The Gaming Den

The only places people want total bans on guns are cities, like Washington DC - where you can't walk into a building without being searched - or New York City - where you can't throw a stone without hitting someone.

That's what the recent Supreme Court Decision was about.

But there's no use for guns in one guy's bedroom in a place like that. There's police around the corner. There's someone living above and below the guy. There's no animals to hunt. And black market guns come from one place in majority: That guy's bedroom.

That's the context that was ignored in the Supreme Court decision. Well, that and 'a militia', but I personally think it's a collective right not an individual right.

-Crissa

I walked out of a restaurant yesterday in uptown austin to see a gunfight across the street and I ended up calling 911. I would have loved to stay and see what was going on and possibly help but I had folks around who were getting antsy to leave.

These things in part leave me in part on the anti-gun control lobby.

Yeah, pro militia pro-secession blah-blah camps have a point. but unless I see escalating military control within the country, yeah it's retarded.

So Count, go ahead stockpile your weapons. be a conspiracy nut. because that's what I see you as. stockpile your salt, sugar, napikins, and water, oh, yeah, your a-bombs if you want to go that route.

Whether for anarchy or protecting yourself, I dont' care, shouldn't the first step be trying to prevent this stuff in the first place?

Crissa wrote:The only places people want total bans on guns are cities, like Washington DC - where you can't walk into a building without being searched - or New York City - where you can't throw a stone without hitting someone.

That's what the recent Supreme Court Decision was about.

But there's no use for guns in one guy's bedroom in a place like that. There's police around the corner.

The police are hardly omnipresent in a city. Otherwise people wouldn't get mugged so often. There isn't always time to call the cops, and sometimes a gun can save your life.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:

Now I can understand wanting to have background checks on people to make sure you're not handing out a gun to some guy with paranoid schizophrenia, but the extreme philosophy of "Lets just ban guns" totally baffles me. I mean does anyone actually think that would really work?

Is anyone actually in favor of banning guns wholesale? As far as I know, most of the gun control proponents are about 'no full-auto' and 'no grenade-launchers,' and 'no pistols.'

I am. I believe that if you aren't willing to take a life with your bare hands you shouldn't be able to take a life period.

ubernoob wrote:I am. I believe that if you aren't willing to take a life with your bare hands you shouldn't be able to take a life period.

What about if someone kills someone barehanded in self defense, gets injured, and wants a gun to avoid it? They're perfectly willing to kill barehanded, but they want to add a tool.

RC wrote: There isn't always time to call the cops, and sometimes a gun can save your life.

Sometimes Thalidomide can save your life. Mostly it's a poison. Statistically you are more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to "save a life" with one.

The only people who walk around with guns therefore are people who are bad at risk assessment. And those are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.

-Username17

I have never fired a gun. Nor do I own one. However, as an American, I don't like the government telling me what to do. Ever. I met a cashier at Walmart the other day that said that the government told her she couldn't build her house because it would kill her. She was building it anyways.

I don't like registering my car, getting my DoD parking permit, or paying taxes. I don't like that the government tells me how much I can water my lawn, how fast I can drive my car, where I can practive free speech, or where I can walk my dog. Some of these are for self good, some are for public good, others are soley for other people.

When the government says "you can only be this lethal", I tend to have a problem with it, because this law is clearly not favoring me over others.

That being said, I don't mind it being difficult to get a gun. But I am in the pro-armor-piercing-bullets-with-permit camp.

A_Cynic wrote:I walked out of a restaurant yesterday in uptown austin to see a gunfight across the street and I ended up calling 911. I would have loved to stay and see what was going on and possibly help but I had folks around who were getting antsy to leave.

These things in part leave me in part on the anti-gun control lobby.

Yeah, pro militia pro-secession blah-blah camps have a point. but unless I see escalating military control within the country, yeah it's retarded.

So Count, go ahead stockpile your weapons. be a conspiracy nut. because that's what I see you as. stockpile your salt, sugar, napikins, and water, oh, yeah, your a-bombs if you want to go that route.

Whether for anarchy or protecting yourself, I dont' care, shouldn't the first step be trying to prevent this stuff in the first place?

Dude, my stockpiles aren't hurting you any, why so serious?

As people have pointed out, my guns are more likely to hurt me than you anyway.

FrankTrollman wrote: Sometimes Thalidomide can save your life. Mostly it's a poison. Statistically you are more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to "save a life" with one.

The only people who walk around with guns therefore are people who are bad at risk assessment. And those are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.

This is faulty logic.

While it is true that a bunch of stupid people buy guns, it doesn't mean that no one can use them effectively. We just have a bunch of rednecks skewing the statistics. But hell, you hand any even remotely dangerous thing to a redneck, whether it's fireworks, firearms, propane tanks or just a plain old pick up truck, and they'll find a reckless way to use it and will likely injure themselves or someone else in the process.

But that doesn't mean that guns are bad for everyone because some people can't handle them with care.

If your guns are not secured properly, they might hurt me. They also might get stolen. Actually, it's highly likely they might get stolen. And lastly single person is more likely to go out and shoot people than an organization with ties to the community.

-Crissa

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: Sometimes Thalidomide can save your life. Mostly it's a poison. Statistically you are more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to "save a life" with one.

The only people who walk around with guns therefore are people who are bad at risk assessment. And those are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.

This is faulty logic.

The fuck it is. Everything in the world will in some cases cost a life and in some cases save a life. And if something is more likely to cost a life than it is to save one, it's not safety equipment. End of story.

You can debate hypothetical anecdotes all day if you really want, and it doesn't matter. The fact is that guns don't make people safer and any justification for their existence that is based on public safety is at best an argument from ignorance.

-Username17

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:
Dude, my stockpiles aren't hurting you any, why so serious?

As people have pointed out, my guns are more likely to hurt me than you anyway. :tongue:

True, sometimes I get overzealous. I let the personal get into my post for some odd reason. Apologies. my fault.

FrankTrollman wrote:

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: Sometimes Thalidomide can save your life. Mostly it's a poison. Statistically you are more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to "save a life" with one.

The only people who walk around with guns therefore are people who are bad at risk assessment. And those are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.

This is faulty logic.

The fuck it is. Everything in the world will in some cases cost a life and in some cases save a life. And if something is more likely to cost a life than it is to save one, it's not safety equipment. End of story.

You can debate hypothetical anecdotes all day if you really want, and it doesn't matter. The fact is that guns don't make people safer and any justification for their existence that is based on public safety is at best an argument from ignorance.

-Username17

Statistically you are more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a car than you are to "save a life" with one.

The only people who drive around in cars therefore are people who are bad at risk assessment. And those are the last people who should be allowed to have cars.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Statistically you are more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a car than you are to "save a life" with one.

The only people who drive around in cars therefore are people who are bad at risk assessment. And those are the last people who should be allowed to have cars.

Bad analogy. Cars have a purpose beyond causing injury. The point of a gun is to hurt things.

Also not true. I drive to get groceries. Without which I'd starve. Therefore, having a car saves my life.

Neeeek wrote:Also not true. I drive to get groceries. Without which I'd starve. Therefore, having a car saves my life.

Bad analogy. People use guns for subsistence hunting.

Bad analogy. People use guns for subsistence hunting.

Who the fuck in the United States would starve if they DIDN'T have their exploding dildos?

The economy would collapse if we magicalled away all of the cars in the US or even if we took away a third of them. What exactly would happen if we got rid of all of the exploding dildos?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Who the fuck in the United States would starve if they DIDN'T have their exploding dildos?

The only seriously subsistence hunters I've heard of live in Alaska, but they're probably not Palin supporters.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Well, I own guns because society is going to collapse in my lifetime, and it is wise to have a stockpile of weapons and ammo.

And if they make guns illegal, then I guess I'll become a criminal. That's all there is to it.

Well, they do say that "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and this is because good, law abiding citizens will, well, obey the law and not obtain guns, while the robber down the street will say "hey, what's one more crime?" and obtain a firearm, and the intelligent/paranoid people who wish to protect themselves from the criminals will become criminals because they will have guns. It's not just a stupid truism, it's a truth put into wordplay.

ubernoob wrote:I want guns to be banned for civilians completely. If you're not hardcore enough to kill someone with your bare hands you don't deserve to take a life at all.

See, I'm not particularly fond of guns just because I'd rather see everyone with, say, swords, because you have to think damn good and hard about it before killing someone with a sword (or axe, or dagger, or whatever) but, that's never going to happen... I do however like the saying "An armed society is a polite society" because you never know just how good the other guy is with his sword.... (or dagger, or what have you...)

oh, Christopher Titus on Gun Control

Lago wrote:What exactly would happen if we got rid of all of the exploding dildos?

