Gun Control

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Thu May 02, 2013 8:22 am UTC

You guys are unbelievable.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby juststrange » Thu May 02, 2013 12:47 pm UTC

I can only speak to my state (MD), but if I rememeber correctly, its not legal in MD to leave a gun unsecured where someone who shouldn't have it can get access to it (child, felon, etc.) Even being pro-gun, this is something I can get behind. I leave guns unlocked in my house, but I live alone and I am not a felon. Sure, someone could break in and get access to it, but I don't think I should be legally required to be prepared for other people breaking the law.

One gun is kept loaded (but unchambered) in my parents home, for home defense. That didn't show up until long after my brother and I were old enough to understand the magnitude and severity of such a thing. The story above is a tradgety, but there's a decent chance that there is already common sense legislation in place that was violated by giving a 5 year old access to a rifle and ammunition without direct, constant, parental supervision.

(The MD law is the best I can remember from part of the course I had to go through before purchasing a pistol recently. The mandated course as stipulated by law had to be offered for free, could not require hands on training, and could not require a test. MD is now on the verge of passing something much more restrictive, much to my disappointment)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 02, 2013 1:27 pm UTC

"the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it."

Ugh. "a corner" is not a security device. I was a rifle instructor/range operator for a summer camp for a year when I was younger. No accidents. Nothing even close to an accident, and we had plenty of fairly young kids. Of course, "playing with it" is not acceptable behavior. Guns are not toys, and should not be treated as such. This sort of thing requires violating all manner of safety rules.

There's a federal law called the youth handgun safety act that requires safe storage of firearms(not just handguns, despite the name) where children are concerned, as well as notice posting, etc for people to be aware of this. So, in addition to simply being negligent, there is already a firearm specific regulation covering this at the national level, which the people involved were almost certainly made aware of by the vendor(legal requirement there too), and ignored.

Adding an additional law would not likely have helped...someone foolish enough to ignore such basic safety procedures and laws when giving a gun to a four year old is already obviously ignoring basic laws and social conventions. I would hope that those laws are enforced in this case on the obviously negligent parents as an example to others.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Роберт » Thu May 02, 2013 4:26 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:5-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills 2-year-old sister with 'My First Rifle'
Image
Actual guns are being sold to kids as toys.
Is there anyone here who thinks that this shouldn't be grounds for some kind of regulation?

Isn't there already regulation?

Or you mean just like we can't target market cigarretes at kids, we shouldn't be allowed to market guns at kids?


I'm not sure if it's quite analogous to cigarettes, but yes, I could see that.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Thu May 02, 2013 4:49 pm UTC

Robert wrote:I'm not sure if it's quite analogous to cigarettes

"death sticks"
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Gun Control

Postby Frimble » Thu May 02, 2013 4:59 pm UTC

1) Your experience with firearms.
I have fired a gas pistol (belonging to my uncle) at a target in my yard.

2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.

Contrary to popular opinion you CAN get guns in the UK if you want them. You can only buy certain kinds of gun without a licence but you can get a licence and then you can have rifles and shotguns.

I'd rather it was harder than this to get guns.

3) Your general political persuasion.

More left wing than most British politicians without being an actual communist. Having said that I think the British political system is a mess, the american system even more so. I wish we had more evidence based politics that worked with actual facts rather than just their own opinions.

I am however a member of the Shorinji Kempo movement here in the uk; a Japanese nationalist zen Buddist movement that teaches a potentially lethal martial art. I'd much rather see more people learning to fight this way than wandering around armed with guns.

Then again a lot of the people I know that do Kempo also own guns...
Last edited by Frimble on Thu May 02, 2013 5:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Роберт » Thu May 02, 2013 5:04 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
Robert wrote:I'm not sure if it's quite analogous to cigarettes

"death sticks"

Both smoke, too.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Thu May 02, 2013 5:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:someone foolish enough to ignore such basic safety procedures and laws when giving a gun to a four year old
You mean that there are conditions under which it's all right to allow access to guns to a 4 year old?
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Thu May 02, 2013 6:07 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:You guys are unbelievable.


You made a (rather bad) logical fallacy and we didn't even call you out on it directly, and we're unbelievable? Huh.

