Gun Control Discussion 2

[The guy from the Vale]

OK, so how do we get the hands out of violent lunatics without also taking away the guns of some non-violent lunatics? How do we tell the difference? Or do you think we'll just have to wait until they get violent? Because in that case, we'll have no chance to reduce Vegas-style killing sprees. Or suicides, for that matter.

[MercenaryChef]

ok, we get it, cocanuts. you are all about statistics and mathematical likelihood. 

how are you for social responsibility and human empathy?

could you talk to the families devastated by vegas and Sandy hook about the sheer number that their family members are dead because of a poor roll of the dice?

 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

55 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Nice. But that's not an argument I'm disputing. It makes sense to conclude that a person who possesses a firearm is more likely than someone who doesn't to inflict injury or death upon himself or others with the use of said firearm. That's not the point. Gun control assumes every gun owner is a likely threat. When I say "likely," I'm not talking about specific odds. When I say "likely" I'm suggesting that they're "expected" to be threats. And the data don't support that.

In the last thread you got several responses questioning that idea, and I still haven’t seen any response to that. So let’s try again: 

1) Why on Earth do you think gun control assumes every gun owner to be a likely threat?

2) What exactly do you mean by “likely” in this context? A specific percentage? 

3) Do you agree that drunk driving laws are immoral too? After all they assume every drunk driver to be a likely threat, even though most don’t crash.

[Darth Richard II]

6 hours ago, Relic said:

Yup. I've got em on ignore but still get to see all the quoted replies. Dunno why you guys keep feeding the trolls. Have we learned nothing in the last 15 years?

I think its pretty obvious that we haven't.

[Stego]

19 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

A pocket knife? Seriously? Something that's two inches long and were I'm from you use on a daily basis? Cutting bales of hay, and an assortment of uses at work. Hell they even give us one at work, company issued. You're being a little extreme buddy. I can see if someone is walking around with a hunting knife or the like. But a pocket knife? I've always had one, almost everyone I know carries one, not for protection, hell it probably wouldn't do a damn thing. You're definitely overblowing this subject buddy.

If you WEAR a knife visibly on your person and you aren't at work, you are a cowardly bully. There are zero exceptions to this. It's a good way to know you are dealing with low value males.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

27 minutes ago, Stego said:

If you WEAR a knife visibly on your person and you aren't at work, you are a cowardly bully. There are zero exceptions to this. It's a good way to know you are dealing with low value males.

I agree. That's not what a pocket knife is. You, umm, keep in your pocket. My Grandad and everyone else father and grandad has a pocket knife. Its like a tiny Swiss army knife, or the like.

[Free Northman Reborn]

46 minutes ago, Stego said:

If you WEAR a knife visibly on your person and you aren't at work, you are a cowardly bully. There are zero exceptions to this. It's a good way to know you are dealing with low value males.

Wait, what?

I'm not into knives at all, but what is the above statement based on? I'd be more worried about the guy carrying a hidden knife on his person, than the one openly carrying it in some kind of sheath or the like. What's with this irrational fear of anything remotely resembling a weapon?

[MercenaryChef]

I am a huge knife guy. I own a couple thousand dollars worth if handforged cutlery...for work.

but, I also have a lot of regular knives.  my dad is of a time and place that he had a folding knife on his belt for like forever, though a multitool has become more useful and he wears it now.

I used to carry a knife. first time it was called a weapon when searched by a cop i reevaluated whether i needed it.

I am with stego a bit though. when I see an obvious one handed open knife clipped on a pocket it doesn't say to me 'let me open that box for you' it instead says 'i think I am tough.' 

and don't get me started on open carry firearms. those people are really cowardly and ultimately dangerous. seeing a dude with a pistol on his belt in my hometown of like 1000 people in a pizza shop was both pathetic and comical.

[Free Northman Reborn]

14 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

I am a huge knife guy. I own a couple thousand dollars worth if handforged cutlery...for work.

but, I also have a lot of regular knives.  my dad is of a time and place that he had a folding knife on his belt for like forever, though a multitool has become more useful and he wears it now.

