GUN DEBATE

Nehmi it's against the rules to have a dupe account to troll with

Jam it back in, in the dark.

No, that's what Nehmi would do because he is negativist and paranoid

You are clearly Bizarro Nehmi, since you posted a massive article that will go unread about what you think is GOOD news that is TRUE before you babbled out something incomprehensible and overenthused.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The problem is that the pro-gun ethos views gun crime as not a reason to eliminate guns but a reason to add even more guns because otherwise how will you shoot all the gun-havers

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Ah, but they don't mostly

because as criminals

they can reasonably be assumed to be better at murderin' than non-criminals are

this is my assessment of matters after several viewings of High Noon

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I should warn you before you get too indignant: you are arguing with a drunk cartoon who is deliberately engaging in farce

also I am pretty sure turtle power is more than adequate to assure that criminals are not cut any slack

I was speaking idiomatically.

The problem with the "it's a personal preference" argument is that people who "prefer" to have an object in their home that is statistically more likely to blow their hand off than to do them any good are kind of nutty — and obviously we don't want nutty people to have guns so it's a bit open-and-shut.

How ya doing, buddy?

The notion that background checks keep guns away from anyone is a laughable one for the same reason that checking IDs for booze/tobacco is laughably ineffective. If a teenager can bribe someone to purchase something in his stead, I'm fairly sure a lunatic can.

Originally Posted by Meth

Pang... so based on some unreferenced hypothetical statistical data that you have yet to present, is it your argument that the legislature should abandon the idea that citizens just might be able to engage in safe practice with dangerous tools on the basis of idiot-proofing life for all the "nutty people" who are accident prone?

You have misunderstood my argument, such as it is, rather thoroughly. The notion of engaging in "safe practice" with a tool designed to ventilate someone's liver is a bit amusing, though. Whom are we practicing on, exactly? The dog?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

This is because gun collections are paradoxically more likely to make one a target for home invasion, and guns stolen from private collections are a significant source of illegally circulated weapons.

It only seems "paradoxical" if you buy into the quasi-magical notion that guns emit an anti-crime radiation (as many here seem to). Practical thinking leads us directly to the obvious conclusion that guns are worth a lot of money on the gray market, of course they will be routinely stolen. It's not like they jump out of the display cases and shoot the criminals automatically.

People keep treating these things as some kind of goddamn Living Embodiment Of My Constitutional Rights!!! instead of an object.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

These analogies do not hold up so well, Meth. Their core functions are incompatible.

You see, the function of a car, the reason people purport to need one, is travel. It is indeed possible to use a car in this fashion safely. There are other ways to use a car, but this is the core use. If a car was built that did everything that a normal car does except accelerate your travels, no one would buy it.

The function of a gun is to put new windows in a structurally-sound person. It is not possible to use a gun in this fashion safely; by definition if the gun is used in this fashion someone has been hurt. There are other ways to use a gun, but this is the core use. If a gun was released that did everything a normal gun does except shoot bullets into people, no one would buy it.*

When people talk about "safe driving" what they generally mean is usage of the item's core function (accelerated travel) with the hope of absolutely minimizing injury or harm to the driver or other drivers.

When people talk about "safe gun ownership" what they generally mean is preventing the item's core function from engaging, by keeping the weapon unloaded, locked up, et cetera. A safe gun owner wants to prevent people from getting shot, or to make the gun useless.

You can't just treat a gun as a piece of property like any other for this reason. Either you're just looking at it (it's useless) or somebody's badly hurt (it's useful). Maybe there are other items like this but none are coming to mind. You can fuck somebody up pretty badly with a cricket bat but that's not why cricket bats exist.




*with some exceptions vis-a-vis hunting, but do you think the gun lobby would accept a ban on everything but hunting rifles? Also, when I say "no one" this obviously excludes collectors, which are in a class of lunacy all their own.

Originally Posted by LZ

there's probably a lot more paperwork involved than when buying a 12 pack, so yeah, generally harder

Do you think it's paradoxical that a gun ban doesn't eliminate all violent crime?

If you think "paperwork" keeps a determined asshole from doing whatever the hell he's decided to do I expect you don't watch the news too often. Here, let me lay it out for you. You have a gun. I am a criminal who does not object to killing someone to get what I want. Now I have a gun!

At any rate gun bans obviously don't eliminate violent crimes. Mostly people just resort to stabbing each other. But the class of crimes you can accomplish with knives is significantly smaller. I can't see anyone holding up a bank with a machete exactly.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LZ

wait man let me stop you here! this is the part where I shoot you for breaking into my house

Yes, because I went up to your bedroom, woke you up, announced my intentions, handed you the gun I already took out of your cabinet, stood against the wall, and held up a dartboard in front of my chest. Best of luck with that scenario.

It's entirely possible you're awake 24/7 and never leave the house but this is not probably the most common example.

Originally Posted by Meth

competitive shooting and recreation, and as you mentioned, collecting

"Competitive shooting". Explain to me why you need anything more than a paint gun for this. Or, hell, a crossbow. Darts. A rubberband and paperclip. Spitwads. In the world of "gosh let's see which of us can point at something" there are many options that hardly ever blow off somebody's thumb.

As for collecting I don't see why "GUYS LOOK: I HAVE A LOT OF SOMETHING" isn't a little silly. When I was about 7, maybe 8, I collected baseball cards. And then I said to myself: "Self, these things are fucking worthless".

How ya doing, buddy?

more like

YouTube Video

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I'm not saying they don't enjoy it. People enjoy a lot of terrible things. NASCAR. Hot Pockets. Everybody Loves Raymond.

I'm not writing anything off because it's "scary" but because it's conceptually boring. People taking turns pointing at things. It's not an objection to guns precisely, I have the same attitude toward, say, a free-throw contest. "Sports" where nobody's actually interacting.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Columbine was caused by videogames everyone knows that by now

John Romero made Columbine his bitch

I was speaking idiomatically.

A perfect opportunity for the use of "Smooth Criminal" completely squandered

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well because you know when you're squinting down them sights you might not see other things so well

So that's sort of myopic I guess?

FELIPE NO

I am pretty much the furthest thing from a gun supporter I can think of but 5 years in prison seems a bit much for owning an unlicensed object. What's the sentence for driving unlicensed over there, 20-to-life?

Of course these are English prisons so it's likely not as bad as it sounds.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I don't even see how it's a matter worth discussing.

"Guys, what do you think of this fella who shot two strangers in the back for no good reason?"

Originally Posted by Shin

whereas driving an untaxed car merely gets you banned from driving for a year or so and your car gets crushed.

Crushed?

That's significantly more hardcore than the use of an impound lot, I applaud.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Well arguably the problem could be posited as follows:

Couple of dudes were shot and killed for no real reason at all.

You see how people might object to that.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Rice Overflow

it wasn't as if the two were simply walking down the street not doing anything.

No, they were robbing (taking property) from someone who wasn't him, and he responded by taking their lives. By shooting them. In the back.


"Doing what you think is right" isn't an excuse when "what you think is right" is murder.

(cue NP to tell me that blah blah acquitted technically not murder!)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

This is obviously false, because if it were true, then it meant that for all intents and purposes, you're saying that Joe Horn is a sociopath who kills people simply because he has the ability to do so.

Oh, I'm sorry, he didn't kill them for no reason.

He killed them as an unfortunate and uncontrollable side effect of his crippling Texan Fuckwad Syndrome. Let us all pray that this poor individual may be cured of his affliction.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I just want to remind everyone that the gentleman calling people "nuts" is doing his best to defend the action of fatally shooting nonthreatening petty thieves in the back.

I was speaking idiomatically.