Author Topic: Gun Fails  (Read 26066 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #203 on: September 09, 2013, 11:37:32 AM »
Dante, did you read how many of the comments were supportive of allowing the blind to have gun permits, and/or hostile to those who questioned its wisdom?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2204
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #204 on: September 09, 2013, 11:47:04 AM »
Dante, did you read how many of the comments were supportive of allowing the blind to have gun permits, and/or hostile to those who questioned its wisdom?

I didn't. I don't think I want to either.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6688
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #205 on: September 09, 2013, 02:42:22 PM »
Gun rights for the blind will be the next big political issue. Not. Uh, excuse me, but you have to pass a vision test to get a drivers license. Will gun permits for paraplegics be next? Our country deserves to go down in flames and be ruled by the communist Chinese.  :'(
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #206 on: September 09, 2013, 02:48:29 PM »
Gun rights for the blind will be the next big political issue.

More likely, Iowa will change its laws.  In other states, typically, one of the conditions of getting a license to carry a gun is that you have to demonstrate that you are physically capable of handling it safely and properly.  I don't know much of the history behind Iowa's carry law, but my offhand guess would be simply that nobody thought about it when the new law was passed.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time lawmakers have made a stupid mistake.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6688
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #207 on: September 09, 2013, 03:16:12 PM »
IIRC there have been other laws in Michigan and Texas allowing blind people to get guns, hunting permits, etc. So it is not the first time. Probably not the last, either. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #208 on: September 10, 2013, 11:56:24 AM »
You want a cattle rancher in Wyoming, who uses his AR-15 as defense against Wolves and Coyotes, to give up his weapon because some gang-banger in NY City or East LA might use one to shoot up another gang.

Go ahead and quote where I said that.  Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize.  And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.

One of the fundamental problems I have with the right wing is demonstrated here, by Odin.  They are too lazy or dishonest to use the truth.  I am going to be charitable with Odin, king of misinformation, and assume he is not intentionally saying something he knows is false.  I will charitably assume he's lazy.   

This kind of delusion(?) gets in the way of both sides understanding each other and finding common ground.  If you are a paranoiac who thinks anyone who wants more gun regulation is out to grab your guns, you are going to be unlikely to want to even negotiate with them.  So, naturally he is going to oppose any idea that restricts guns in any way, because, you know, slippery slope.

Get your head out of your ass, Odin.


If I'm that rancher, I want my AR-15 and as many 30-round magazines as I can carry, with a bazooka and grenades for backup, if there is any chance I'll run into a pack of Wolves on my ride around my fence.

That's just ignorant.  Wolves don't actually attack people in North America. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans#North_America
http://www.livingwithwolves.org/AW_question1.html
http://www.hcn.org/issues/315/16084


Maybe what I'm arguing for is against the basic freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.  NY City, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etc., are different animals.  Maybe they should have the rights to tighter gun restrictions, including stop and frisk and house-to-house searches for guns.  Maybe you should have to be searched before entering NY State from other states.  That is the freedom you would give up by living in or visiting those puke holes.  It just doesn't equate to most of the rest of the country.

You sound like a raving lunatic and an intolerant douche to boot.  Not everyone can or wants to live like you, Grizzly Adams. That does not make the cave you live in a "puke hole".  And while you may think you are most of the rest of the country, you aren't.  You are in the teeny, tiny minority. 
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/us-urban-population-what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/
So the issues that affect the vast majority of us matter.  Safety issues that affect millions of people take precedence over matters of convenience for the couple thousands.  Stop being so selfish.


Gun rights for the blind will be the next big political issue. Not. Uh, excuse me, but you have to pass a vision test to get a drivers license.

The argument is owing a gun is a right and the only one that says it "shall not be infringed".[1]  Driving, on the other hand, is not a right.  It is a privilege.  If it were a right, then all the licensing and testing and registration would obviously be unconstitutional because FREEDOM!


 1. which they of course take to mean "shall not be limited in any way, shape or form".
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #209 on: September 10, 2013, 12:30:53 PM »
In fairness, screwtape, even with 80% or so of Americans living in cities, that's still around 60 million Americans who live in rural areas.  So it isn't exactly a teeny-tiny minority.  And it's also true that you can't simply dismiss that minority's rights.  But at the same time, the rights of the minority don't give them the right to ride roughshod over the rest of the country.

I'd have no problems with a rancher using a semi-auto AR-15 to protect his herds against predators, at least not in the gun usage sense[1].  But gun stuff isn't a one-size-fits-all thing.
 1. Ranching is fairly destructive in the long term, via desertification due to typical ranching methods.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #210 on: September 10, 2013, 03:01:57 PM »
In fairness, screwtape, even with 80% or so of Americans living in cities, that's still around 60 million Americans who live in rural areas.  So it isn't exactly a teeny-tiny minority.