I used to carry a knife. first time it was called a weapon when searched by a cop i reevaluated whether i needed it.

I am with stego a bit though. when I see an obvious one handed open knife clipped on a pocket it doesn't say to me 'let me open that box for you' it instead says 'i think I am tough.' 

and don't get me started on open carry firearms. those people are really cowardly and ultimately dangerous. seeing a dude with a pistol on his belt in my hometown of like 1000 people in a pizza shop was both pathetic and comical.

Not sure why someone who open carries a firearm is deemed cowardly or more dangerous than someone who carries a weapon concealed. Stupid, yes, because you advertize the fact that you are armed and can therefore be disarmed more easily, or robbed of your gun.

Concealed carry is the way to go. Open carry is a bit dumb in my view, but each to his own.

[Yukle]

6 hours ago, maarsen said:

People not in possession of guns are very unlikely to shoot themselves or others. People with guns have a very much higher probability of shooting themselves or others. The only way to change these probabilities is to reduce people or reduce guns.

This is a good way of explaining it. However, you then get stupid counters to it like: "WELL CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!"

To which you have to point out that cars require license and aptitude tests to be legally owned. Furthermore, they're registered.

And, of course, when used correctly for the purposes it was designed to complete a car transports people and cargo. When used correctly for the purposes it was designed for a handgun kills a human.

[MercenaryChef]

13 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure why someone who open carries a firearm is deemed cowardly or more dangerous than someone who carries a weapon concealed. Stupid, yes, because you advertize the fact that you are armed and can therefore be disarmed more easily, or robbed of your gun.

Concealed carry is the way to go. Open carry is a bit dumb in my view, but each to his own.

no. carrying a gun openly say 'look what a tough fucker i think I am, when in fact i am a cowardly weakling.'

concealed carry says 'i am scared shitless about stuff but think I can be a hero.'

no thanks to both,  please. 

[lessthanluke]

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure why someone who open carries a firearm is deemed cowardly or more dangerous than someone who carries a weapon concealed. Stupid, yes, because you advertize the fact that you are armed and can therefore be disarmed more easily, or robbed of your gun.

Concealed carry is the way to go. Open carry is a bit dumb in my view, but each to his own.

Because they are trying to say look at me I have a gun be afraid.

[Mother Cocanuts]

4 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

OK, so how do we get the hands out of violent lunatics without also taking away the guns of some non-violent lunatics? How do we tell the difference? Or do you think we'll just have to wait until they get violent? Because in that case, we'll have no chance to reduce Vegas-style killing sprees. Or suicides, for that matter.

You cant. And that's something gun control-freaks have to come to terms with. (And there's a reason I refer to you as control-freaks.) Regulations are only as good as the people who follow them. Laws are only good for law-abiding citizens. All we can do is hold these lunatics responsible. And yes that may mean waiting until they get violent. If you believe that stricter regulations or outright bans will reduce these Vegas style killing sprees, then it is your burden to prove. It's not the responsibility of the law-abiding gun owner to prove to you that he's not a threat. You're the ones who're attempting to impose the restrictions at his expense.

4 hours ago, MercurialCannibal said:

ok, we get it, cocanuts. you are all about statistics and mathematical likelihood. 

how are you for social responsibility and human empathy?

could you talk to the families devastated by vegas and Sandy hook about the sheer number that their family members are dead because of a poor roll of the dice?

 

First, it's Mother Cocanuts. Second, I'm not all about statistics and mathematical likelihood. I also like to talk about basketball.Third, and in all seriousness, as bad as I do feel for the families who were devastated by the Vegas shooting, what relevance do my or your emotions have? Are you suggesting that in order to feel sympathy, I have to support a measure that would undermine the right of millions of Americans, a measure which has not meaningfully substantiated that it produces the outcomes it intends? Sorry that's illogical. And I think it's important that we hold on to our sense of logic when drafting policy, and not merely "react."