Logical fallacies don't win actual debates, no matter how effective they may be in politics.

jules.LT wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:someone foolish enough to ignore such basic safety procedures and laws when giving a gun to a four year old
You mean that there are conditions under which it's all right to allow access to guns to a 4 year old?



I don't believe that was what he was saying, but a particularly mature and sophisticated one could, potentially, start out with the basics of riflery in a controlled environment. I started at 6.
Omni.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Thu May 02, 2013 7:56 pm UTC

Frimble wrote:1) Your experience with firearms.

I'd rather it was harder than this to get guns.

I'd much rather see more people learning to fight this way than wandering around armed with guns.



Why?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby leady » Thu May 02, 2013 8:25 pm UTC

I am however a member of the Shorinji Kempo movement here in the uk; a Japanese nationalist zen Buddist movement that teaches a potentially lethal martial art. I'd much rather see more people learning to fight this way than wandering around armed with guns.


that is rather bizarre, because what you are saying is that lethal self defence is fine so long as you are bigger, faster and spend months (years) training.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 02, 2013 8:27 pm UTC

Interesting poll just came out today...

Highlights:
  • 50% of Americans believe that there should be new gun regulations, breaking down as 73% of Democrats and 35% of Republicans.
  • 30% of Americans believe that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. That breaks down by 18% Democrats, 44% Republicans.
  • 25% of Americans who believe that there is some sort of cover-up going on related to the Sandy Hook shooting (the authors imply that some people believe it was faked) in order to advance a political agenda.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Роберт » Thu May 02, 2013 8:37 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Interesting poll just came out today...

Highlights:
  • 50% of Americans believe that there should be new gun regulations, breaking down as 73% of Democrats and 35% of Republicans.
  • 30% of Americans believe that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. That breaks down by 18% Democrats, 44% Republicans.
  • 25% of Americans who believe that there is some sort of cover-up going on related to the Sandy Hook shooting (the authors imply that some people believe it was faked) in order to advance a political agenda.

A large amount answered "neither" as well. Fewer than half those polled said that they disagreed with
In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our
liberties.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Gun Control

Postby Frimble » Thu May 02, 2013 8:45 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
Frimble wrote:1) Your experience with firearms.

I'd rather it was harder than this to get guns.

I'd much rather see more people learning to fight this way than wandering around armed with guns.



Why?


Four reasons firstly because martial arts take discipline and second because they make fights personal third because it lowers the stakes and fourth because it favours the defender.

I'll elaborate:

1) If you pick up a weapon (be it gun or knife) suddenly you are able to kill everyone and anyone. No-one without a lot of training is going to be able to stop you and even if they have training the odds are not in their favour. The only thing that can stop someone with a gun for sure is someone with another gun. Preferably a longer ranged gun. (I know about disarming techniques but you have to be very very close to do that). It takes a certain kind of discipline to learn the martial art in the first place and if you are angry your technique deteriorates. Most people get board of the constant repetition. There is no easy way to learn it.

2) You have to be extremely close to someone to hurt them with your bare hands or feet or elbows or whatever. You will be able to appreciate evey bit how much you are hurting them. Very few people I think would be desensitised enough to actually kill someone that way.

3) It lowers the stakes, killing someone unarmed is hard. It gets easier the more you train but it's still not an easy thing to do you are more likely to cause unconsciousness than actual death unless you continue to do damage after the person has fallen.

4) This one is hard to explain to someone who hasn't trained in the martial arts but basically as soon as you take a step forwards that allows you to hit someone you have already put yourself at a significant disadvantage in the coming fight by allowing them to react. The only way to negate this is to attack them from behind.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Thu May 02, 2013 10:25 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:
jules.LT wrote:You guys are unbelievable.


You made a (rather bad) logical fallacy and we didn't even call you out on it directly, and we're unbelievable? Huh.

Logical fallacies don't win actual debates, no matter how effective they may be in politics.

The fallacy is when the appeal to emotion is the argument.
Just because the content is disturbing doesn't make it a fallacy. (Is there a name for the "put a label on it and dismiss it" fallacy?)

Besides, that something is deeply disturbing does wiggle its eyebrow rather suggestively at the idea that something might be wrong, there.

If you can't see what's wrong, all I can do is go down the waterslide.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Thu May 02, 2013 11:02 pm UTC

Frimble wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:
Frimble wrote:1) Your experience with firearms.

I'd rather it was harder than this to get guns.

