Question for the anti-firearm guys...

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:33 pm

How can we have the ability to protect ourselves if firearms are taken away from the average citizen? I mean, the police have absolutely no obligation to protect you... what do you propose?

B-

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:37 pm

Im for some gun control, but not gun elimination. I think alot of liberals are that way. There is a difference between wanting to take away a hand gun or riffle, versus allowing citizens to carry something like what ace posted, here

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:14 pm

gun control means using your brain.

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:25 pm

Gooberman wrote:...There is a difference between wanting to take away a hand gun or riffle, versus allowing citizens to carry something like what ace posted, here

The ultimate goal of all gun control is to completely disarm the great unwashed masses. Anybody who believes that despotic (and wanna be despotic) governments will let you keep your "nice guns" but only take the "bad guns" is delusional.

Private ownership of machine guns (true â??assault weaponsâ?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:14 pm

I know many people who legally own automatic weapons

No Doubt. But I also know someone in my apartment complex who got drunk and started fireing his hand gun into the wall, no one was hit, he was arrested. But, if it was that minigun, we would all be dead.

I'm not trying to take your heavy weapons just for shits and giggles. While I wont ever own guns, I've shot some off at my friends house and believe target practice is a legitimate hobby and requires alot of skill.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

That is the saying isn't it? Well, I'm trying to prevent the person from taking out 50 instead of 1 or 2.

99.9% of violent criminals couldnâ??t afford to own one

But if your average Joe who wanted one could get one, then the criminals could more easily steal one.

This has gotten off topic. I think Barry wanted to question those for Gun elimination. However I don't expect him to find any here on this BB, it tends to learn right.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:20 pm

"The few ruin it for the many" has been my philosophy for ages now.

Meaning, the few bad apples who have guns and commit crimes with them end up ruining the fun of having guns legally for the people who are not commiting crimes. This applies to all aspects of life.

My view is the bigger guns that people are allowed to own legally will increase the chance of those people with criminal tendencies to commit crimes with those guns with the possibility of harming more people then if they just had a hand gun.

I for one, prefer that people are not allowed to carry guns but are allowed to own guns and use them for hunting/protection in the home.

THis way, there is a less chance of people commiting crimes of passion while having the gun on them.

ie: road rage, etc.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:55 pm

Merlin, you are way off base. We have had 37 states here change the law so any eligible citizen that wants to carry a firearm can do so. Your rational was raised in each of these states by the anti-gunner crowd with the result being shown that the citizens who choose to carry are the safest most responsible group around. Safer even than the police as a group.
So kindly limit your argument to your canadian compatriots.

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:11 pm

Gooberman,

Applying your logic consistently, it would follow that all automobiles should be confiscated. Thousands of people die every year from drunken driving accidents. We must confiscate those cars! Oh yeah, I forgot that cars donâ??t kill people, people kill people.

I am only interested in facts. Please donâ??t waste my time with hypothetical scenarios that have a one in a trillion chance of ever happening.

The ownership of these â??heavy weaponsâ?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:15 pm

Applying your logic consistently, it would follow that all automobiles should be confiscated.

That doesn't work at all as I am in favor of certain types of guns. Please don't give me my position, whenever I get in gun control arguments people tend to do so. I am not for confiscating all guns and have said so much.

I do not believe that your argument with automobiles adequately applies anyway. Now if you asked me if I would be against letting nascar drivers go down the highway in cars that are the size of two lanes; that would be more fitting. That would be fun and essentric!...but not safe for society...

Applying your logic consistantly we should remove all speeding tickets since so many enjoy darting in and out of traffic at 180 miles an hour. Who are you (or any other do-gooder) to dictate to them what is â??legitimateâ?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm

Gooberman wrote:Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

'Nuff said!!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:37 pm

Gooberman wrote:
I do not believe that your argument with automobiles adequately applies anyway. Now if you asked me if I would be against letting nascar drivers go down the highway in cars that are the size of two lanes; that would be more fitting. That would be fun and essentric!...but not safe for society...

