Doc @ 4.1.2008, 10:38 pm wrote:People are dippy with guns.
What we need is gun-safety education, which I actually think should be a required element of elementary education. Complete with practice. When I was a little kid, I was taught how to safely shoot, clean and store guns. And allowed to try to fire guns too big for me, and other fun stuff, including the delightful yearly ritual of letting halloween pumpkins go a bit squishy and then shooting them with the shotgun, which makes them explode in a wonderful spectacular way. Other people I know brought up with that sort of thing don't act like dips with guns. It's ingrained in their heads that guns are normal and really really serious. The people I have observed (and there have been plenty) getting stupid with guns didn't have that experience.
I don't want to live in Kirsa's world where everyone's packing. A gun is not a pocketknife to be carried around 'cause it might come in handy. I have no desire to carry a gun to the convienence store, and I think that anybody who is scared enough to feel the urge to do that is not in a good head-space and should not have a gun. The 'lawful people' who want to carry guns around are probably yahoos.
Kirsa, you're also overlooking something: Okay, all the red tape doesn't stop anybody with a serious mind to from getting guns illegally. BUT it does mean that the person has an illegal gun. If Pimpy McPimp gets searched and they find his illegal gun, Pimpy is in deeper trouble than he would be otherwise, and the cops take his gun away and break it. If there was no red tape and Pimpy got his gun legally and it was legal for anybody to carry a gun in their jacket, the cops would have to give the darn thing back to him.
As far as I can tell, kids with family-issued gun-education like mine are just as likely to attempt suicide as anybody else, so Pica's got a point. I think the waiting periods to buy guns are a good idea, and really ought to cover all types.
Rebis @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:38 pm wrote:Guns: who cares?
I understand some people like them and that's fine with me. I don't like them, so I wouldn't have one. I really don't like the noise and, to be honest, firing a bullet is an act of violence. I don't mean that the person who fires the bullet is violent, but rather, that the little implosion/explosion thing that kicks the bullet out of the weapon is violent.
I don't like violence in inanimate objects any more than I do in humans.
Pica Pica @ 5.1.2008, 9:52 am wrote:Guns play such a small part of life where i am (even with the rise in replicas and gun crime) that I can't see the point of them.
Far as I can see, you need the gun to protect yourself from people....because they have guns. Why can't we just sort out or violent transactions the scottish way - a brutal headbutt and biting off their nose?
nyeti nyeti @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:15 pm wrote:the pimpy point is lost on me, what is that, a deterrence argument? pimpy gon do what pimpy got to do,
Doc @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:21 pm wrote:nyeti nyeti @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:15 pm wrote:the pimpy point is lost on me, what is that, a deterrence argument? pimpy gon do what pimpy got to do,
No, it's not a deterrance argument.* Pimpy will do as Pimpy will do.
It's a matter of being able to do something about it when Pimpy does what Pimpy does. Presumably we don't want people like Pimpy carrying guns around. If lawful people must jump through some hoops to get guns lawfully, and Pimpy will not or cannot meet those standards, then when somebody notices that Pimpy's carrying a gun around, we can have law-enforcement interrupt Pimpy's gun-carrying. Very likely he'll get another gun, but hey, for a little while at least, he doesn't have a gun, or at least has fewer.
Kirsa's solution does the same, except instead of making lawful people jump through hoops and carry documents, Kirsa wants to mark (maim) gun-criminals. This seems extreme. For one, so far as I know it's not really all that much of a difficulty for lawful people to get those permits unless they are in an unreasonable hurry, and since I want the guns to stay with people who have some planning skills, hey, I don't mind. For two, applying permanent marks to unwilling people strikes me as quite wrong, and that GUN CRIMINAL tattoo on Pimpy's forehead will make life quite difficult for him, no matter what he does -- if he continues his life of crime that mark will make it hard, but it will make it hard if he tries to get a job at an espresso bar, too. Imagine if we didn't issue driver's liscences, but instead put tattoos on the foreheads of people who offend with reckless driving and would have had their liscences permanently revoked if we had lisences.
(Though it occurs to me that we could use a long-lasting but not really permanent industrial dye to mark people like that, and get their parole officers to re-stamp them when necessary. Now I'm picturing a culture where like one in ten people has something printed on their forehead. 'May Not Buy Alcohol' 'May Not Drive' 'Allergic To Peanuts' 'Sex Offender' 'May Not Go Within 500 Feet of Kristy Brinkley.' Oh God, it's a sci-fi movie starring Tom Cruise, with a screenplay by Nathaniel Hawthorne.)
Besides, lots of belief-systems forbid tattoos, and tattoos on your forehead or hands are, uh, The Mark of the Beast if they're about your economic and/or social and/or legal status.
*I effectively don't believe in deterrance. Behavioral science pretty much proves that punishing creatures occassionally for doing things that are usually rewarding for them doesn't do anything to stop the behavior we're punishing, but does create other behavioral problems. And I'm certainly happy that the human race hasn't become so squishy and weak that we all just give in to threats like "Don't carry a concealed gun or you'll go to jail!" just because we're threatened.
nyeti nyeti @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:47 pm wrote:Well, isn't that what we have now?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest