I'll start the gun control debate

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think that a great many people will argue that there is no possible way to use a great many weapons responsibly, far beyond the level of ordnance, or NBC.

And I would submit that they are wrong, and the evidence will be on my side. The only case you can make is that some people are incapable of using these weapons without violating the rights of others, hence you might want to discuss banning the people.

Biological weapons are not capable of being used responsibly because simply their use means that they are going to affect people that the user did not intend. Same with nuclear weapons and most chemical weapons. A guy who lights off a nuke on his own land waaay out in the desert is still going to give some kids 200 miles away cancer from the fall out. A guy who uses a bio-weapon in kentucky is going to make some kids in China sick when an infected person boards an airplane. A guy with an automatic rifle can put 300 rounds into a sand dune, and harm no one.

[ljkeane]

The only case you can make is that some people are incapable of using these weapons without violating the rights of others, hence you might want to discuss banning the people.

Since determining which people will be responsible for the thousands of murders using guns in the US every year appears to be problematic the logical step would seem to be restricting access to guns.

Do you seriously not see the availability of guns in the US as a factor in the number of murders using firearms in the US every year? I struggling to comprehend how you could not see that as an obvious issue even if you feel your right to own a gun is more important than trying to address the problem through gun control.

[Elrostar]

And I would submit that they are wrong, and the evidence will be on my side. The only case you can make is that some people are incapable of using these weapons without violating the rights of others, hence you might want to discuss banning the people.

Biological weapons are not capable of being used responsibly because simply their use means that they are going to affect people that the user did not intend. Same with nuclear weapons and most chemical weapons. A guy who lights off a nuke on his own land waaay out in the desert is still going to give some kids 200 miles away cancer from the fall out. A guy who uses a bio-weapon in kentucky is going to make some kids in China sick when an infected person boards an airplane. A guy with an automatic rifle can put 300 rounds into a sand dune, and harm no one.

That's just silly. I can play around perfectly safely with my bio-weapon in my lab, for instance. No-one will get hurt there. And I can use my chemical weapons there in exactly the same way. They won't harm anyone!

As long as only responsible people are using these agents, no-one can possibly get hurt! I mean, if I set of subterranean, undersea, contained nuclear weapons (let's say), they won't have fall-out either. Why can't I do that, if you want to put your rounds of ammo into a sand dune? Which, incidentally, you're presuming is entirely without risk. What happens when some kid later stumbles across the dune where you were firing and puts one of the bullets into her mouth, thus exposing herself to dangerous levels of lead? For you to say that 'well these weapons are good weapons, and those weapons are bad weapons' is just silly.

[The Space Pope]

Rights derive from self-ownership. It isn't like there is a mythical list of rights floating somewhere in the universe with every physical object written on it and yes/no check in the "ok to own" box.

The right to own yourself ---> the right to own your labor ---> the right to own the products of your labor ----> the right to dispense with those fruits as you see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's prior mentioned rights. The right to own a gun is intrinsic to your right to own anything (the right to the fruits of your labor and the dispensation of such, the right to defend your rights of self ownership and your other rights)

How so?

The right to own a gun only follows if you demand that you personally must be the one to defend your rights to self-ownership.

In reality, this is the providence of the government.

The government is what protects and enforces your right to self-ownership because without them, the guy next door with the bigger gun suddenly "owns" all your shit too.

The right to gun ownership does not follow from your train of logic.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Since determining which people will be responsible for the thousands of murders using guns in the US every year appears to be problematic the logical step would seem to be restricting access to guns.

We also have a problem with rape. Since it would be problematic to determine which people will be responsible for the thousands of rapes, I therefore move that all penises be limited to urinary use only, except by special permit. Furthermore, all penises should be limited to 4 inches (erect) as this will make it difficult for a rapist to acheive penetration, and really no one needs more than that anyway for urinary or recreational sexual purposes.

Do you seriously not see the availability of guns in the US as a factor in the number of murders using firearms in the US every year?