Goob, you're dribbling all over yourself. View auto's as a means of transportation as firearms are a means of protection. Extreme weapons that are obtained under a class 3 license are akin to vehicles like airplanes or race cars. Certain places are appropriate to use them wheather they are class a fuel dragsters or machine guns. Can either be used in the wrong place? Of course they can. To ban something because it may have the potential to be harmful is not the way we do things here.

Applying your logic consistantly we should remove all speeding tickets since so many enjoy darting in and out of traffic at 180 miles an hour. Who are you (or any other do-gooder) to dictate to them what is â??legitimateâ?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:53 pm

View auto's as a means of transportation as firearms are a means of protection....should we ban airplanes?

Show me a real life situation that has occured where the average citizen would need that minigun for protection! That would be hilarious if I didn't know you were serious. Should we all get weapons grade plutonium? What small army is down the street comming to get you?

You don't honestly think we would be safer if the average citizen could have one, do you?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:18 pm

We don't need Big Macs either and they are dangerous to health. Should we ban them? Since when do we go around banning everything we don't need just because it could potentially cause harm?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:55 pm

Well you would have to ban breathing then...

DigiJo · Post by **DigiJo** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:56 pm

i know you cant really compare that but here are some offical crime statistics from the USA (liberal with firearms) and germany (strict gun control laws):

population:

usa: 292.000.000
germany: 84.000.000

all stats are from 2002,

offender with firearms:
------------------------

-According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2002, 442,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

-in germany the same year: 10883

murders in 2002:
-----------------
-usa: 16204, 10856 with firearms

-germany: 873, no info about how many of the murders was done with firearms.

in my opinion its relativ simple, if you have a gun you use it in "hot" situaions. better have a guncontrol-law and let only professionals like cops have guns.

links:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

and if you can read that stuff:
http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2002/index2.html

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:27 pm

It doesn't really make sense to compare those statistics, though -- because the cultures and populations in the US and Germany are so different. You could come to an entirely different conclusion if you looked at, for example, the murder rates involving firearms in Switzerland (which has fairly few firearm restrictions) instead. In fact, just looking at the tables on this page you could come up with any conclusion you want to about firearms and gun control -- that it leads to more murders, less murders, the same number of murders, or even that it leads to more people wearing purple hats. There are hundreds of factors that come into play to determine homicide rates (and those with firearms); you can't just compare the numbers directly and say that gun control is obviously warranted.

About the only way to come up with legitimate statistics is to find several states with fairly similar cultures and similar urban / rural population ratios, some with gun control and some without, and compare the statistics directly. If someone happens to have the numbers, that'd be interesting to see...

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:06 pm

A big mac wont enable you to kill 50 other people.
I don't care what someone wants to do to them self.

Name one other thing that is commonly allowed that has such a large potential for mass homicide (intentionally planning to kill a bunch of people, and then doing so), that also has no benefit to society. Not one of your examples work.

Or you can show me the benefit to society that these guns allow. I cannot see one.

I refuse to believe one would need a gun of that size for protection in America, and as I asked woodchip, if you could show me a societal benefit for a gun of that size then I would find that very interesting. Just one situation where if a man had a minigun he would of lived, instead of just a hand gun/shotgun/or riffle.

None of you have so I can only guess that you conceed the point? Is that true?

Cars/breathing/bigmacs none of those fit the criteria. They either only harm the indivdual who participates in the action, or they have a large societal benifit (cars/airplanes).

What good does a minigun do in society? The bad is obvious, it makes mass homicide significantly easier for those who wish to commit it.

Also please answer, should we all be allowed to have weapons grade plutonium? Please don't avoid this question!

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:30 pm

Goob, as a firearm advocate even I can see the validity of your point. Nobody needs to have a weapon capable of mass homocide. I think even hard-core gun advocates would agree. here's the problem: If we(firearm guys) admit that nobody needs this type of weapon we're providing the "total ban" people with a stronghold. If we could be absolutely assured that once these types of weapons are banned they would stop pushing and going after more and more, I'll bet you'd have yourself a deal.

B-

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:32 am

Well Barry, I will tell you how I was persuaded and maybe you could do so to others. There was a time when I did favor gun-elimination.

I believe if you introduce more anti-gun people to guns with hands-on experience there would be much less people in favor of gun elimination. I was raised very left, so naturally I grew up thinking "guns are bad." All kids basically adopt their parents beliefs, some hold them for the entirety of their lives and never question them. (this goes for both left and right)

My best friend, extremely conservative and pro-gun, one day asked me to go out shooting. I told him I didn't want to fire a gun ever. We argued but he eventually convinced and twisted my liberal agenda into getting me to believe that I couldn't hate guns if I had never touched one. I saw his argument and I went shooting with him.

The word "gun" had such negative connotation from my upbringing that I saw no merit in any of them. After I fired off a few rounds I was like, this is kind of fun. But more importantly guns were no longer a foreign demon to me.

People are afraid of what they don't know.

It's alot like drugs. People are so ingrained that "marijuana is bad", but the first time I saw people get high, I was like, "wow, they sure are alot nicer then people who are drunk." Drugs are bad only because everyone knows that â??drugs are bad.â?

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:29 am

barry, i would think that the government would have to have some sort of MASSIVE crackdowns on the illegal gunmakers/warhouses, to prevent street thugs picking them up for cheap.

i suppose that is a bit impractical (for the us), as it would take probably years, but in the end gun control would be at it's peak. i remember reading 14 yr olds could hook up with dealers, and own a crappy magnum for $16. thats not something i would like to have, so "commercially" in my home country!

personally, there are only two arguments i feel have a legit argument - "what if a criminal threatens me? or my siblings?" and the second if you are a farmer, protecting your crops/poultry etc...

but i wouldn't apply that to shooting ranges.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:25 am

I refuse to believe one would need a gun of that size for protection in America, and as I asked woodchip, if you could show me a societal benefit for a gun of that size then I would find that very interesting. Just one situation where if a man had a minigun he would of lived, instead of just a hand gun/shotgun/or riffle.

No one said there would be a societal benefit, just a individual benefit. No more so than owning a ATV or dirt bike.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:09 am

Ferno wrote:gun control means using your brain.

You're giving waaay to much credit Ferno. I get sickened by all the road rage shootings and stuff like that. Normal everyday citizens who arent criminals decide that since you cut them off, they are entitled to shooting your head off with a .44, happens too many times in Chicago.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:01 pm

Goob, I think you're correct. The anti-firearm people are afraid of firearms. I would also like to see the statistics of how many anti's have fired a weapon.
I have a similar story:
A Canadian friend and his father came to visit us a few years ago. We always talked about firearms and they're totally against handguns. I convinced them to come to the range with me and shoot one day. That family has rifles, lots of rifles, they're hunters and have shot just about every rifle available. The father steps up to the line and he's visibly shaking. He kind of smiles as he points the handgun downrange and in a nervous chuckle he says " I feel like a criminal". My first reaction was to laugh, but, I didn't. After a couple of seconds of thinking It upset me because without even realizing it he was implying that anybody with any handgun is a criminal. It is so drilled into people that guns in general and esp. handguns turn honest people into crooks, murderers, etc.
He ended up really enjoying shooting handguns and everytime he comes down he asks if I'll take him shooting.

How can a rational person believe that an inanimate object has some special power to make people think irrationally?

You're giving waaay to much credit Ferno.

*You're* giving too much credit,Zuruck. If they didn't have the firearm they'd use a bat,tire iron, etc. Just like the sissy liberals to remove personal responsibility and dance around the root of the problem. You're socially superior to us primitive firearm owners, just ask you.

B-

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:27 pm

[quote="djordan"]
Private ownership of machine guns (true â??assault weaponsâ?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:58 pm

DCrazy wrote:Well you would have to ban breathing then...

That is my point. Looks like we agree on something. First Lothar now you. Next I guess Bash and I will be singing cum-by-a together

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:03 pm

Ahem, it's Kumbaya.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:08 pm

Gooberman wrote:What good does a minigun do in society?

Since when does something have to have societal benefit in order to be allowed to exist?

How many mass murders have actually been done with a minigun? I would venture to say none have, yet I am sure there are more than a few folks out there with a class 3 licence that have them.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:11 pm

bash wrote:Ahem, it's Kumbaya.

I already admitted I can't spell worth a darn. But thanks

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:24 pm

Ace, you can not extrapolate all the data from one or two case examples.

Since when does something have to have societal benefit in order to be allowed to exist?
-Dedman

That was only half of my arguement.

Name one other thing that is commonly allowed that has such a large potential for mass homicide (intentionally planning to kill a bunch of people, and then doing so), that also has no benefit to society. Not one of your examples work. -Goob

Also, for the third time, please answer if you think that we should be allowed to have weapons grade plutonium.

Further, Bash is too much of a homophobe to let you get away with suggesting that you two do anything involving cum together, let alone in a possible group of three

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:40 pm

[NuB] Dedman wrote:few folks out there with a class 3 licence that have them.

IIRC its a Class 3 Automatics

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:36 pm

please answer if you think that we should be allowed to have weapons grade plutonium.

fourth time...

I am asking out of curiosity, I don't know how those in favor of these other weapons will spin their way out of this. I don't know their argument and am curious of it.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:58 pm

Weapons grade plutonium is ALSO highly toxic, highly polluting, and highly unstable. A .44 caliber pistol is only an irritant or catalyst when it's being handled inappropriately. Weapons grade plutonium is a killer straight out of the container... whereas a bullet is only lethal when the person behind it is the catalyst.

No fuel... no fire...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:04 pm

Goob, let me put you out of your misery. No one should have plutonium...or antrax, or a truck filled with fertiliser/fuel oil mix and rigged with a detonation device. Try and keep excessive extrapolations from baseline realities.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:41 pm

Gooberman wrote:
please answer if you think that we should be allowed to have weapons grade plutonium.
fourth time...

I am asking out of curiosity, I don't know how those in favor of these other weapons will spin their way out of this. I don't know their argument and am curious of it.

Its simple really: Society should keep its nose out of their business.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:30 pm

Question for Goob: how does one use weapons-grade plutonium to either

1) shoot stuff on the firing range or
2) protect one's family

?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:46 pm

We are not arguing pistols, I am confronting those whom opposed my view against certain large scale weapons. If you have not read the thread, please do so if you plan to continue.

Weapons grade plutonium is a killer straight out of the container... whereas a bullet is only lethal when the person behind it is the catalyst.

So, weapons grade plutonium kills people, but automatic weapons don't kill people, for the latter it is the people killing the people, for the former it is the inanimate object.

Lothar, I would of bet the farm you would of instead just asked me questions and completely avoid the one I asked. I can only assume your intent of your questions since you didn't provide any.

1)Large scale bombs in general allow you to blow stuff up on the firing range, completely tearing it to peaces. If you are arguing about the skill and enjoyment of target practice, I find there to be just as much as that minigun would have. If you take this argument Lothar then you are simply arguing that miniguns (the topic we have been on in this thread), should be allowed simply for enjoyment purposes. The fallacy of that argument is that several people could find equal enjoyment in setting off such large scale bombs. This argument collapses completely if your intent is to argue that "miniguns" are fine because they produce enjoyment, but "large scale bombs" are not since no human could find enjoyment in them.

2) The stronger argument in my opinion. Show me one case where if a man had a minigun, instead of a handgun/riffle or shotgun, he would have lived or protected himself more efficiently. This is now the 3rd time I have asked this with no response. If you cannot, then you have no argument here. However I will be very interested if you can since the bulk of my argument, and my personal belief, is that these "WMD" have no societal benifit as far as I can see.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:15 am

Goob, where do you get the idea that I'm arguing the other side? I'm not a pro-firearm guy. I just happen to think your anti-large-weapon counterexample (plutonium) doesn't really prove what you think it does. You seem to think it's impossible for someone to be pro-gun but anti-weapons-grade plutonium. My questions were meant to demonstrate that someone could still draw a reasonable distinction between miniguns and nukes (even though I don't think anyone should have either). Rather than handing you an answer, I was hoping you'd recognize it on your own -- instead, you labelled me a question-dodger, and tried to guess my intent (missing badly). Since you didn't recognize what I was doing, let me give you more detail:

The pro-gun people have argued that weapons should be allowed because they either
1) are useful for protection (handguns)
or
2) are fun for the firing range (miniguns)

Now, you argued that they can't give reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to have plutonium. However, if you'd answered my questions carefully, you'd have noticed the following two things:
1) Unless a person has a firing range the size of Montana, weapons-grade plutonium is probably not safely useable. Yes, people could derive enjoyment from blowing up nukes -- but not safely.
2) Unless a person is being attacked by a very large army that has massed at long range, it's probagbly also not useful for protection.

Therefore, a pro-gun person could have actually given reason why a person shouldn't be allowed plutonium, while still maintaining their reasons for allowing people to have both handguns and miniguns. Since plutonium is not really useful (in any practical means) for either of the purposes they've given, it's not a useful counterexample.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:23 am

Goober... you sound as if you think that miniguns, when fired for enjoyment, are pointed at people.

Miniguns, which for for argument sake lets limit to Squad Automatic Weapons, aren't really a societal negative.

Their operation invovles considerable maintence, far more than handguns or anything russian. You'd never see them used by your common street thug, they aren't very concealable weapons, nor are they very agile weapons. One rarely fires one at full auto in the field, normal operation invovles lyin on the ground and firing short bursts, providing cover fire for the rest of one's squad.

Someone isn't going to be robbing banks with such a beast on a regular basis. And it be the last thing anyone would go for if they need to defend themselves.

What it comes down to is that something is only harmful towards society if its used to harm society.

As for plutonium of any kind. No, the general public shouldn't be allowe access to plutonium of any kind, outside of its extreme toxic properties... it ain't cheap to make. Its like letting everyone touch the Mona Lisa...

Evaulating things based soley on Societal Benefit is simply negelecting individual rights.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:44 am

You seem to think it's impossible for someone to be pro-gun but anti-weapons-grade plutonium.

How do you come to the conclusion that I think it is impossible for someone to be pro-gun and anti-weapons-grade plutonium when throughout this thread I have established myself as pro-gun for certain types of guns, and anti-weapons-grade plutonium?. Please, as I asked above, donâ??t provide me my position. I am in favor of several types of guns.

I don't think you have read my posts. The intent of introducing the weapons grade plutonium to the argument is to see how the "absolutely no gun control" crowd reconciles allowing certain weapons that can be used for mass homicide but not others. I find there to be a degree of hypocrisy in being against all gun-control but not weapon control. I also think Barry hit the nail on the head that the reason I get so much opposition to this is because they, â??donâ??t want to give me an inch.â??

You missed the intent of my argument so I will amend it slightly for you, change weapons grade plutonium to â??large scale bombs,â?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:24 am

You can't defend yourself with weapons grade plutonium. In order for a person to use it without killing themselves, that person would need to be far away from the plutonium.

Unless they are suicidal.

Self-defence isn't destroying the entire neighbourhood, and rendering it uninhabitable for a long number of years.

Thats what you get if you used plutonium as a weapon in any kind of situation(or moronically mishandle it). Thats why its called a weapon of mass destruction.

You can find a non-contextual similarity between 2nd amendment supporters and the aquistion of WMD, but placed in context the two are entirely different beasts.

In the end, you could use a mini-gun to defend yourself if you have to; you'd only get yourself killed and a lot of other people if you tried to use plutonium in the same manner.