User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 42

  1. #1
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default World wide gun control

    NOTE :- This is not mean't to be an attack on anyone's rights or opinions about firearms. Please let's keep this out of the whole "rights" issues and all that nonsense.

    Where do we get to with gun control?

    The countries which currently ban them, will they eventually become legal as we go towards a "global community"?
    The countries which currently allow them, at what level will the line be drawn? How much of a gun (if that's a logical statement) is enough for the purposes it's wanted for?

    I know there's a whole load of heat in the states around this and I mostly want to avoid the whole thing as it's very emotional and illogical. I did, however, see one news item which kind of spurred this thought train. I forget whether it was passed or just proposed but there was a thing about allowing a 20mm rifle for "sporting purpose". Considering that anything above 20mm is no longer a small arm and would be classified properly as a cannon and that even a military "anti-material" rifle tends to be "only" 12.7mm in calibre, what could anyone be hunting which would need a 20mm rifle? I'd have to conclude that bears are arming themselves now and we need to take them out at a thousand yards reliably.

    Anyhow, please discuss...where do we end up from where we are now?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    My kneejerk reaction is to reject the notion of worldwide law altogether.



    Thinking about it, probably higher economic regions should have weapons and lower ones not, and better border control to prevent weapons from slipping from allowed regions to banned ones.

    As for size or power restrictions, I doubt they need to be seriously furthered -- aren't most shootings committed with handguns, not rifles?

  3. #3
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    My kneejerk reaction is to reject the notion of worldwide law altogether.
    For sure. It's a long way off but a cohesive approach to some degree is to be expected, to my mind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    Thinking about it, probably higher economic regions should have weapons and lower ones not, and better border control to prevent weapons from slipping from allowed regions to banned ones.
    Don't get it. Why base it on economics?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    As for size or power restrictions, I doubt they need to be seriously furthered -- aren't most shootings committed with handguns, not rifles?
    Handguns can't progress much further without new technologies due to all the load being in a small area. No idea who uses what but surely you shouldn't let people have say a howitzer for "sporting purpose"?

    A good example is you can get small explosive rounds for a shotgun. The shotgun is allowed but do you really need small ranged grenades as a civilian? If you can get them then why not a modified Mark 19 Model 3 changed to semi auto only? Surely a 40mm grenade launcher is just a small progression? So where's the line? Do you need to be able to pierce all known types of body armour at 200 paces? What about 400? How about at a thousand yards?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #4
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,980

    Default

    This thread is going to turn into a complete and utter disaster, just like every other one of it's kind. I'm just going to say my piece and leave. The constant bickering and subbornness of both sides in this debate makes me want to bash all of their collective heads in. You can quote me if you want, but I won't answer.

    Keep in mind I am speaking within the context of the USA. This is a topic that is county/regional/cultural dependent:


    I don't like guns. I never have, I never will. They spooked me as a kid and whenever I hear one go off in person I feel quite squick. It's not a conscious mental thought, but just merely something reactionary. I want no part of them. That said, I don't really care if others have guns. The vast majority of people are responsible with them. I have no desire to take guns away from everyone, and I think that is the wrong decision to make. It will not solve problems in the USA.

    The NRA is a bunch of trollish, idiotic fanatics that refuse to even entertain the idea of changing anything with gun laws in any form. They don't listen to reason, or anyone except for people who already agree with them. They're hermetically sealed. I absolute despise the NRA and its cronies. The fact of the matter is times have changed and we absolutely need to be evolving and keeping the line between safe and reasonable in pace with that.

    I can not stand the anti-gun lobby either. They are equally fanatics that latch on to emotional pleading and shaming for dear life. They don't listen to reason either. They either want to enact gun control laws that don't actually solve the problem, make the problem worse, do nothing more than make people "feel good" while it does nothing tangibly good at all, and causes a tangible bad or diservice to the majority, or they want to get rid of guns completely.

    The reason this has all been getting so force lately is the media. The media LOVES to report on gun violence. It gets people excited, for all the wrong reasons. It boosts ratings, and it gets people involved in drama. It's human nature for people to latch onto it, and because it does effect lives it just goes, and goes, and goes. It involves far too much emotion on both ends too so people stop being reasonable and don't see through their arguments clearly. Gun problems really haven't changed too much. They've actually improved in a lot of respects based off what I remember. The thing that has changed is the type of gun violence. It's one that is much more public, and damn near impossible to control, predict, or stop. Oddly, one thing that will likely reduce it is to stop making such a god aweful drawn out public spectacle of it, and incidentally glorifying it to people that shouldn't see it. Because of all of this, it seems to be like much worse of a problem than it actually is.