I'd much rather see more people learning to fight this way than wandering around armed with guns.



Why?


Four reasons firstly because martial arts take discipline and second because they make fights personal third because it lowers the stakes and fourth because it favours the defender.

I'll elaborate:

1) If you pick up a weapon (be it gun or knife) suddenly you are able to kill everyone and anyone. No-one without a lot of training is going to be able to stop you and even if they have training the odds are not in their favour. The only thing that can stop someone with a gun for sure is someone with another gun. Preferably a longer ranged gun. (I know about disarming techniques but you have to be very very close to do that). It takes a certain kind of discipline to learn the martial art in the first place and if you are angry your technique deteriorates. Most people get board of the constant repetition. There is no easy way to learn it.

2) You have to be extremely close to someone to hurt them with your bare hands or feet or elbows or whatever. You will be able to appreciate evey bit how much you are hurting them. Very few people I think would be desensitised enough to actually kill someone that way.

3) It lowers the stakes, killing someone unarmed is hard. It gets easier the more you train but it's still not an easy thing to do you are more likely to cause unconsciousness than actual death unless you continue to do damage after the person has fallen.

4) This one is hard to explain to someone who hasn't trained in the martial arts but basically as soon as you take a step forwards that allows you to hit someone you have already put yourself at a significant disadvantage in the coming fight by allowing them to react. The only way to negate this is to attack them from behind.


1) This sounds to me like you're saying the right to self defense is a privilege you have to earn. I disagree - why should someone be at the mercy of someone bigger and stronger than them just because they haven't been deemed "disciplined" enough?

2) No doubt - but again that's privileging the strong over the weak. There's the related point that the people you're defending yourself against are likely to have less compunctions than you, since they were willing to wrongfully harm you in the first place - giving them the advantage of non-hesitation.

3) It lowers the stakes assuming both parties are unarmed and the aggressor hasn't done anything to stack the deck in their favour - i.e they're stupid. It raises the stakes significantly for most people - there's no standoff or deterrent effect - you cant draw and say "no further!" when your weapons are hands and feet.

4) I have trained in martial arts - I fenced for several years, studied taekwondo and self-defense techniques. Funnily enough it was the opposite conclusion I had drilled into me on every occasion - you can't win by defending, only attacking. Being the attacking party gives you the advantage - in fencing it means you're the one setting the time, and in all cases it puts you inside your opponent's OODA loop - they are responding to you, you are setting the pace and have an advantage in that whilst you are acting, they are reacting.

I really recommend "Meditations on Violence" by sgt. Rory Miller for a look into practical self defense and the mechanics of real-world violence.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Gun Control

Postby Frimble » Thu May 02, 2013 11:18 pm UTC

1) not the right to defence think of it as the right to be dangerous.

2) true but the attacker is likely to be angry which will count against them.

3) Standoff? Deterant? once a fist fight starts it's easy to avoid being hit. hitting back is hard. Anyway that's what the police are for.

4) Taekwondo is not a self defence martial art. You don't need to win for self defence. The objective is not to die. A few quick hits and your running.

I have heard of the book, my instructor also recommends it highly. I may well read it.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Thu May 02, 2013 11:31 pm UTC

With guns, my 5'11", 190lb. male self has no significant advantage of the 5'1", 105lb. female or the 5'10", 180lb. arthritic old man in a self defense scenario. You know that saying, "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal?" It's pretty much true. Societies have only become more equal and just as military technology has advanced. Trying to revert to physical strength and brawn as the primary mode of self defence is... backwards, to me, and that's as someone who's spent a decent amount of time practicing Judo.
Omni.

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Gun Control

Postby Frimble » Thu May 02, 2013 11:37 pm UTC

It's not about the defence it's about the offence. Think about it this way: Would you rather be attacked by someone with a gun when do not have a gun or by someone without a gun when you also did not have a gun. Because unless you actually carry your gun with you everywhere you go that's the issue.

Or lets say that you DO carry around a small hand gun. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a hand gun or by someone with a semi automatic assault rifle?

PS. I often train with a guy who has two artificial hips. He's still very very capable of defending himself. 30 years of training will do that. He is not however very dangerous to me as I can run quite fast. (He's also my friend)

ED.
Spoiler:
I can tell I'm not going to win this one.
Last edited by Frimble on Fri May 03, 2013 12:07 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Thu May 02, 2013 11:51 pm UTC

Frimble wrote:1) not the right to defence think of it as the right to be dangerous.