This

but to be serious, if we banned all the guns in america, the absolute worst people would have them and likely cause a mass exodus to the happy hunting grounds.

Crissa wrote:If your guns are not secured properly, they might hurt me. They also might get stolen. Actually, it's highly likely they might get stolen. And lastly single person is more likely to go out and shoot people than an organization with ties to the community.

-Crissa

Highly likely?

Mind quoting some statistics? I only ask because I live in a low-crime area, and no one I know has ever had anything stolen from their house. And I think I maybe know one person that doesn't own at least one firearm.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote: Highly likely?

Mind quoting some statistics?

I don't have any statistics, but I do have a statistically insignificant anecdote. A cousin of mine worked as a bouncer in Los Vegas. He bought a shotgun one day, and the next day it was stolen from the trunk of his car.


[Edit]
For the record, I'm pro- gun control and pro- guns. I wouldn't ever want to shoot a human being, but trap shooting is a hell of a lot of fun. I can see justification in owning hunting rifles and shot guns: they can be used for useful purposes (hunting) as well as for fun.

Other things I don't really see the justification for. A 9mm automatic pistol is not going to make you any safer. An assault rifle is just about the lamest way to hunt short of firebombing a forest. Guns designed for killing people are really just for killing people, and that's not really a good use of anything.

I've had a number of good hikes ruined by drunk people with guns, usually on RVs driving around and shooting at things. I really hate people like that, and I think they're a danger to themselves and others. However, I don't think it's fair to take away their guns any more than is is to take away their cars.

Of course, drunk shooting really should be illegal and result in your license to own an operate firearms being revoked. Repeat offenses => jail time.
[/Edit]

That's why I think municipalities should be able to banish guns.

Just because someone needs one somewhere does not mean that they need it here.

There is just no use for a gun in suburbia, and certainly not in the big city.

-Crissa

Catharz wrote:Statistically you are more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a car than you are to "save a life" with one.

The only people who drive around in cars therefore are people who are bad at risk assessment. And those are the last people who should be allowed to have cars.

This is an invalid restatement of my position. Which means interestingly, that unlike most things that get called that on the internet, it actually is a straw man argument.

The safety statistics are a refutation only of the personal safety argument for handguns, or anything else. So if you take it out of the context of someone making a personal safety argument, it is no longer true. So if someone makes a personal safety argument for owning an SUV, then you can whip out the safety statistics and shoot them down like a duck in season. If people are making other arguments for car ownership (like say, they live in a country with bullshit mass transit and don't know how they could even get food or employment without one), then that's different.

But I remind you, that some jackass was actually making the personal safety argument for handgun ownership. And that's patently ridiculous. People can make the same kind of personal freedom argument for handgun ownership as they make for fireworks or heroin - "I should be allowed to take risks with myself even to the point that they increase risks for other people because people should be allowed to do what they want to do." That's a damn hard argument to counter, because it already establishes as a baseline that the person across the table is willing to endanger other people in order to be allowed to do what they want to do. I'm pretty sure people have to agree to disagree at some point, because the line that people have for how much danger they are willing to have others put them in varies from person to person.

But if people are going to pull weird hypothetical arguments based on anecdotes that could conceivably happen to show how a gun might increase your personal safety that's a fucking bad argument. Personal safety in one situation or another in the future doesn't mean fuck all. The important thing is personal safety in the aggregate possible futures - which is straight statistics. If statistically speaking owning something makes you less safe, you're not allowed to argue in favor of owning it on the basis of personal safety. Full stop.

-Username17

Lets update the second amendment. You have the right to be a trained hacker as well as explosives expert.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:

Crissa wrote:If your guns are not secured properly, they might hurt me. They also might get stolen. Actually, it's highly likely they might get stolen. And lastly single person is more likely to go out and shoot people than an organization with ties to the community.

-Crissa

Highly likely?

Mind quoting some statistics? I only ask because I live in a low-crime area, and no one I know has ever had anything stolen from their house. And I think I maybe know one person that doesn't own at least one firearm.

But if you live in a low-crime area, your guns are presumably not protecting you from anything. If you lived somewhere with a lot of crime, it would still be true that your guns is likely to be stolen and used by a criminal than to be used by you in self-defense.