There are about 360 million americans, give or take a couple million.  That means about 1/6 live in rural areas.  16.7%  Vs 83%.  That is a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy minority.  And even if it's not, it is still not "most of the rest of us" Odin, king of exaggeration, is making them out to be.

And if making some changes that protects 83% of us inconveniences - and notice I said inconvenience, not revoke the rights of - 16.7%, well, thems the berries.

And it's also true that you can't simply dismiss that minority's rights.

I agree.  And I don't believe I ever said their rights should be dismissed.  I'm talking about better regulation.  That is, gun registration, mandatory background checks on any transfer of guns, more rigorous rules for who needs what weapon, etc.

I'm not asking for anything crazy.  I just want to keep guns away from the people who should not have them.  Why is that so difficult?


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12487
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #211 on: September 10, 2013, 05:22:09 PM »
Who was that musician who had over 80 guns? I'm thinking John Popper but I think it's someone else. Who needs, as a citizen, that many guns? And how does one go about regulating a single person owning that many for private use?

I understand the use of collecting guns but still...seems excessive, and doubt those private citizens who are out there and own that many, or more, are just collecting them.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #212 on: September 10, 2013, 09:04:07 PM »
In other states, typically, one of the conditions of getting a license to carry a gun is that you have to demonstrate that you are physically capable of handling it safely and properly.  I don't know much of the history behind Iowa's carry law, but my offhand guess would be simply that nobody thought about it when the new law was passed.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time lawmakers have made a stupid mistake.

It seems like the physical requirements for most states are limited only to being warm and vertical.


John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #213 on: September 10, 2013, 09:12:54 PM »
Who was that musician who had over 80 guns?

At first I thought you were talking about Ted Nugent, but I'm sure he has far more than 80.


John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2204
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #214 on: September 10, 2013, 09:50:52 PM »
Who was that musician who had over 80 guns? I'm thinking John Popper but I think it's someone else. Who needs, as a citizen, that many guns? And how does one go about regulating a single person owning that many for private use?

I understand the use of collecting guns but still...seems excessive, and doubt those private citizens who are out there and own that many, or more, are just collecting them.

-Nam

What is it you do think they're doing with them?

It can be a hobby like anything else. One could collect for many and any reason. They can have history, they all shoot a little differently, and they're made for a wide variety of specialized use. The same could be said about anything from cars to shotglasses to DVDs.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12487
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #215 on: September 10, 2013, 11:21:10 PM »
Who was that musician who had over 80 guns? I'm thinking John Popper but I think it's someone else. Who needs, as a citizen, that many guns? And how does one go about regulating a single person owning that many for private use?

I understand the use of collecting guns but still...seems excessive, and doubt those private citizens who are out there and own that many, or more, are just collecting them.

-Nam

What is it you do think they're doing with them?

It can be a hobby like anything else. One could collect for many and any reason. They can have history, they all shoot a little differently, and they're made for a wide variety of specialized use. The same could be said about anything from cars to shotglasses to DVDs.

What does one need an XM307 ACSW in their collection for? Target practice? Please...

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10404
  • Darwins +185/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #216 on: September 11, 2013, 09:10:00 AM »
Well, the 2 politicians were successfully recalled in a vote in Colorado for supporting gun control.  That should put the fear of "Thor" into any politician in the future who considers any thing like that.  Think the vote was like 51% to recall / 49% not to.  Says a lot about what we think about each other.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #217 on: September 12, 2013, 07:33:27 AM »
Go ahead and quote where I said that.  Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize.  And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.


So, you would not be in favor of a ban on AR-15 style "assault rifles?"

By the way, I live in a suburban area of the eastern US.  My house is on a cul-de-sac, on a quarter-acre lot.  Also, I don't own any weapon that could be called an "assault weapon," except for one high-cap semi-auto pistol.

Odin, King of the Gods

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #218 on: September 12, 2013, 07:35:45 AM »
That doesn't look like a quote of a previous statement to me.  Anyone else?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #219 on: September 12, 2013, 12:41:14 PM »
So, you would not be in favor of a ban on AR-15 style "assault rifles?"

That was not the statement in question (but it is the question you should have asked to begin with).  Quit weaseling.  Post my quote or apologize for putting words in my mouth.  Right now you are only guilty of being lazy.  Keep dodging that fact and you will work yourself into also being guilty of arguing dishonestly.  Admitting being wrong is difficult.  I usually hate to do it.  But after I do, I feel much better.  You will too.