2) true but the attacker is likely to be angry which will count against them.

3) Standoff? Deterant? once a fist fight starts it's easy to avoid being hit. hitting back is hard. Anyway that's what the police are for.

4) Taekwondo is not a self defence martial art. You don't need to win for self defence. The objective is not to die. A few quick hits and your running.

I have heard of the book, my instructor also recommends it highly. I may well read it.


1. O.K then. Why should only large, powerful men or those with advantageous socieoeconomic conditions which allow a great deal of time to be spent mastering esoteric techniques be the only peole with the right top be dangerous.

2. I'm gonna call bull here - maybe if two complete professionals are duking it out you'd have a point -but anger causes adrenaline spike, increased strength and resistance to pain. If your fight doesn't come down to advanced technique, anger can be an advantage.

Secondly I'd say the attacker is less likely to be angry than you are. If you're practicing good awareness and de-escalating, then the only reason you're likely to be targeted is for something you have that your attacker wants. Muggers for instance, are, like it or not, professionals. Their profession is getting money from people by intimidation or physically overpowering them. I'd say they're less likely to be angry than an ordinary person, thrust into a world where ordinary rules don't apply, who is in the process of having their rights violated.

3. Have you ever heard the saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away?" A beat bobby is not going to round the corner just as you are being victimised. Statistics would seem to be on my side too, according to some that Tyndmyr posted, merely brandishing a weapon was enough to deter a criminal in a majority of cases.

I'd query your assertion that avoiding being hit is easy. Turning your back and running both exposes you completely, and works only if your attacker hasn't chosen his area to limit your maneuverability (they usually do), doesn't outnumber you (they often do) and isn't faster than you.

4. Sorry for the confusion, I studied self-defense separately. I actually quit taekwondo precisely because it was a bag of wank that didn't teach what I wanted to learn. My point still stands though - in close quarters combat being on the offensive is a massive advantage.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Gun Control

Postby Frimble » Fri May 03, 2013 12:05 am UTC

1. Because that's hardly anyone.

2. Ok I'll give you the first one especially as the attacker may well be on drugs.

If it's a professional you give them what they are after. It may be worth a lot to you but it's not worth your life.

3. I'm sure brandishing a weapon would deter a criminal but if they are pointing a gun at you then you don't want to be reaching into your belt.

4. Few I didn't want to have to argue about TKD being a self defence. :) It depends exactly how close. I have written a short essay on it actually as part of one of my gradings but this really isn't the place for that. Basically if someone is close enough to touch you then you are right best to take the initiative. If not being on the defence is the place to be. But if you know what you are doing you won't be close enough for them to touch you. You let them make that step forward so they can and then you attack into their step.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Fri May 03, 2013 12:22 am UTC

Frimble wrote:1. Because that's hardly anyone.

2. Ok I'll give you the first one especially as the attacker may well be on drugs.

If it's a professional you give them what they are after. It may be worth a lot to you but it's not worth your life.

3. I'm sure brandishing a weapon would deter a criminal but if they are pointing a gun at you then you don't want to be reaching into your belt.

4. Few I didn't want to have to argue about TKD being a self defence. :) It depends exactly how close. I have written a short essay on it actually as part of one of my gradings but this really isn't the place for that. Basically if someone is close enough to touch you then you are right best to take the initiative. If not being on the defence is the place to be. But if you know what you are doing you won't be close enough for them to touch you. You let them make that step forward so they can and then you attack into their step.


1. Men big and strong and mean enough to take what they want by force isn't hardly anyone. It's a good fraction of the population.

2. I agree with you - but I'd argue the balance of power shifts significantly to the defender (particularly in the case of home invasions) with the addition of firearms - sufficiently so that in some cases it's worth standing up for yourself.

3. Agreed - but thats not all crime. It might not be enough to save you against a comparable armed, prepared mugger, but what about the ability to force someone to leave your premesis, or the gay man confronted by a few drunken NF lads.

Those are gratuitous examples of rectal logic - but the statistics show that a significant number of potential crimes are averted due to the mere presence of an equalising force in the hands of the defender.