Do you not see the number of raging boners in the US as a factor in the rapes? Surely some penis-regulation is called for.

That's just silly. I can play around perfectly safely with my bio-weapon in my lab, for instance. No-one will get hurt there. And I can use my chemical weapons there in exactly the same way. They won't harm anyone!

This is done every day in university and corporate labs around the country. You don't have a problem with it and neither do I. It is not an unacceptable risk. If you started doing it in your basement it would be so. Just as it would be if I set up a shooting range in my back yard.

I mean, if I set of subterranean, undersea, contained nuclear weapons (let's say), they won't have fall-out either.

You don't own the sea, nor do you have permission from the owner (which, human tradition to time immemorial says is all of us), therefore you do not have the right to dispense with it as you see fit.

Which, incidentally, you're presuming is entirely without risk. What happens when some kid later stumbles across the dune where you were firing and puts one of the bullets into her mouth, thus exposing herself to dangerous levels of lead?

Your prior arguments were dumb, this one has gone full-retard. Robert Downey Jr. says: no Oscar for you.

The right to own a gun only follows if you demand that you personally must be the one to defend your rights to self-ownership.

No it doesn't. The right to own a gun follows from my right to own anything I want that doesn't violate the rights of others. I can own a gun to defend myself, or because I think it's pretty, or to use in bizarre sexual rituals, or for whatever reason, as long as I don't use it to violate the rights of others.

In reality, this is the providence of the government.

Providence? Surely. you mean province.

The government is what protects and enforces your right to self-ownership because without them, the guy next door with the bigger gun suddenly "owns" all your shit too.

That's certainly the idea: "...and to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." In reality governments trample more rights than they defend, and enable tramplers more than they defeat them

[Mackaxx]

This is done every day in university and corporate labs around the country. You don't have a problem with it and neither do I. It is not an unacceptable risk. If you started doing it in your basement it would be so. Just as it would be if I set up a shooting range in my back yard

As I spend most of my day in University labs I can tell you that when this is done it's done with massive constraints, limitations, security and mountains of paperwork. Unlike your guns. If people get the benefit of the doubt not to set up shooting ranges in their back yards surely people toying with biological weapons should get the same no? We should believe that they are responsible enough to use them safely no?

If you want to restrict experimentation because you don't trust the experimenters to be safe/sane then you should be happy with guns only being used by the military, police or in pistol clubs.

We also have a problem with rape. Since it would be problematic to determine which people will be responsible for the thousands of rapes, I therefore move that all penises be limited to urinary use only, except by special permit. Furthermore, all penises should be limited to 4 inches (erect) as this will make it difficult for a rapist to acheive penetration, and really no one needs more than that anyway for urinary or recreational sexual purposes.

Do you not see the number of raging boners in the US as a factor in the rapes? Surely some penis-regulation is called for.

Whats cool about this quote is I can use one of your own quotes to respond to it.

Your prior arguments were dumb, this one has gone full-retard. Robert Downey Jr. says: no Oscar for you.

There we go eh. Guns and knives facilitate rape better a penis does, try to force a woman to have sex with you with your penis alone and let me know how you do.

Busy day so I'll respond to earlier ones later.

[The Space Pope]

No it doesn't. The right to own a gun follows from my right to own anything I want that doesn't violate the rights of others. I can own a gun to defend myself, or because I think it's pretty, or to use in bizarre sexual rituals, or for whatever reason, as long as I don't use it to violate the rights of others.

Ahh, so it's not "The right to own a gun", it's actually just the right to property.

So the truth is, it's actually nothing to do with the right to defend your own property.

That's certainly the idea: "...and to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." In reality governments trample more rights than they defend, and enable tramplers more than they defeat them

Um, yeah....

What's your point here?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If people get the benefit of the doubt not to set up shooting ranges in their back yards surely people toying with biological weapons should get the same no? We should believe that they are responsible enough to use them safely no?

As I said, there is an intolerable risk with biological weaponry, which is obvious to every thinking person, that is not present with mere firearms. Bullets go only where they are pointed. The same can not be said for radiation, gasses, rockets, or viruses.