    Guns are a large part of American culture, it's a right, and a great number of people involve them in their lives in some capacity. It's absolutely unreasonable and wrong to uproot something like that, much more so when the overwhelming majority of it is not an issue. I do think we should be taking a careful look at what types of guns are permitted, who can get them and how, and in what areas. I have strained to think of any possible solution though. If people want guns, they'll get them. Unfortunately, no one is going to be able to sit down and come to an agreement. I also feel that in some ways guns are indeed too lose, and how they can be used. The idea of increasing guns is not the answer either. If you ease access then you absolutely will increase the number of people who shouldn't have guns to get them. Also, you shouldn't be able to carry around assult rifles in public buildings where it's visible. Really? That's just people being fucking pricks trying to shoves peoples noses in it. More emotional argument from the opposite direction. I really ultimately see this as an intractable cultural problem that isn't going to be solved within the next 50 years, easily.


    Ultimately what I say is: fuck all you guys deal with this! I'll have no part of it. It's no skin off my nose, and it is very very unlikely to effect me. I see both sides (the far ends anyway) as being a pile of unreasonable idiots that will just make things worse, and the debates are just enraging. Have your fun, go solve your "problems". I'm going to put my energy in to more pressing matters. Don't you dare say that I am part of the problem for not involving myself either (it's happened), cause then I'll have to restrain myself from chewing your head off. Guilt tripping will give you the opposite of what you seek.

    Every time I see gun stuff show up in the news my eyes roll so far back into my head I wonder how my optic nerve hasn't detached.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes Cygnus, Rasofy liked this post

  5. #5
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    This thread is going to turn into a complete and utter disaster, just like every other one of it's kind. I'm just going to say my piece and leave. The constant bickering and subbornness of both sides in this debate makes me want to bash all of their collective heads in. You can quote me if you want, but I won't answer.

    Keep in mind I am speaking within the context of the USA. This is a topic that is county/regional/cultural dependent:


    I don't like guns. I never have, I never will. They spooked me as a kid and whenever I hear one go off in person I feel quite squick. It's not a conscious mental thought, but just merely something reactionary. I want no part of them. That said, I don't really care if others have guns. The vast majority of people are responsible with them. I have no desire to take guns away from everyone, and I think that is the wrong decision to make. It will not solve problems in the USA.

    The NRA is a bunch of trollish, idiotic fanatics that refuse to even entertain the idea of changing anything with gun laws in any form. They don't listen to reason, or anyone except for people who already agree with them. They're hermetically sealed. I absolute despise the NRA and its cronies. The fact of the matter is times have changed and we absolutely need to be evolving and keeping the line between safe and reasonable in pace with that.

    I can not stand the anti-gun lobby either. They are equally fanatics that latch on to emotional pleading and shaming for dear life. They don't listen to reason either. They either want to enact gun control laws that don't actually solve the problem, make the problem worse, do nothing more than make people "feel good" while it does nothing tangibly good at all, and causes a tangible bad or diservice to the majority, or they want to get rid of guns completely.

    The reason this has all been getting so force lately is the media. The media LOVES to report on gun violence. It gets people excited, for all the wrong reasons. It boosts ratings, and it gets people involved in drama. It's human nature for people to latch onto it, and because it does effect lives it just goes, and goes, and goes. It involves far too much emotion on both ends too so people stop being reasonable and don't see through their arguments clearly. Gun problems really haven't changed too much. They've actually improved in a lot of respects based off what I remember. The thing that has changed is the type of gun violence. It's one that is much more public, and damn near impossible to control, predict, or stop. Oddly, one thing that will likely reduce it is to stop making such a god aweful drawn out public spectacle of it, and incidentally glorifying it to people that shouldn't see it. Because of all of this, it seems to be like much worse of a problem than it actually is.

    Guns are a large part of American culture, it's a right, and a great number of people involve them in their lives in some capacity. It's absolutely unreasonable and wrong to uproot something like that, much more so when the overwhelming majority of it is not an issue. I do think we should be taking a careful look at what types of guns are permitted, who can get them and how, and in what areas. I have strained to think of any possible solution though. If people want guns, they'll get them. Unfortunately, no one is going to be able to sit down and come to an agreement. I also feel that in some ways guns are indeed too lose, and how they can be used. The idea of increasing guns is not the answer either. If you ease access then you absolutely will increase the number of people who shouldn't have guns to get them. Also, you shouldn't be able to carry around assult rifles in public buildings where it's visible. Really? That's just people being fucking pricks trying to shoves peoples noses in it. More emotional argument from the opposite direction. I really ultimately see this as an intractable cultural problem that isn't going to be solved within the next 50 years, easily.