4. Thats really interesting and succinct. I suppose I'm biased, particularly by fencing, where you start very close to each other and your striking distance is huge. In most muggings, the situation is manipulated precisely to bring you into that distance and retard your escape. It's covered in the book. You really should read it :)
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Fri May 03, 2013 12:26 am UTC

Edit: ninja'd

The second part of your second answer is the solution to your third.
You don't pull a gun while someone has a gun on you. you give them your wallet let them start walking away before you draw your gun and then say hey while the are walking away so they will turn back towards you and then you shoot them in "self defense". Kidding...mostly.

The purpose os self defense is to stay alive and if the use of a gun in an instance will reduce your survival chance then you shouldn't draw one.

A gun isn't the solution for every problem but that doesn't mean it isn't a solution for any problem.
The only thing I agree with martial arts wise is the dicipline part. Tons of people are reckles with things they don't train to be careful with.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Fri May 03, 2013 12:30 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:The only thing I agree with martial arts wise is the dicipline part. Tons of people are reckles with things they don't train to be careful with.


You know, that could be solved with gun licencing...
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Fri May 03, 2013 1:09 am UTC

Frimble wrote:It's not about the defence it's about the offence. Think about it this way: Would you rather be attacked by someone with a gun when do not have a gun or by someone without a gun when you also did not have a gun. Because unless you actually carry your gun with you everywhere you go that's the issue.

Or lets say that you DO carry around a small hand gun. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a hand gun or by someone with a semi automatic assault rifle?

PS. I often train with a guy who has two artificial hips. He's still very very capable of defending himself. 30 years of training will do that. He is not however very dangerous to me as I can run quite fast. (He's also my friend)

ED.
Spoiler:
I can tell I'm not going to win this one.


Honestly? I'd rather be attacked by someone with a gun who doesn't know what he's doing than by someone without a gun who does know what he's doing. Guns make people cocky, and if you're bad with a handgun, you're not likely to hit an evading (or attacking) target.

That said, I'd carry a handgun. And if I was attacked by someone with a semi-automatic assault rifle, I'd wonder where the fuck they got one, since assault rifles are A. selective fire with burst-fire or automatic modes as well as semi-automatic, and B. very, very rare, and never (yes, *never*) used in crimes. Now someone with a semi-automatic rifle? Those are incredibly rarely used in crimes. If it was, it was likely someone using one to pick me off because of specific intent to murder, and they'd find another way if they desired (car bomb comes to mind.) If someone used one to mug me... I'd laugh internally, jump at them, and get inside their reach. Even a 16 inch barrel is too long to use in close combat for someone who doesn't know their shit. Like, military training.

Old age does not exclude one from being able to defend ones self with martial arts... but it does make it a lot harder. Guns are *the* equalizer in the modern world. Hell, a bunch of muslim extremists who don't even know basic marksmanship can hold off (if not truly beat) the U.S. military unless the U.S. military decides to flat out kill them and damn civilian casualties.
Omni.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Fri May 03, 2013 2:14 am UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:
jules.LT wrote:You guys are unbelievable.


You made a (rather bad) logical fallacy and we didn't even call you out on it directly, and we're unbelievable? Huh.

Logical fallacies don't win actual debates, no matter how effective they may be in politics.

The fallacy is when the appeal to emotion is the argument.
Just because the content is disturbing doesn't make it a fallacy. (Is there a name for the "put a label on it and dismiss it" fallacy?)

Besides, that something is deeply disturbing does wiggle its eyebrow rather suggestively at the idea that something might be wrong, there.

If you can't see what's wrong, all I can do is go down the waterslide.


"This poor kid was killed by a *gun!* What a tragedy! We should regulate guns more." Without regard for the fact that what occurred is already illegal and a statistical rarity.
Omni.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby LaserGuy » Fri May 03, 2013 2:35 am UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:With guns, my 5'11", 190lb. male self has no significant advantage of the 5'1", 105lb. female or the 5'10", 180lb. arthritic old man in a self defense scenario. You know that saying, "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal?" It's pretty much true. Societies have only become more equal and just as military technology has advanced. Trying to revert to physical strength and brawn as the primary mode of self defence is... backwards, to me, and that's as someone who's spent a decent amount of time practicing Judo.