By the way, I live in a suburban area of the eastern US.  My house is on a cul-de-sac, on a quarter-acre lot.

Very nice.  I'm sure it's a lovely puke hole.

You've still avoided the central questions about how to keep guns away from people who should not have them.  You keep proving my point, that you don't actually care about that at all. You should just come right out and say it.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #220 on: September 12, 2013, 12:58:32 PM »
Without the cooperation of the military, there is no way any group of civilians armed with the 2nd amendment will be able to overthrow the government. No matter how many handguns and automatic weapons and pressure cooker bombs they have stockpiled. They might get away with  burning up a neighborhood and even terrorizing a city.

But the US government would not even blink. With air support, rocket launchers and a few serious missiles, it would look like the short-lived siege in Les Miserables.

Oh I disagree.   Now if you say they whosale level cities, then you are probably correct.  But I would assume that the government would be trying to play a political game to keep the military on board.  So air strikes would be limited.  What you would have is a slow boil revolution/insurgency.  each powerplant blown up and each telephone office blown up would result in discontent.  The government would blame this on the insurgency (rightly so) but all the while people are talking and military people are talking and it is not a forgone conclusion the outcome of those talks depending on justness of their cause vs propaganda.

All in all I think that an large scale insurgency could be effective as long as they can hold out for long enough for the military to finally say no more.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #221 on: September 12, 2013, 01:36:48 PM »
But I would assume that the government

Who exactly is "the government"?

All in all I think that an large scale insurgency could be effective as long as they can hold out for long enough for the military to finally say no more.

But you cannot have a large scale insurgency.  For that you need leaders, strategy, planning, and communication.  Enter the NSA. 

The best you can hope for is an IRA style insurgency of about 200-300 people who mostly know each other.  It will be no revolution.  It will be terrorism.  That may have some local support, but it will not have the widespread kind of support needed to change government.  Most of us will not want to have to worry about gunnuts setting off bombs in our restaurants.

This thread is expressly not for that debate, however.  That is done here: 
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24137.msg543037.html#msg543037

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #222 on: September 12, 2013, 01:51:14 PM »
Hold on to your hats, folks.  You are about to see an unprecedented level of honesty that may never have been witnessed on this forum before!

Odin, pay close attention.  This is what integrity looks like.

I hereby retract this statement:
Go ahead and quote where I said that.  Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize.  And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.

I did at one point on this forum say I would ban AR-15s, though in not so many words.  It was a totally different thread, more than 6 months ago:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24137.msg543027.html#msg543027

Quote
limit gun ownership to bolt action long rifles(for hunting), shotguns (with limitations), and revolver type handguns.

So, there it is.  I did say it. 

Thank me, Odin, king of weasels, for doing your work for you.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #223 on: September 12, 2013, 09:57:54 PM »
screwtape,

I'm not so lazy or intellectually dishonest.  I am really busy with work right now, and have little time for this argument.  If I need to apologize for being correct in assessing your attitude toward "assault weapons," then I'm sorry.  But, I am right by default.  I didn't need to find your quote.  Your attitude in this discussion told me you would be for the ban.  Because Detroit has a gang problem, a rancher in Wyoming shouldn't have a high-cap semi-auto rifle to defend his property.  (Wolves might not kill many people, but they do attack cattle.)

Because Chicago has a gang problem, I shouldn't have my Sig Sauer P226 high-cap 9mm pistol in North Carolina.  Because some nut might go off and kill some folks, I shouldn't have a home defense pump shotgun with a telescoping stock.

There are numerous laws on the books designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.  Right now, in many states, it is legal to sell a long gun to a fellow resident, as long as you have no reason to believe he or she should not be allowed by law to own the gun.  That places a heavy burden on the seller, or adjudicates the seller, depending on how you look at it.  Maybe we should have laws that say all gun transfers have to go through FFLs, who would perform background checks.  That would stop knuckleheads who don't know any better from trying to buy a gun they are not allowed to own.  It would not stop criminals from buying guns illegally. 

All the guns sold into NY in the case I referred to were purchased illegally, based on laws on the books right now.  Straw purchases are illegal in every state, because they are illegal under federal law.  And, if you think you can trust FFLs to do the background checks - the gun store operators in the case were also illegally selling guns to people they knew were straw buyers.

I think I should go back to god-bashing, and let you and the others on your side of this issue have this thread.  The gun fails you link to would be hilarious if they weren't so sad.  Guns are very dangerous things.  However, in the right hands, they are incredible weapons.