    Ultimately what I say is: fuck all you guys deal with this! I'll have no part of it. It's no skin off my nose, and it is very very unlikely to effect me. I see both sides (the far ends anyway) as being a pile of unreasonable idiots that will just make things worse, and the debates are just enraging. Have your fun, go solve your "problems". I'm going to put my energy in to more pressing matters. Don't you dare say that I am part of the problem for not involving myself either (it's happened), cause then I'll have to restrain myself from chewing your head off. Guilt tripping will give you the opposite of what you seek.

    Every time I see gun stuff show up in the news my eyes roll so far back into my head I wonder how my optic nerve hasn't detached.
    Dude, I respect your position and contribution but I'm trying to stay clear of that whole issue. Where we are now is kind of a fact, the question is more, where do we go from here is say 50 years?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Don't get it. Why base it on economics?
    I might be the absolute worst person to ask on the matter, but don't poorer economic areas tend to have more violence?

    I understand that as of recently we've been seeing a trend of more and more middle-class suburban teenagers sperging out, acquiring guns, shooting a bunch of kids that gave them shit in school because they're lonely and depressed, and ending their own lives on the spot so the cops can't touch them or do anything to prevent another such incident.
    But, wouldn't mental background checks reduce some of that?

    And, on another note, such incidents, usually involving suburban middle-class teenagers, are isolated. Is it worth it too extend regulations so far to solve such a specific, minor problem, in this case isolated incidents of idiots?




    Handguns can't progress much further without new technologies due to all the load being in a small area. No idea who uses what but surely you shouldn't let people have say a howitzer for "sporting purpose"?

    A good example is you can get small explosive rounds for a shotgun. The shotgun is allowed but do you really need small ranged grenades as a civilian? If you can get them then why not a modified Mark 19 Model 3 changed to semi auto only? Surely a 40mm grenade launcher is just a small progression? So where's the line? Do you need to be able to pierce all known types of body armour at 200 paces? What about 400? How about at a thousand yards?
    There isn't an immediate problem of people shooting each other with howitzers and piercing each others' "armor." There are, on the other hand, cities in the United States where you can't walk without expecting to get mugged, places where you can't go to school without a metal detector in the door. That is an indicator for a clear, immediate problem that needs to be attended to. There's nowhere you can go and just expect to be robbed or fired upon by a howitzer, so the "problem" doen't demand attention to modify the law.

    It does sound pretty stupid, but the idea is that people should only have their choices limited when there's a serious, present threat involved.



    Overall, I'm skeptical of any worldwide laws enacted before the establishment of a full-fledged global civilization. But, you got the Geneva Conventions.

  7. #7
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    I might be the absolute worst person to ask on the matter, but don't poorer economic areas tend to have more violence?
    I've been watching the gun arguments for years and logically the situation seems to be that people will use whatever method of violence is available. Guns are simply a more convenient method to harm others. That takes me to the idea, "why should we remove convenience from more economically poor areas"?

    Not to be argumentative but I think it's more violence in areas where there's a greater divide between the haves and have nots.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    I understand that as of recently we've been seeing a trend of more and more middle-class suburban teenagers sperging out, acquiring guns, shooting a bunch of kids that gave them shit in school because they're lonely and depressed, and ending their own lives on the spot so the cops can't touch them or do anything to prevent another such incident.
    But, wouldn't mental background checks reduce some of that?

    And, on another note, such incidents, usually involving suburban middle-class teenagers, are isolated. Is it worth it too extend regulations so far to solve such a specific, minor problem, in this case isolated incidents of idiots?
    I'm trying to stick clear of the situation in the US. It's a never ending cycle of argument with counter productive thinking on both sides.

    That being said, perhaps this backup legislation when combined with permissive control is one way forwards. I believe Switzerland works in a similar fashion. Not sure they're any better or worse but they seem fairly stable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    There isn't an immediate problem of people shooting each other with howitzers and piercing each others' "armor." There are, on the other hand, cities in the United States where you can't walk without expecting to get mugged, places where you can't go to school without a metal detector in the door. That is an indicator for a clear, immediate problem that needs to be attended to. There's nowhere you can go and just expect to be robbed or fired upon by a howitzer, so the "problem" doen't demand attention to modify the law.

    It does sound pretty stupid, but the idea is that people should only have their choices limited when there's a serious, present threat involved.
    Sorry, I was being facetious with my armour comment. Merely postulating the purpose behind some of the more extreme weapons in use.

    Imagine that tomorrow gauss weapons were made available (possible supersonic projectiles). Should they be allowed? When is it too much power? When is it too much regulation?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    Overall, I'm skeptical of any worldwide laws enacted before the establishment of a full-fledged global civilization. But, you got the Geneva Conventions.
    Flat out honest? I'm trying to divert people from making this USA centric. Guns exist worldwide and there are many approaches. The question is more towards which one is working well? Which approach is likely to be adopted by other countries? Where will we end up in 50 years in say Spain or Germany? Will they losen up? Will Switzerland tighten up?