This argument works both ways though: It greatly increases the number of people who have the capacity to victimize you, and greatly increases the risk of serious harm of any encounter.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Fri May 03, 2013 4:21 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:The only thing I agree with martial arts wise is the dicipline part. Tons of people are reckles with things they don't train to be careful with.


You know, that could be solved with gun licencing...

What kind of licensing would you really support beyond "This is the safety, this is how you maintain, point and shoot."?
Ralith The Third wrote:
Frimble wrote:It's not about the defence it's about the offence. Think about it this way: Would you rather be attacked by someone with a gun when do not have a gun or by someone without a gun when you also did not have a gun. Because unless you actually carry your gun with you everywhere you go that's the issue.

Or lets say that you DO carry around a small hand gun. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a hand gun or by someone with a semi automatic assault rifle?

PS. I often train with a guy who has two artificial hips. He's still very very capable of defending himself. 30 years of training will do that. He is not however very dangerous to me as I can run quite fast. (He's also my friend)

ED.
Spoiler:
I can tell I'm not going to win this one.


Honestly? I'd rather be attacked by someone with a gun who doesn't know what he's doing than by someone without a gun who does know what he's doing. Guns make people cocky, and if you're bad with a handgun, you're not likely to hit an evading (or attacking) target.

That said, I'd carry a handgun. And if I was attacked by someone with a semi-automatic assault rifle, I'd wonder where the fuck they got one, since assault rifles are A. selective fire with burst-fire or automatic modes as well as semi-automatic, and B. very, very rare, and never (yes, *never*) used in crimes. Now someone with a semi-automatic rifle? Those are incredibly rarely used in crimes. If it was, it was likely someone using one to pick me off because of specific intent to murder, and they'd find another way if they desired (car bomb comes to mind.) If someone used one to mug me... I'd laugh internally, jump at them, and get inside their reach. Even a 16 inch barrel is too long to use in close combat for someone who doesn't know their shit. Like, military training.

Old age does not exclude one from being able to defend ones self with martial arts... but it does make it a lot harder. Guns are *the* equalizer in the modern world. Hell, a bunch of muslim extremists who don't even know basic marksmanship can hold off (if not truly beat) the U.S. military unless the U.S. military decides to flat out kill them and damn civilian casualties.

How relevant is "who would you rather get attacked by"? The streets aren't filled with kung fu assassins, they are filled with guns bought by people of varying skills and used against people of varying skills. Nor does it answer any points in the gun debate. What does your example imply for gun control legislation? Yes, guns are a very democratizing tool in the sense that it spreads out power. Are you gonna make a claim about guns beyond this? You didn't even get to how it would look legislatively or socially.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Fri May 03, 2013 5:08 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:The only thing I agree with martial arts wise is the dicipline part. Tons of people are reckless with things they don't train to be careful with.


You know, that could be solved with gun licencing...

What kind of licensing would you really support beyond "This is the safety, this is how you maintain, point and shoot."?
What licensing would you need beyond this? At a certain point anyone who wants to do intentional harm with one is going to ignore a few regulations and lie on a few forms.
Form:
Do you intend to use this firearm to commit a misdemeanor, felony, act of sedition, or act of terrorism?
Yes[ ]
No [ ]

Suppose you do want to do one of these: do you think checking yes would help you?

Accidents are by nature from negligence and bare bones framework of safety training would have some sort of impact.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Fri May 03, 2013 8:16 am UTC

sardia wrote:How relevant is "who would you rather get attacked by"? The streets aren't filled with kung fu assassins, they are filled with guns bought by people of varying skills and used against people of varying skills. Nor does it answer any points in the gun debate. What does your example imply for gun control legislation? Yes, guns are a very democratizing tool in the sense that it spreads out power. Are you gonna make a claim about guns beyond this? You didn't even get to how it would look legislatively or socially.


I was answering Frimble's question, and he had stated that he would prefer people to have martial arts training, and there to be less guns. I'm not trying for any deeper statement with that post.

LaserGuy wrote:This argument works both ways though: It greatly increases the number of people who have the capacity to victimize you, and greatly increases the risk of serious harm of any encounter.


Okay. The tiny minority who would victimize others are now on a more equal footing with their victims, instead of the tiny minority who would victimize other potentially being very, very good at it because of nothing besides brawn. I'm not worried about being victimized by someone with a gun. If they mean to kill me, and I'm carrying concealed, either they'll succeed, or I'll shoot them. If they mean to mug me... well, I'm probably not going to end up drawing in that situation because my wallet isn't worth the escalation. Whether they have a gun or fists.

