law and Order and not the a broader patriotism. If you started becoming "cop killers" in some sort of attempt to disobey one or other "creepingly oppressive" law, they would have little qualms about filling you with lead with much better guns from armoured vehicles.

Similar Threads

  1. Yet Another Shooting
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 08:55 AM
  2. Another shooting, seven dead
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 06:45 PM
  3. Yet ANOTHER police shooting on New Years eve
    By kendoiwan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:16 PM
  4. Another INTJ, woohoo!
    By Metamorphosis in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-10-2007, 08:19 PM
  5. Another Forum?
    By "?" in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 11:44 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