Guns and knives facilitate rape better a penis does, try to force a woman to have sex with you with your penis alone and let me know how you do.

Penisless rape is dry humping. I would betcha a nickel most rapes take place in the absence of weaponry anyway, but it's a side issue.

Ahh, so it's not "The right to own a gun", it's actually just the right to property.

This has been my position from the beginning, if you have been paying attention. Guns are useful for defending rights, but that justification is not necessary for their ownership.

Um, yeah....

What's your point here?

What was yours? You said the province of defending rights rests (God save us) only on the government. I dispute that point, both in principle and in utility. (Not only should Government not be the only agency defending rights, they are really bad at it, and usually act in opposition to rights).

[Elrostar]

I feel that someone failed to understand that my points were made to be deliberately facetiously.... sigh.

And Mackaxx has already rebutted the general gist of my point, although I will point out that university labs most assuredly do not have access to biological and chemical weapons. Those are restricted to government facilities where everyone working has to have special clearance and which are guarded extremely closely.

My point was that if you say you can be trusted with an AK-47, then I say I can be trusted with anthrax and sarin nerve gas.

[Lucky Pierre]

People kill people-and in THIS case I happened to know the gunman. He was a work colleague several years ago. His best friend still works with my ex-DW.

Fucked up... that's all this is just fucked up.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It's been fun guys but we've devolved to where this debate usually goes. I think I'm going to bow out. Talk to ya'll tomorrow.

[Mackaxx]

As I said, there is an intolerable risk with biological weaponry, which is obvious to every thinking person, that is not present with mere firearms. Bullets go only where they are pointed. The same can not be said for radiation, gasses, rockets, or viruses.

As you say there is a risk, I too think it's intolerable. I also happen to think that the risks associated with ridiculous guns are also untolerable.

I can point an anthrax release pretty damned well if I'm trained adequately, same with gases and especially with radiation and viruses. You can point a gun well if trained as well. Many people however are untrained, whilst the bullets may go where they are pointed (celebratory gunfire excluded) they quite often accidentally hit other people (celebratory gunfire included).

So you want the government to get all in on restricting people diddling around with chemical weapons, because you don't trust people to be well enough trained to use them and might do something crazy. But on the other hand you want the government out of guns, because you think that people don't need to have the training forced on them if they want to buy some crazy gun.

These stark contradictions must take some serious blinkers to miss.

Penisless rape is dry humping. I would betcha a nickel most rapes take place in the absence of weaponry anyway, but it's a side issue.

It is a side issue because it was a stupid point to make and you know it.

[Mackaxx]

I will point out that university labs most assuredly do not have access to biological and chemical weapons. Those are restricted to government facilities where everyone working has to have special clearance and which are guarded extremely closely.

It depends on ones definition of biological weapon. If we go by what George Bush was trying to push in Iraq then every lab in this university has the capacity to make chemical/biological/nuclear weapons by virtue of having an incubator or centrifuge.

Personally I've worked with Anthrax, CJD and Malaria. Then there are the piles of other chemicals knocking around this and other labs that could make some pretty nasty things.

[Elrostar]

It depends on ones definition of biological weapon. If we go by what George Bush was trying to push in Iraq then every lab in this university has the capacity to make chemical/biological/nuclear weapons by virtue of having an incubator or centrifuge.

Personally I've worked with Anthrax, CJD and Malaria. Then there are the piles of other chemicals knocking around this and other labs that could make some pretty nasty things.

By themselves, those aren't so dangerous. I mean, sure they're bad. But it's not like you have them in weaponized form, I would imagine. Because that's generally considered the hard step, as I understand it. Malaria isn't too hard to come by. In the grand scheme of things. It's natural, for crying out loud.

If we for a moment step back from the absurdity of the rape analogy... which I don't think you really meant to make. Really. Because... that was just stupid, pointless, offensive, and ridiculous. And go back to the question of whether it's reasonable to regulate any weapons, and if so, what weapons are reasonable to regulate, I think that's a decent argument to have.

I guess the problem for me is that you seem to have this idea that black powder and explosives are fundamentally not dangerous because of... something, and that certain other weapons are. My claim is that this is as arbitrary a line to lay down as saying that automatic weapons are dangerous. Or that certain types of ammunition are dangerous (such as hollow points, or armor piercing rounds). Now you believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just uninformed and wrong. And I would say that while you perhaps know quite a bit about certain types of small arms, I'm not so sure how well versed you are in chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry, and their dangers.

I'd written an explanation of why your undersea test argument was more or less pure folly, but I won't bother posting that unless it becomes necessary.

[Mackaxx]

I agree with what you say in regard to the experimental nasties. It appears that despite this Torbman Guberstaine thinks they should be banned anyways.

The contradictions inherent with this stance and his stance on guns are truly a delight to behold.

[IheartTesla]

I finally got to fire a revolver last weekend.

I think we need more gun control just to prevent someone like me from ever touching a firearm.

[ohmahgaw]

like thousands before me have said, "guns dont kill people, people kill people"

honestly, if we took guns away, what would that really solve?

PEOPLE WILL STILL FIND WAYS TO KILL

they banned guns in the uk, and now instead of shootings people are stabbing each other left and right

its not the guns that are the problem, its the people

a gun in one mans hand makes him a hero, and in the next could make him a murderer

but the same could be said of a sword, staff, baseball bat, hockey stick, chair, frying pan etc.

not to sound condescending, but i think a lot of the people who are for gun control have never been in a situation where they would need one to survive. i firmly believe that if any person was put into a situation where they could chose to pick up a gun and defend their life, or let someone kill them they would choose the first option.

i used to be pretty indifferent to guns, before i was robbed at gunpoint.

now, let me just say, that i am a liberal american. i dont think that this should be a political issue. just because you are republican means you have to own a gun or just because youre democrat you must hate guns....this is the kind of shit that i cant stand

it is true that if you put a restriction on gun ownership in the US, then only criminals who dont care about breaking the law would have them

you know why this is? because unlike the UK, the united states isnt an island. we cant exactly regulate who gets what, and where they get it and how they get it in here. if we cant even control out rampant illegal drug trafficking, how is it going to work with guns?

it wont.

its been proven that neighborhoods with the most guns per house are safer. does anyone really think this is a coincidence?

does anyone think its a coincidence that people dont rob or break into police officers homes?

[Mackaxx]

Biting

So, I'm a scientist.

I'm very skilled at workign with all sorts of nasty biological stuff. Surely it's ok for me to fiddle around with these nasty chemicals and bugs at home too? And if we're going to play on the same field as guns then surely you should be allowed to as well, with no training whatsoever.

Thats different is it?

[yamabushi]

Gun control debates always get to me. There are a lot of things that can be done in this country to cut down on the number of deaths. Drunk driving kills thousands of people a year as does excessive speed just to name two examples.

Oh I'm sorry would resurrecting prohibition or passing a law that speed governors be installed on all vehicles inconvenience you? I'm sorry lets just restrict gun ownership. We don't care about that and best of all it won't affect ME!!!

[Ser Selmy]

Well I just gotta repeat a few old sayings about gun control first,

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

"If you take guns from honest citizens only criminals will have them."

I mean the only reason this country won the revolutionary war is because everyone had guns. Also its our constitutional right and I don't think any of our original constitution should ever be amended. the founding fathers never meant for it to be changeable, so either we keep them or we stop being America. Plus if you take guns away people will find other ways to kill, its the inherent brutality of testosterone that makes men want to kill things. Some of us can deal with it by killing shit in games, some by shooting animals others by beating their wives but on a serious note come on do you really think if you take guns away we won't have more bombs being made? Or more chemical weapons? (which are VERY easy to make) People will kill people no matter what we do and the only reason death rates are rising is because over the last 100 years our population has gone from 1.4 billion to 6.7 billion, 5x as many people = 5x as many murderers.