This compares to a situation without guns where the guy meaning to kill me resorts to something like a car bomb because he can't get a gun, and the guy meaning to mug me... gets my wallet, because my wallet isn't worth it. I'm not terribly hurt by this.

<<Mild trigger>>

Spoiler:
Unless they decide they want to rape me, or otherwise physically coerce me. At which point if I have a gun, I have a shot (no pun intended.) If I don't have a gun, and they're bigger than me? Well, I'm boned (again, no pun intended.)

As a white, middle class male violent stranger rape is not exactly high on my priority list. But I'm not everyone.

<<Mild trigger end>>

Given that in no instance have concealed carry laws increased crime, and they offer an opportunity to reduce it, I'd rather have more people carrying concealed firearms (with adequete training) than to have *less* and instead rely on martial arts or other direct, personal, melee combat (because knife fights suck.)
Omni.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Fri May 03, 2013 8:24 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
sardia wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:The only thing I agree with martial arts wise is the dicipline part. Tons of people are reckless with things they don't train to be careful with.


You know, that could be solved with gun licencing...

What kind of licensing would you really support beyond "This is the safety, this is how you maintain, point and shoot."?
What licensing would you need beyond this? At a certain point anyone who wants to do intentional harm with one is going to ignore a few regulations and lie on a few forms.

How to de-escalate a situation without pulling out your gun.
Know when pulling out your gun would make the situation worse.
Be better prepared for situations involving guns, which are extremely unnerving, unstable and dangerous.
Weed out the excessively nervous or trigger-happy.

Have a written exam on law and how one should react.
Have a practical exam with roleplaying.

Kinda like a car license, really.

Ralith The Third wrote:what occurred is already illegal
After sifting through a couple other articles on the subject, I don't see what they did that was illegal.
Last edited by jules.LT on Fri May 03, 2013 8:41 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Fri May 03, 2013 8:32 am UTC

jules.LT wrote:Kinda like a car license, really.


Make it part of high school and you have a deal!


(I jest. I wouldn't trust most high schoolers with guns. But the situations are different, despite my mostly agreeing with you on licensing... for CCW, not mere possession or OC)
Omni.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Alexius » Fri May 03, 2013 8:35 am UTC

jules.LT wrote:5-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills 2-year-old sister with 'My First Rifle'
Image
Actual guns are being sold to kids as toys.
Is there anyone here who thinks that this shouldn't be grounds for some kind of regulation?

The guns are being sold to the kids' parents. You have to be 18 to buy a gun in the US.

Some states also have laws that make it illegal for a child to have access to a gun outside close adult supervision. I would support this being more widespread.

Otherwise, the issue isn't parents buying guns for their kids, it's parents leaving their kids insufficiently supervised in the presence of dangerous objects, whether those objects are guns, knives, power tools, drain cleaner or whatever.

Ralith The Third wrote:
jules.LT wrote:Kinda like a car license, really.


Make it part of high school and you have a deal!

I think a lot of places do have hunter safety classes as part of high school.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Fri May 03, 2013 10:02 am UTC

jules.LT wrote:How to de-escalate a situation without pulling out your gun.
Know when pulling out your gun would make the situation worse.
Be better prepared for situations involving guns, which are extremely unnerving, unstable and dangerous.
Weed out the excessively nervous or trigger-happy.

Have a written exam on law and how one should react.
Have a practical exam with roleplaying.

Kinda like a car license, really.


You know Jules, I completely agree with everything you just wrote here.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Fri May 03, 2013 12:08 pm UTC

I've got two gun advocates agreeing to mandatory gun training and licences?? WOW! :D
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Gun Control

Postby Frimble » Fri May 03, 2013 1:27 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:
Frimble wrote:It's not about the defence it's about the offence. Think about it this way: Would you rather be attacked by someone with a gun when do not have a gun or by someone without a gun when you also did not have a gun. Because unless you actually carry your gun with you everywhere you go that's the issue.

Or lets say that you DO carry around a small hand gun. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a hand gun or by someone with a semi automatic assault rifle?

