GUNS: pro/anti

[nyeti nyeti]

alrighty then!

Guns and laws regulating them. I think we oughtta be able to have 'em, for a whole lotta reasons. Though I totally understand how objectionable this is.

[Wesley_Lexi]

I think that the current gun laws are good enough. I understand that the wrong people are still getting guns too easily, but there isn't too much to do about it.

[-Kt-]

Nyeti Nyeti, I applaud your foresight, I was about to start a huge argument in the "What do you believe?" thread

Here's a more verbose explanation at what I believe:

Laws only apply to the lawful.
That is to say, that gun restrictions, and waiting lists, and concealed carry permits only matter to lawful honest citizens. If I were a criminal, there is nothing stopping me from getting a firearm illegally. But If I am a lawful citizen, I have to submit to backround checks, wait times, and Go through the red tape of getting my CCW.

"Gun Control" Does, Not, Work!
Infact it makes the situation worse. The current system of "Gun Control" only acheives the effect of taking more guns out of the hands of lawful people. It does nothing to impact criminals having guns.

In this manner criminals have more power to rob, steal, hijack, kidnap, rape, murder, the docile public.

If you were about to rob a convinience store, in a world where everyone is packing, wouldn't you think twice about sticking up the clerk, if you knew that granny in aisle 9 is armed, and the guy by the slurpee machine is armed, and the woman at the atm is armed, and the clerk is armed?

[nyeti nyeti]

precisely my take. we live in a very real world. too real, but whaddya gonna do?

[Pica Pica]

i am pleased i live in a country where getting a gun is difficult and I feel safer for it. If only from my own self.

[Doc]

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.

Handguns are practically useless for killing animals. They're clearly designed to be carried around easily and out of sight and used for attacking other humans, and people should not be doing those things. It does strike me as more reasonable to restrict companies from manufacturing these tools-of-ill-use, instead of restricting their purchase.

[-Kt-]

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.

You make a good point IMHO, It is probably not a good thing if idiotic yahoos get the gun. People without your upbringing are more likely to become yahoos, I would suspect.

In the "What do you believe?" thread, I mentioned that I am in favor of one year mandatory armed combat/military/field medical training as a rite-of-passage into adulthood. Naturally such training would include gun safety and a lesson on self-defense law (what is appropriate, and what is not appropriate/illegal regarding self-defense and defense of property as a civilian).
I think perhaps that this would help my world have less 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.

Assuming pimpy is doing anything illegal, they can just prosecute him on the grounds of pimping.
Pimpy having a gun should have nothing to do with his crime unless it is used to commit crime. If he uses his firearm to commit crime then he will be banned from gun ownership for life (and tattooed (face/forehead and/or hands) with marks indicating guncrime, no dealer can legally sell him firearms, and if he is opencarrying the populace will notice that he is opencarrying illegally, if the cops ever detain him in the future nd find a firearm, they will confiscate it, and add to his prison sentence)

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.

I never considered that point (wait-times to deter suicide).
Perhaps waiting periods are a good idea, if people had to wait 3-5 days we would only have people commiting suicide who really wanted it.

[Rebis]

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.

Instead of laws against guns, there should be laws against abusing guns. Take for instance, the weirdos who stand around stroking their guns and fetishizing them. That's a form of molestation, in my opinion. Those people should be put on trial for abusing their guns.

If I had a gun right now, I'd shoot of the top of this water bottle I'm going to drink from.


* I used pistols when I was about 4 or 5 years old. My father would hold my hand while I fired them. I was in the military and got to sleep with my weapon. I even carried an M60 for a while. I'm just saying; I've been near guns.


Rebis

[Gwydion]

I'm pretty much with Doc. I do think wait times to deter suicide and background checks to make it just a little harder for the criminal and mentally ill to get a hold of them is a good idea. Sure, criminanals will still find away, but I do think the effort involved will weed things out and 1. illegal guns can be confiscated during stops for more minor things and 2. felon in possession of a firearm adds penalties/can revoke parole, so I do think it has some value.

I do think that firearms safety lessons are a good idea for everyone in a home with firearms.

I do not own or ever plan to own a gun. I am significantly more dangerous without a weapon than I am with and unarmed means I have no weapons to be taken away and used against me.

Also, my ex and long time close friend blew his head off with a rifle he bought for the purpose the day before, so yes, I'm a little biased.

[nyeti nyeti]

the pimpy point is lost on me, what is that, a deterrence argument? pimpy gon do what pimpy got to do,

I don' want to live in that world either; as it is I feel i live in a worse one.

[nyeti nyeti]

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.

PERCUSSION! i wish i could smack my drum with that kinda velocity.

any sound has its place in the orcherstra er life.

[Pica Pica]

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]

yaaaaaa
ARRRRRRRR

lol

well, I guess you live in a civilized nation, over here it's the fricken wild wild west
and I'm wanting out, no lie

from what i understand from television, your police have to apply for weapons.
here, I think we're eventually looking at being armed because the police are.
Alex's droogs done joined the force.

[-Kt-]

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?

I have no idea about guns when it comes to the UK, I suppose that it's possible that gun prohibition works there, that's great.
The US has a wildly different culture about guns & crime. Not saying one is better, just different.
Certainly a legal prohibition on guns is impossible in the US, not to mention the fact that people would never accept it.
I am curious about the majority viewpoint .about gun prohibition in the UK.

[Doc]

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]

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.

Well, isn't that what we have now? In some places it might be pretty much theoretical, this gunus interruptus scenario, which is my problem with what we have now. If I have to go through East Oakland, lotta it, I feel I maybe ought to have a firearm, at this point. Sooner rather than later.

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.

Def. no tattoos, certainly not on foreheads. that's too nazified for me.

What we have in the US of A has totally gone south, and no way am I optimistic about any improvement, any time soon. I'll be perfectly upfront about my fear: it's racial and socioeconomic. There has to be a new paradigm virtually from the ground up to make any substantial difference, and I don't imagine that happening.

I could rant about that, but there are other topics it fits better.

whoo hoo.

[Doc]

Well, isn't that what we have now?

Yes. It's a reply to the argument that, since existing gun controls fail to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, those controls don't do anything at all but annoy the law-abiding.

[nyeti nyeti]

aha, i missed that point

so, how 'bout:
'does little except annoy the law-abiding'?

since. like I said, in the applicable areas I'd want a gun, none of this law-abiding means very much, and the police presence is Very Selective.

[Doc]

Dunno. Is it a little thing?

Okay, maybe if you're in that Oakland neighborhood that scares you and you see somebody waving a gun around, nothing happens. But why is that really relevant? Law enforcement's failure to enforce a law isn't an argument that it ought not be a law.

If it was perfectly legal for anybody who felt like it to be strutting around with a firearm, then one might presume that this sort of thing would happen in all the neighborhoods, not just the underserved ones. Essentially turning just about every place into an area where you'd want a gun. You see a bunch of skinheads with guns stuck in their belts and you call the cops they wouldn't accept your report and shyly turn away if you were calling from Oakland and show up quick if you were calling from some other neighborhood, they'd tell you to stop your wingeing 'cause it's perfectly legal.

Babies, bathwater.

[nyeti nyeti]

I actually do not recall arguing that there should be no law.

My argument was merely that, as a de facto matter, there isn't.

I think everyone having the ability to conveniently purchase a firearm, no waiting period beyond what it takes for the police to run a check for warrants (from what I understand from bounty hunters, this is entirely implementable), and that way these are registered firearms.

I don't run around scared. Never did. Fearless as any mofo out here.

Three months ago I lived in East Oakland. Out of necessity. One night I got back to the area after dark, which my friend really doesn't like, but i ain't trippin.

it went Something Like This: "aw hayll naw, that ain't no dude" "I'm telling you thass a dude!"

I cross the street. Couple blocks later, some character has snuck on me, stealth PLUS and has me in some wrestling hold, immediately I am having my face pounded repeatedly into the pavement. Then, right as I'm about to go out, repeatedly kicked my right arm with real velocity, with steel toes. I am truly damaged, in major pain 24/7. and very likely permanently injured.

Theory and ideologies are not the most compelling issues to me right now.