    Just interested in the future of regulation versus social freedoms without the whole US agendas being brought up... If we go down that road... Madness awaits..
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #8
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    I think it starts with having clear science and facts together. Until people come to a non-emotional approach to it within the confines of their own countries, it won't be resolved on a more global issue. Many countries (3rd world particularly) would benefit from gun control crack downs.. while some, I think, are so overkill that it's almost cult-ish.

    I'm from Texas. I grew up around guns, people owning them, and it wasn't unusual to see one leaning against a door frame at the front of the house. Most of my friends carry, and we're even currently trying to pass open carry laws. When I went to other countries like France where I know for sure no one has a gun of their own, it felt very vulnerable and naked and.. just odd. Very very different from Hard's life growing up, and we're from the same country. And all of that is emotional.

    The only true facts we have about guns:
    - They exist. Everywhere in the world, in every country, banned or not.
    - They are not going away.
    - They are used for a variety of both legal and illegal things.
    - Lacking gun control and having too much gun control has caused issues for law-abiding citizens.
    - Statistics are all over the place on what should be done about them and can be pretty unreliable.. with both sides reporting statistics that both gun-control and lack thereof have led to increases/decreases in violence, adverse incidents, and crime rates.
    - There is serious lack of respect for their danger and safety precautions in countries that allow them, as evidenced by so many accidental shootings, discharges, theft, etc.

    I think these are faaairly objective facts that people can get behind on. And that's just what I see in my own country really.. I can't speak from the culture of another. And culture is a BIG BIG influence on how comfortable people are around weapons. In Iraq, people were more terrified of hand guns than they were of AK's and other rifles because those are pretty natural things to own in comparison to the execution hiding-in-plain-site aspect of the smaller hand guns. In Texas and rural areas it's normal to have a gun on you most of the time. Up North and within cities? Not so much.

    So in summary:
    - I think it starts with countries being more objective, less emotionally charged, and taking a good hard look at the culture of the country, the traditions and laws in place, and what is truly behind the emotions leading to those laws. For the United States, I think that is getting to the root of gun safety, and re-defining what it truly means to own a gun responsibly while leaving the states the right to dictate their own culture as well.
    - Countries should be very clear about their policies for people immigrating or visiting for extended periods of time.
    - People should respect the laws of the countries they are visiting, or be subject to them.

    And I think that's as worldwide gun control as I can ever see a perfect utopian world being.

    What I think will actually happen in the next 50 years?
    - Australia will still have a ban on guns
    - Texas will have wild-west style open carry (hopefully sooner than later)
    - The united states will still be squabbling like children about the issue because emotions and fuck compromise that the nation was founded on
    - The world will not even be beginning to think about worldwide control of weapons outside of tracking who is selling what to who, and who is getting illegal stuff from who.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge
    Likes Hard, Xander, johnnyyukon liked this post

  9. #9
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    I doubt things will get any looser with guns in any areas that aren't effectively lawless already.

    For the most part we've had escalating restrictions everywhere since guns were invented. I think it will kind of plateau into a perpetually stagnate and controversial issue. People think guns are crazy now but in the early days in the US it wasn't a problem to just go buy yourself a submachine gun. The assault weapons bans changed that, and the Brady Law changed it even more. Now people fight over bullshit like pistol grips and such. It's effectively at a ridiculous stalemate.

  10. #10
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    - Texas will have wild-west style open carry (hopefully sooner than later)
    I don't know how that will work out. Since you have a combination of very zealous gun owners, a lot of Hispanics (who may be discriminated against), and the police have bad civil rights reputations in different parts of the state.

    Makes me think you folks will have a lot of encounters similar to the one in this video regardless of which side might be in the right in the particular situation:


    Edit to add: Some good points have been made by Kyu and I understand Hard's position. Just to tie in my above remarks I'll just add that it's really important for most of the people in the jurisdiction and the folks creating and enforcing the law to be on the same page. That's ofc impossible if there's a single law being applied around the world, but needless to say there are lots of problems with a one world government. Improvements can be made, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Gun Control in the UK
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 249
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 09:16 AM
  2. Gun Control in the UK (Not Gone, Is Being Fixed...)
    By Halla74 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 11:29 PM
  3. American Gun Control (Version 2!)
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 234
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 02:24 PM
  4. Americans and the world-wide played game Skat
    By entropie in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 01:52 PM
  5. Gun Control
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-13-2008, 03:24 AM

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