PS. I often train with a guy who has two artificial hips. He's still very very capable of defending himself. 30 years of training will do that. He is not however very dangerous to me as I can run quite fast. (He's also my friend)

ED.
Spoiler:
I can tell I'm not going to win this one.


Honestly? I'd rather be attacked by someone with a gun who doesn't know what he's doing than by someone without a gun who does know what he's doing. Guns make people cocky, and if you're bad with a handgun, you're not likely to hit an evading (or attacking) target.

That said, I'd carry a handgun. And if I was attacked by someone with a semi-automatic assault rifle, I'd wonder where the fuck they got one, since assault rifles are A. selective fire with burst-fire or automatic modes as well as semi-automatic, and B. very, very rare, and never (yes, *never*) used in crimes. Now someone with a semi-automatic rifle? Those are incredibly rarely used in crimes. If it was, it was likely someone using one to pick me off because of specific intent to murder, and they'd find another way if they desired (car bomb comes to mind.) If someone used one to mug me... I'd laugh internally, jump at them, and get inside their reach. Even a 16 inch barrel is too long to use in close combat for someone who doesn't know their shit. Like, military training.

Old age does not exclude one from being able to defend ones self with martial arts... but it does make it a lot harder. Guns are *the* equalizer in the modern world. Hell, a bunch of muslim extremists who don't even know basic marksmanship can hold off (if not truly beat) the U.S. military unless the U.S. military decides to flat out kill them and damn civilian casualties.

So you are actually saying you would rather risk your life fighting a fair fight than enter an unfair fight where you are unlikely to die even if you loose? Well that's a valid view point I suppose.

@Ormurinn
I think we are getting stuck on technicalities here but you may be interested to know that the reason fencing favors the attacker is because (for foil at least) you can't score points by attacking into the attack.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Fri May 03, 2013 2:46 pm UTC

@ Jules - I've never argued for anything else! Would you be willing to concede that a correctly trained and licensed private individual should be able to own and carry a firearm sufficient to defend themself in a public place?

@ Frimble - I fenced epee :)
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Fri May 03, 2013 3:16 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:@ Jules - I've never argued for anything else! Would you be willing to concede that a correctly trained and licensed private individual should be able to own and carry a firearm sufficient to defend themself in a public place?

@ Frimble - I fenced epee :)

The reason I brought up licensing in more detail is that you're gonna lose a bunch of gun people if you put too much into licensing. I have more tolerance for the number of hoops you need to go through in order to get a gun. You push this too far and the gun folks will scream poll tax. Fire brns brought up exactly the disagreement that I expected when you bring up licensing. Some see licensing as weeding out and training. Others see it as protection from being seized by the police. We haven't even gotten to how effective the various licensing proposals are.

scienceroboticspunk
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(or in NJ, USA)

Re: Gun Control

Postby scienceroboticspunk » Fri May 03, 2013 4:29 pm UTC

@Jules, just one slight nitpick on your license idea. In a sense a lot of states have licensing for firearm carrying. Which in my mind makes a ton of sense. There is some training involved. I honestly can not tell you in too much depth about it though because I have never had to worry about it since my state is effectively a no issue even though it is officially a may-issue. There are a few states with constitutional carry, but those are few and far between. Most require some kind of training for a CCW.
My individual state actually has firearms id(FOID) to purchase a long arm or ammo in the state of NJ. If I wanted to get a pistol though, then I would need to order a pistol permit. They are considering adding in training as a requirement to get an FOID in NJ. On a personal level I do not agree with this even though I am personally getting NRA training or appleseed training. I am just a tad worried how NJ might implement this and we do not have the greatest history with somethings. I am just hoping the training requirement is considered feasible and does not result with a de-facto ban on the less wealthy. I would be 100% ok with having gun safety training in high school or even middle school. Even if it was just a day or two in health class or an hour assembly on guns that talked about how to safely handle a gun and is not just guns are bad.
these are words
type, type, type

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Fri May 03, 2013 5:12 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:@ Jules - I've never argued for anything else! Would you be willing to concede that a correctly trained and licensed private individual should be able to own and carry a firearm sufficient to defend themself in a public place?)
No, but if there really must be people who carry firearms, I'd much rather they at least were trained :mrgreen:
And when I say trained, I don't mean trained in maintaining and shooting a firearm, I mean trained in how to avoid shooting a firearm.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests