Author Topic: Gun Control  (Read 48530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Gun Control
« on: December 10, 2012, 12:48:03 pm »


Hey, wait a minute...what?  I...is that guy implying the SEALs that killed bin Laden are idiots?
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2012, 12:51:46 pm »

Hey, wait a minute...what?  I...is that guy implying the SEALs that killed bin Laden are idiots?

I think he's trying to say that "Don't blame guns for the actions of stupid people" by using the logic of "Praising guns for the actions of smart people -- see how stupid it is?".

In other words, taking an argument to its supposedly logical absurd conclusion.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2012, 01:03:23 pm »

Hey, wait a minute...what?  I...is that guy implying the SEALs that killed bin Laden are idiots?

I think he's trying to say that "Don't blame guns for the actions of stupid people" by using the logic of "Praising guns for the actions of smart people -- see how stupid it is?".

In other words, taking an argument to its supposedly logical absurd conclusion.

That...still doesn't make much sense.  Why didn't he just say "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"  Originality, I'd guess...
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline TheL

  • The Cock Teasing Teacher
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2219
  • Gender: Female
  • Fly like cheese sticks.
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2012, 07:21:31 pm »


Hey, wait a minute...what?  I...is that guy implying the SEALs that killed bin Laden are idiots?

No.  He's basically re-hashing "Guns don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people."  I.e., a gun is a tool, it only kills innocent people because another human being somewhere was acting like a tool.
Quote from: ladyrenae
You there. The creepy person who decided I was supporting their position. Stop it.

"Half the reason that I like foreign music is because I can kid myself that "Shake dat ass" is more poetic in Hindi."
--Sanda

Move every 'sig.'  For great justice!

Offline Vypernight

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Gender: Male
  • Stubborn, pig-headed skeptic
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2012, 07:40:04 pm »
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument.  The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.

Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects.  The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!
Whenever I hear a politician speaking strongly for or against abortion, all I hear is, "I have no idea how to fix the economy!"

Offline MadCatTLX

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2012, 08:32:13 pm »
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument.  The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.

Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects.  The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!

The Galil, an Israeli modified AK, has an integrated bottle opener on the fore-grip, under the gas-block. It also has wire cutters integrated into the bi-pod. Want me to wire in a new electrical socket in your house using a Galil, 'cause I might just do it so I can say I have indeed built something with a gun. I'll buy you a beer and open it afterward as well.



I'm not going to bother to re-state my gun related opinions, I'll just say that I recently went to a local gun show (One of the largest in the country) and loved every minute of it.
History is full of maniacs, my friend, men and women of intelect, highly perceptive individuals, who's brilliant minds know neither restraint nor taboo. Such notions are the devils we must slay for the edification of pony-kind. Even if said edification means violating the rules of decency, society, and rightousness itself.
                                                                                                                                                             -Twilight Sparkle, MAGIC.mov

Offline Damen

  • That's COMMODORE SPLATMASTER Damen, Briber of Mods
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Gender: Male
  • The Dark Sex God
    • John Damen's Photography
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2012, 04:34:39 am »
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument.  The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.

Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects.  The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!

I'm going to do something I dislike doing: I'm going to throw morality and ethics right out of the window and state this from an emotionless, logical point of view.

Tools are not objects created to build. They are objects created to do a specific job. Claw hammers are designed to drive nails into wood and to be able to remove them. That is the only intent of their design. Power saws are designed to cut through large pieces of wood very quickly. That is the only intent of their design. Guns are designed to kill things. That is the only intent of their design.

Tools can also be used for tasks that is not a part of their intended design. A claw hammer can be used to crush a man's skull. A chainsaw can be used to dismember a corpse. A gun can be used in competitive and recreational sport shooting.

Guns are tools; whether you agree with their intended task or not and whether you want them to be or not.

That said, that doesn't mean they can only ever be used for their intended task, and yes, it does still take a person holding them to determine what their task will be.
"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

'Till Next Time,
~John Damen

Offline Material Defender

  • Food Scientist in Space
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 959
  • Gender: Male
  • Pilot of the Pyro-GX
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2012, 06:42:15 am »

Guns are tools; whether you agree with their intended task or not and whether you want them to be or not.

That said, that doesn't mean they can only ever be used for their intended task, and yes, it does still take a person holding them to determine what their task will be.

Like hunting and self-defense. These are perfectly legitimate uses for the tools.
The material needs a defender more than the spiritual. If there is a higher power, it can defend itself from the material. Thus denotes 'higher power'.

"Not to know is bad. Not to want to know is worse. Not to hope is unthinkable. Not to care is unforgivable." -Nigerian Saying

Offline Vypernight

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Gender: Male
  • Stubborn, pig-headed skeptic
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2012, 06:58:28 am »
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument.  The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.

Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects.  The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!

Okay, fine, I stand corrected.  I don't hate guns by the way.  I just hate the arguments people make for having them, especially military-grade weapons, which I think should be banned to private citizens.

I'm going to do something I dislike doing: I'm going to throw morality and ethics right out of the window and state this from an emotionless, logical point of view.

Tools are not objects created to build. They are objects created to do a specific job. Claw hammers are designed to drive nails into wood and to be able to remove them. That is the only intent of their design. Power saws are designed to cut through large pieces of wood very quickly. That is the only intent of their design. Guns are designed to kill things. That is the only intent of their design.

Tools can also be used for tasks that is not a part of their intended design. A claw hammer can be used to crush a man's skull. A chainsaw can be used to dismember a corpse. A gun can be used in competitive and recreational sport shooting.

Guns are tools; whether you agree with their intended task or not and whether you want them to be or not.

That said, that doesn't mean they can only ever be used for their intended task, and yes, it does still take a person holding them to determine what their task will be.
Whenever I hear a politician speaking strongly for or against abortion, all I hear is, "I have no idea how to fix the economy!"

Offline Damen

  • That's COMMODORE SPLATMASTER Damen, Briber of Mods
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Gender: Male
  • The Dark Sex God
    • John Damen's Photography
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2012, 02:16:26 pm »
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument.  The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.

Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects.  The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!

I'm going to do something I dislike doing: I'm going to throw morality and ethics right out of the window and state this from an emotionless, logical point of view.

Tools are not objects created to build. They are objects created to do a specific job. Claw hammers are designed to drive nails into wood and to be able to remove them. That is the only intent of their design. Power saws are designed to cut through large pieces of wood very quickly. That is the only intent of their design. Guns are designed to kill things. That is the only intent of their design.

Tools can also be used for tasks that is not a part of their intended design. A claw hammer can be used to crush a man's skull. A chainsaw can be used to dismember a corpse. A gun can be used in competitive and recreational sport shooting.

Guns are tools; whether you agree with their intended task or not and whether you want them to be or not.

That said, that doesn't mean they can only ever be used for their intended task, and yes, it does still take a person holding them to determine what their task will be.
Okay, fine, I stand corrected.  I don't hate guns by the way.  I just hate the arguments people make for having them, especially military-grade weapons, which I think should be banned to private citizens.

And I agree with you. We just differ on what we consider "military grade weapons." For instance, the M4, the M16, the M60, the M240, the M249, flamethrowers, miniguns and any other firearm designed to fire more than once per pull of the trigger are all heavily, heavily restricted to the point of being banned for everyone except the very wealthy and people who are willing to allow government agents come snooping around their house to make sure those guns are kept well secured. And this is the way it should be, those types of weapons should not be readily available to the general public and I, for one, am glad that they are not.

However, the AR-15, the AR-15 carbine, and the civilian legal AK-47 are all functionally different from their military counterparts. They fire once per pull of the trigger and this makes them no different than grandpa's M1 Garand, the Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30, Ruger 10/22 or any other semi-automatic rifle. And they're statistically a very small problem because of their sheer size. The AR-15 has a 20 inch long barrel and that puts it's standard configuration at about 39.6 inches (1006mm) long. The carbine version has a barrel length of 16 inches (408mm) and an over-all length of 34.5 inches (876.1mm) with the stock fully extended and 31.3 inches (795.1mm) with the stock fully collapsed. This makes them very large rifles and that bulk makes them very hard to hide. This is why they're so rarely used in any type of violent crimes. And as I've said before, the rounds they fire are classified "intermediate cartridges" and are, in reality, less powerful than your typical hunting round.

So, personally, I'm not scared of the guy next door with the big scary AR-15. I'm scared of the guy on the corner slingin' crank with the small pistol tucked away in his pocket.
"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

'Till Next Time,
~John Damen

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8245
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2012, 04:28:40 pm »
I for one do not like bans or restriction that only apply to certain type of weapons. The reason is simple: The guns aren't the problem, people are. All restriction should be about who should be allowed to own any type of guns.

I mean sure if someone goes crazy with a blackpowder muzzleloading rifle (legal and license free in several countries) or a single/double shotgun (legal and license free in many countries) then he might have a smaller bodycount than if he had been armed with an assaultrifle. But, and this is important, would anyone go to the families of those who had been killed in the rampage and say that these deaths are acceptable since he did not have a more dangerous weapon. That simply having a law that bans "military type weapons" is good because this limits the casualties in spree killings.

No, I don't think anyone would. Many say that even one death is too many in such cases and I'm agree but the only way to prevent every single killing spree is to stop the would-be-killer before he strikes (possibly getting some medical/mental help to him/her.) Especially since knives, cars and improvised explosives have also been used in mass murders.

Which brings me to my point. Gun control should be about who gets a firearm license, not about what kind of guns that person can have. For example, I own several firearms. Few years ago I sold about half of them. Does that mean I am 50% less dangerous now? Or if I wanted to buy another gun would it make me 20% more dangerous? Would the type of the gun matter? I mean I have a pistol and shotguns and rifles already. So getting another shotgun would not really help me shoot more, since I already have more guns that I can carry on my person at the same time. What if I wanted to buy an assault rifle? (for the record I am interested in trying action shooting as well as a certain shooting competitions for reservists and both would require the use of an assault rifle. Can't afford to start those hobbies yet though.) If the police would refuse my license for an assault rifle, what would that mean? Does it mean that I am a threat to other people if I had it? Then shouldn't they take away my other guns as well? I mean if even one death is too much then if I would be a threat I should not be allowed to have any guns. And if I am allowed to keep my other guns does that really mean that I only become a danger to society if I get some type of "gun overload" where I exceed the safe amount of firepower that I can posses.


That was a long rant.


Sorry, here is a funny song:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU</a>
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline nickiknack

  • I Find Your Lack of Ponies... Disturbing
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Gender: Female
  • HAS A KINK FOR SPACE NAZIS
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2012, 04:49:31 pm »
I for one do not like bans or restriction that only apply to certain type of weapons. The reason is simple: The guns aren't the problem, people are. All restriction should be about who should be allowed to own any type of guns.

I mean sure if someone goes crazy with a blackpowder muzzleloading rifle (legal and license free in several countries) or a single/double shotgun (legal and license free in many countries) then he might have a smaller bodycount than if he had been armed with an assaultrifle. But, and this is important, would anyone go to the families of those who had been killed in the rampage and say that these deaths are acceptable since he did not have a more dangerous weapon. That simply having a law that bans "military type weapons" is good because this limits the casualties in spree killings.

No, I don't think anyone would. Many say that even one death is too many in such cases and I'm agree but the only way to prevent every single killing spree is to stop the would-be-killer before he strikes (possibly getting some medical/mental help to him/her.) Especially since knives, cars and improvised explosives have also been used in mass murders.

Which brings me to my point. Gun control should be about who gets a firearm license, not about what kind of guns that person can have. For example, I own several firearms. Few years ago I sold about half of them. Does that mean I am 50% less dangerous now? Or if I wanted to buy another gun would it make me 20% more dangerous? Would the type of the gun matter? I mean I have a pistol and shotguns and rifles already. So getting another shotgun would not really help me shoot more, since I already have more guns that I can carry on my person at the same time. What if I wanted to buy an assault rifle? (for the record I am interested in trying action shooting as well as a certain shooting competitions for reservists and both would require the use of an assault rifle. Can't afford to start those hobbies yet though.) If the police would refuse my license for an assault rifle, what would that mean? Does it mean that I am a threat to other people if I had it? Then shouldn't they take away my other guns as well? I mean if even one death is too much then if I would be a threat I should not be allowed to have any guns. And if I am allowed to keep my other guns does that really mean that I only become a danger to society if I get some type of "gun overload" where I exceed the safe amount of firepower that I can posses.

This is more or less my opinion on gun control. That being said I would really wish pro-gun politicans and others take a look at what they believe, because I see a majority of them of having this "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude towards those in need, and fail to realize that this attitude only makes for more criminals among those on the bottom and the vicious cycle continues.

Offline Old Viking

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Gender: Male
  • Occasionally peevish
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2012, 07:05:44 pm »
Damen: ... grandpa's M1 Garand ...

Why you young whippersnapper.
I am an old man, and I've seen many problems, most of which never happened.

Offline RinellaWasHere

  • Man Without Pants
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 970
  • Gender: Male
  • The Scottish Storyteller
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2012, 07:21:15 pm »
Not totally related, but there was a shooting at a local mall about an hour ago. Reports say two people are confirmed dead.
Oh, you take the high road, and I'll take the low road...

My mother did not CHOOSE life. She planned for it.

Is that weird monkey-creature-looking-thing supposed to be a BLACK MAN?

It's Bi-Curious George, well known supporter of the gay agenda.

Offline Atheissimo

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2012, 07:33:34 pm »
Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.

So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.
'You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend... and you've never watched Star Trek? Good Lord.' - Sir Patrick Stewart