4 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

In the last thread you got several responses questioning that idea, and I still haven’t seen any response to that. So let’s try again: 

1) Why on Earth do you think gun control assumes every gun owner to be a likely threat?

2) What exactly do you mean by “likely” in this context? A specific percentage? 

3) Do you agree that drunk driving laws are immoral too? After all they assume every drunk driver to be a likely threat, even though most don’t crash.

1. Because it places the onus on gun owners or people with gun owning prospects to prove they're not, as theguyfromthevale put it, violent lunatics. Meaning, they are lunatics until they prove they're not. What do you think these proposed regulations are looking for?

2. I already explained it:

6 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Gun control assumes every gun owner is a likely threat. When I say "likely," I'm not talking about specific odds. When I say "likely" I'm suggesting that they're "expected" to be threats. And the data don't support that.

3. Drunk driving is irrelevant. (I know what you're trying to do. And while it is a good tactic, you have no idea what my position on drunk driving is. And I rather keep it that way, at least for now.) Let's the keep the focus on guns, shall we?

[MercenaryChef]

furthermore completely fuck your concealed carry. 

I as another citizen do not have faith in or have authorized your desire to carry a gun and pull it out in times of danger. 

naturally all concealed carry advocates and practitioners are expert marksmen who would put deadpool and dirty Harry to shame. 

 

[maarsen]

30 minutes ago, Yukle said:

This is a good way of explaining it. However, you then get stupid counters to it like: "WELL CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!"

To which you have to point out that cars require license and aptitude tests to be legally owned. Furthermore, they're registered.

And, of course, when used correctly for the purposes it was designed to complete a car transports people and cargo. When used correctly for the purposes it was designed for a handgun kills a human.

Sometimes I wonder why I bring facts and logic to an argument that tends to come down to an emotional appeal to 'let me have my stupidity stay unchallenged'. Then I get a response like yours and yeah, someone understands. Thanks.

[Mother Cocanuts]

41 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

furthermore completely fuck your concealed carry. 

...okay.

41 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

I as another citizen do not have faith in or have authorized your desire to carry a gun and pull it out in times of danger. 

It isn't up to you to "authorize" anything. Bearing arms is a right which is supposed to be protected by the government.

41 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

naturally all concealed carry advocates and practitioners are expert marksmen who would put deadpool and dirty Harry to shame.

And why is this important?

[MercenaryChef]

8 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

...okay.

It isn't up to you to "authorize" anything. Bearing arms is a right which is supposed to be protected by the government.

And why is this important?

it is important because everyone who is pro concealed carry thinks they are that proverbial good guy with a gun who is gonna save everyone. 

and if you haven't noticed this thread is to debate the right to bear arms protected by the government.  so it may not be up to me but I am allowed my thoughts. 

 

[Mother Cocanuts]

34 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

it is important because everyone who is pro concealed carry thinks they are that proverbial good guy with a gun who is gonna save everyone.

How do you know? Have they all told you or anyone else what they think?

34 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

and if you haven't noticed this thread is to debate the right to bear arms protected by the government.  so it may not be up to me but I am allowed my thoughts.

You suggested that as a citizen, you have not authorized my desire to carry a weapon and pull it out in times of danger. You don't have this authority. That has nothing to do with allowing your thoughts. Believe me, I'm the last person who'll try to censor you.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

You suggested that as a citizen, you have not authorized my desire to carry a weapon and pull it out in times of danger. You don't have this authority. That has nothing to do with allowing your thoughts. Believe me, I'm the last person who'll try to censor you.

But you don't see anything wrong with that person pulling that weapon in a time of danger without anyone else's authority? Why should the gun owner have this authority? Just cause 2nd Amendment?

[Mother Cocanuts]

29 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But you don't see anything wrong with that person pulling that weapon in a time of danger without anyone else's authority?

No. No one else should have authority.

30 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Why should the gun owner have this authority?

Because he has a right to his gun and he has a right of self-defense.