Which leads me to say:  I am a member of a shooting club, which has existed since 1965.  In all those years, there has not been one single serious accident on the grounds.  A couple of trap houses have been shot.  But since they are "downrange" and the guns were pointed and discharged "downrange," no real damage was done.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Spit

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Darwins +8/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #224 on: September 12, 2013, 10:15:44 PM »
Guns! Same as a hammer or a screwdriver. If you think any different then you're a moron. Hi.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12487
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #225 on: September 13, 2013, 02:17:08 AM »
Guns! Same as a hammer or a screwdriver. If you think any different then you're a moron. Hi.

A person can't throw a hammer or an ax a mile away and kill you.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10404
  • Darwins +185/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #226 on: September 13, 2013, 07:39:08 AM »
Guns! Same as a hammer or a screwdriver. If you think any different then you're a moron. Hi.

A person can't throw a hammer or an ax a mile away and kill you.

-Nam
NO, but Thor can.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #227 on: September 13, 2013, 07:39:59 AM »
I'm not so lazy or intellectually dishonest.  I am really busy with work right now, and have little time for this argument.

It may be true you are busy and don't have time, but you are dishonest.  One of the things I resent most in this forum is when someone puts words in my mouth.  I hate it not just because it is frustrating and obnoxious, but I find it extremely direspectful. 

The person who does that is saying they know things about me without evidence.  You may have had your suspicions, you may have had feelings.  But you attributed motives to me that were based solely on your emotions and biases.  That is neither rational nor fair.  And it is dishonest.


But, I am right by default.  I didn't need to find your quote.  Your attitude in this discussion told me you would be for the ban.

You are typical of the fringe NRA paranoiacs.  Because I want to do a couple things you disagree with, I must therefore be the enemy of your freedom in every single way.  I must be the Boogie Man who wants to take away all guns, all rights, all freedoms indiscriminently.  It is a strictly emotional response.

I'm surprised you didn't also accuse me of being a stalinist, directly related to Hitler.

Because Detroit has a gang problem, a rancher in Wyoming shouldn't have a high-cap semi-auto rifle to defend his property.  (Wolves might not kill many people, but they do attack cattle.)

Because Chicago has a gang problem, I shouldn't have my Sig Sauer P226 high-cap 9mm pistol in North Carolina.  Because some nut might go off and kill some folks, I shouldn't have a home defense pump shotgun with a telescoping stock.

Well, I didn't actually say any of that in this thread, and if I hadn't dug up a 9 month old quote you would have had no actual basis to say any of that.  The fact is, I don't feel that way at all. I've said that more times than I care to look up.  Though, I probably should look it up, since I know you won't.  Not that that would do any good.  Because you know how I feel, regardless of what I might actually say. Right?

There are numerous laws on the books ...  It would not stop criminals from buying guns illegally. 

That is a regurgitation of what you've already said.  It addresses none of my points and adds nothing to the conversation.  You are spinning your wheels.

All the guns sold into NY...were straw buyers.

ditto this.

I think I should go back to god-bashing, and let you and the others on your side of this issue have this thread.

I think you should take your own advice.  You have shown youself to be so heavily invested in this on an emotional level that you cannot think clearly or outside your biases.  You have not thus far been able to form a better argument than "criminals will always break laws".

The gun fails you link to would be hilarious if they weren't so sad.  Guns are very dangerous things.  However, in the right hands, they are incredible weapons.

Hey, finally, a couple things we totally agree on.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12487
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #228 on: September 13, 2013, 05:07:08 PM »
Guns! Same as a hammer or a screwdriver. If you think any different then you're a moron. Hi.

A person can't throw a hammer or an ax a mile away and kill you.

-Nam
NO, but Thor can.

Hammers are too heavy for Thor.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6688
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #229 on: September 13, 2013, 05:27:08 PM »
Incredible weapons are also very dangerous things. The main point of a weapon is to, well, be a weapon. And I think that people should not have them unless they are, at the bare minimum, properly trained in how to use them. Most people today, I am afraid, get their ideas about guns from movies and video games. The cowboy fantasy, the superhero fantasy, the urban warrior fantasy, the gangsta fantasy crash into the gun fail reality all too often.

It makes a lot of people really upset to hear this, but the 2nd amendment is a weird anachronism, like the part about quartering soldiers in our homes. Most of the modern industrialized world gets along just fine without US style "gun rights". When it was written, the 2nd amendment made sense to allow fairly unrestricted access to firearms. The US did not have any police force, national guard or even a permanent standing army. People could be expected to be called up to form a militia, and would need their weapons at the ready.[1]

In 2013 guns are way more powerful than the single shot firearms of the 1700's. We are not finishing up a war of independence, and we don't generally live on isolated farms or out in the woods. Few of us need to hunt our own food, and we are not going to be called up at a moment's notice to defend our homesteads against attack. We have a military and organized police forces nowadays. And many of us live in pretty crowded suburbs and cities.

If I was queen of the universe, I would first rewrite the 2nd amendment so that it makes sense in the 21st century. I would definitely put limits on the number and type of guns people could own, and people would have to explain why they need a particular weapon before they can get it.  It would have to be something more than "I just want to have lots of them around in case the government gets out of control" or some other crazy-a$$ sh!t. If you are a hunter or live in an isolated area, you can make a case for having a shotgun or whatever.

I would next require that everyone pass an exam covering gun safety and proper use in order to legally own a gun. Licensing and registering would also be a part of that. It could be just like drivers ed in schools--you may never want to own one but you could take the class and become knowledgeable about them.

Don't anyone get winged out. If you need to have guns around to feel safe, not to worry. None of what I say here will ever happen, because I will never be queen of the world..... :'(
 1. I could get into the part about the need to have guns to "pacify and secure the frontier" ie kill off the native inhabitants so their land could be systematically stolen, but that's another topic.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #230 on: September 16, 2013, 12:39:39 AM »
Incredible weapons are also very dangerous things. The main point of a weapon is to, well, be a weapon. And I think that people should not have them unless they are, at the bare minimum, properly trained in how to use them. Most people today, I am afraid, get their ideas about guns from movies and video games. The cowboy fantasy, the superhero fantasy, the urban warrior fantasy, the gangsta fantasy crash into the gun fail reality all too often.

It makes a lot of people really upset to hear this, but the 2nd amendment is a weird anachronism, like the part about quartering soldiers in our homes. Most of the modern industrialized world gets along just fine without US style "gun rights". When it was written, the 2nd amendment made sense to allow fairly unrestricted access to firearms. The US did not have any police force, national guard or even a permanent standing army. People could be expected to be called up to form a militia, and would need their weapons at the ready.[1]


In 2013 guns are way more powerful than the single shot firearms of the 1700's. We are not finishing up a war of independence, and we don't generally live on isolated farms or out in the woods. Few of us need to hunt our own food, and we are not going to be called up at a moment's notice to defend our homesteads against attack. We have a military and organized police forces nowadays. And many of us live in pretty crowded suburbs and cities.

If I was queen of the universe, I would first rewrite the 2nd amendment so that it makes sense in the 21st century. I would definitely put limits on the number and type of guns people could own, and people would have to explain why they need a particular weapon before they can get it.  It would have to be something more than "I just want to have lots of them around in case the government gets out of control" or some other crazy-a$$ sh!t. If you are a hunter or live in an isolated area, you can make a case for having a shotgun or whatever.

I would next require that everyone pass an exam covering gun safety and proper use in order to legally own a gun. Licensing and registering would also be a part of that. It could be just like drivers ed in schools--you may never want to own one but you could take the class and become knowledgeable about them.

Don't anyone get winged out. If you need to have guns around to feel safe, not to worry. None of what I say here will ever happen, because I will never be queen of the world..... :'(
 1. I could get into the part about the need to have guns to "pacify and secure the frontier" ie kill off the native inhabitants so their land could be systematically stolen, but that's another topic.


Actually the government had the most advanced weapons available.  The single shot muskets and rifles of the time were the state of the art.  The people could own weaponry equal to that of the government.   

I don't propose this but just sayin.

I am not against a basic gun safety course.   It should be taught in kindergarten and every couple of years after should be more advanced courses throughtout your primary school years.   this way when a kid comes across a gun or sees one being played with at a party they could know to vacate the premises.

as for the limit on the number of weapons???  what do you hope to accomplish with such a restriction.   I can carry a few weapons at one time but my 7 or 8 guns pose no more risk than my 1 or 2 guns.  They sit idle in my safe even when I go out shooting I usually don't bring but a few out.

everyone who bashes guns really avoids the topic of my right to defend myself.   I can cite cases where limited magazines would have reduced survivability of the innocent in  encouters with would be criminals.  Large capacity magazines are rarely used in the comission of a crime.  I have read that the average number of shots fired by criminals is typically between 2 and 5 shots.   Of course notable exeptions would be the movie theater shooting and elementary shooting. 

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #231 on: September 16, 2013, 07:35:58 AM »
Your right to defend yourself...by shooting fleeing crime suspects?  That's what you were defending earlier.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.