gunchat: abandon all hope ye who enter here

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > gunchat: abandon all hope ye who enter here

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Crabtree posted:

Raise the price of guns and bullets. A well regulated militia should be able to afford that and gun taxes.

Useless Trivia Time

this was an appreciable part of the rationale behind the Second as originally envisioned! the Virginians and the Deep South were united by their absolute terror that one day, a national army might be raised that might imperil their sweet little neo-feudal slaveholding society. so, the idea went, we'd cheap out on the whole national defense thing by exporting the Virginian model across the nation!

the richest guy in town, as the only guy who can afford to have and maintain any relevant quantity of firearms, will in times of difficulty raise a militia to defend the local area, and MAYBE send them across a state line if we were really in the poo poo. that this state of affairs meant l'etat in any given feifdom c'est that guy and his kni- er, slave patrols, was a pleasant secondary bonus!

the ink was not dry on the paper before it became painfully clear this did not work, at all. the Well Regulated Militia's solution to the problem of the French sinking American ships and the British just taking the damned things was a guy with a megaphone shouting "COULD YOU PLEASE STOP, IT WOULD BE NICE." taking a massive poo poo on it was just about the only thing John Adams and Alexander Hamilton ever agreed on. after that, the nightmare scenario it was explicitly created to prevent ever happening occurring in 1860 was honestly just salt in the wound.

# ? Mar 14, 2018 23:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 11:59

Crabtree: Oct 17, 2012; ARRRGH! Get that wallet out!
Everybody: Lowtax in a Pickle!
Pickle! Pickle! Pickle! Pickle!; Dinosaur Gum

The second amendment was written as a way to defend slavery and it still does to this day.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 00:38

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

I really wouldn't phrase it as a "Virginia style militia" as that's basically how most of the colonies had done militias for a century by that point, and essentially how most of their forces worked during the revolution.

The principal objection to a proper standing army and navy and all that was that such things were expensive, and nobody wanted to pay for it. The basically mandatory militia sort of thing minimized expenditure for the governments and pushed a lot of costs off to people who weren't you, the richer landholders - because you naturally already have a gun and enough bullets so you don't need to buy anything new to comply.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 01:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

QuarkJets posted:

Undeniably, it would be a better outcome to have fewer people killed in a mass shooting. Obviously the goal is to get that down to 0, but if simply banning bump stocks eliminated half of all mass shooting deaths (we're both making up numbers here) then of course we should do that despite it not eliminating all mass shooting deaths. And the mounting evidence suggests that simply making it more difficult to kill a lot of people at once reduces the frequency of mass shootings, so instead of 50 people being killed the maximum likelihood shifts toward 0 by simply making it more difficult to kill groups of people.

What "mounting evidence" is this exactly? California banned 10+ capacity magazines, and that didn't prevent the San Bernardino shooting.

QuarkJets posted:

I don't know of any cause of death that's decidedly "meh, not worth it" when it comes to prevention. Obviously it's still important to convince people to reduce their consumption of alcohol, to eat better, to driver safer, etc. even when we're talking about less likely causes of death. But there's also the matter of infliction; when it comes to their own habits people are more willing to tolerate risks than when it comes to the habits of So while an alcoholic is more likely to die from complications related to alcohol consumption than in a mass shooting, they're still going to place greater concern on mass shootings because they can choose to stop drinking but they don't get to choose whether to be shot. This is an important consideration and it's why smoking in public is usually relegated to specific areas away from building entrances, for instance, but eating fatty foods doesn't receive the same level of scrutiny (e.g. your choice to eat KFC isn't going to kill someone else)

You're changing your terms here, or at least clarifying them. Putting aside the implications that an argument that deaths inflicted buy others are worse than self-inflicted ones has for considering firearm suicides, you are ignoring the fact acknowledged in your post that society already has a method for dealing with potential harms that might affect others. The way we deal with these potential harms is prohibit activities that put others in imminent danger and punish those that actually do harm others. It is illegal to smoke in many commercial establishments or near a building entrance, (places I would note it is also illegal to discharge a firearm,) but possessing unlit cigarettes and a lighter in the same places is fine, and the possession & consumption of cigarettes on private property is more or less unrestricted. Similarly, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on public roads while intoxicated, but not illegal to own both a car and alcohol. We as a society have decided that, instead of trying to restrain citizens from having the means to harm each other, we will push the price of harms onto the bad actors who actually misuse those means to imminently endanger or harm others. Even then, we accept limitations on the intrusiveness of those restrictions. It would be trivial to mandate ignition interlocks or speed governors on all new vehicles, but we have decided that this is a bridge too far when we can instead punish the people we catch speeding or driving drunk. Why should we treat guns differently?

VitalSigns posted:

Can you provide an example, please, of a time when a political majority said, "We think additional regulation would be good and desirable, and we have the votes to do it, but we aren't going to because the people we want to regulate have been so accommodating in the past."? Ever? If you and the Parkland kids could ban AR-15s now or in 10 years, you'd do it irrespective of gun owners' willingness to compromise on bump stocks. I'm not sure I buy the idea that conceding new regulations now will save off future regulations now, since there isn't a jurisdiction I am aware of that has passed strict gun laws and then responded to a subsequent mass shooting by saying, "No, our laws are already strict enough." More often it looks like: "While I am proud to say that California is home to some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, you know there is still work to be done." - Assemblyman Bill Quirk of Hayward

What gun owners would want in exchange for compromise now would be to avoid further restrictions in the future, but the pro control side is unwilling to commit to that.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Mar 15, 2018

# ? Mar 15, 2018 02:22

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Crabtree posted:

The second amendment was written as a way to defend slavery and it still does to this day.

Yeah, no , it wasn't.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 03:47

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Almost, but not quite, completely immaterial to the discussion at hand, because:

1. There is no meaningful analog for guns. They have specific characteristics, and those unique characteristics are the focus of our objections.

2. loving up somewhere else doesn't make it OK to gently caress up here.

What makes guns so completely unique that the guidelines we use to handle every other danger in society can't be applied to them? And by "loving up here", are you saying that any policy which allows theoretically preventable harm, or to put it another way, any policy that does not minimize the number of deaths, is a mistake?

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

That's an incomplete / inaccurate summary of our argument to make it easier for you to attack. Again.

Guns primary purpose is to destroy things. They are exceptionally good at destroying humans. They give a single person the ability to quickly and repeatedly destroy other humans. Certain types give people the ability to kill a lot of people faster than others.

The ethical calculus of cars and alcohol do not feature this trait. It is a uniquely disqualifying trait.

Why? If something designed for causing damage causes fewer deaths than something which was not meant to cause damage, is the thing meant to cause damage the bigger problem, or the thing that causes more death? If someone is killed with a chef's knife or baseball bat, is it better because they were not killed with a weapon? Before you say, "the Vegas shooter couldn't have killed 50 people with a baseball bat," I'd ask whether you think something that kills 50 people once every 500 days or something that kills one person every single day to be a bigger problem. If the former, why are deaths in short succession worse than a larger number of deaths over a longer period? (It's worth noting here that, in the average year, far more people are killed with knives, or blunt weapons, or even bare hands than with AR-15s.)

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

The ethical calculus of cars and alcohol is certainly worth talking about; It seems quite evident to me that cars are a grossly inefficient mode of transport, not sustainable, and frankly humans are generally too loving stupid to use them safely, but it's extremely difficult to categorically ban them without a replacement tool to move humans around as quickly. Their use should be restricted, licensed, and regulated, with an aim to replace them as soon as possible.

Alcohol is a recreational drug. Agency and the ability to risk self-harm for a brief period of increased feel-good brain activity, weighed against the social cost, is an absolutely valid discussion to have, but it has absolutely no bearing on guns.

Well, "people cannot be trusted with private vehicles" certainly seems like an extreme position, and I'm not sure that the idea that individuals are too stupid to be trusted with power that might hurt others is compatible with democracy.

Alcohol's harms are not confined to the consumer. In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 29% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. I couldn't find a further breakdown, but I would guess that a non-zero number of those deaths were people other than the driver. 209 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 in 2015 involved an alcohol-impaired driver. Alcohol consumption is strongly linked to domestic violence. That famous Kellerman study that the pro control side likes to point to when they claim that having a gun in the home makes you less safe? The same study found that alcohol consumption had a far higher risk ratio for getting murdered than the risk ratio for having a gun in the home (up to 20 vs 1.6).

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

I'll have to address your apparent indifference to mass shootings in another post. I'm having trouble concisely articulating how loving incredulous I am that you don't see any distinctive characteristics about events where people systematically hunt down and kill as many other people as possible. I'll need a minute on that whopper of a question.

I'm indifferent to mass shootings for the same reason I'm indifferent to terrorist attacks and being mauled to death by large animals. They would be absolutely horrible if they happened to me or someone I love, but the odds of it happening are so small that I don't find it worthwhile to spend mental energy worrying about it, and I don't think it's worth restricting individual rights over. You shouldn't get offended that a naked emotional appeal failed to land: years of "thousands of dead babies!" shrieking from anti abortion activists has not changed my opinion about abortion rights, and I doubt it has changed yours either.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 04:10

MixMastaTJ: Dec 14, 2017

Yep, cars and guns are the exact same thing, you got us. Gonna go ride my gun to work beep beep bang bang.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 04:54

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Just going to point out: this is a map that illustrates the rate of drivers per 1000 residents for each US state, back in 2009

Most states show a massive amount of people who can not be trusted with a car at all.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 05:42

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

MixMastaTJ posted:

Yep, cars and guns are the exact same thing, you got us. Gonna go ride my gun to work beep beep bang bang.

Liquor, cars, in ground swimming pools, whatever, it just seems really intellectually lazy to argue that we can't consider guns under the same guidelines we use to consider pretty much every other harm in society because "They Were Designed For Killing", but then refuse to make any argument whatsoever for why designer's intent should be the primary metric by which we judge things or apply that metric to any other sort of harm.

fishmech posted:

Most states show a massive amount of people who can not be trusted with a car at all.

This would make sense, if the only residents who weren't licensed drivers were those prohibited due to disability or criminality.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 07:16

MixMastaTJ: Dec 14, 2017

Dead Reckoning posted:

Liquor, cars, in ground swimming pools, whatever, it just seems really intellectually lazy to argue that we can't consider guns under the same guidelines we use to consider pretty much every other harm in society because "They Were Designed For Killing", but then refuse to make any argument whatsoever for why designer's intent should be the primary metric by which we judge things or apply that metric to any other sort of harm.

How come I can buy booze without proving competency and getting a liscense but not a car??

I can't think of a single reason different things are legally treated different.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 07:38

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying or owning a car without a driver's license. You can even drive it, as long as you keep it on private property.

Again, the principle that adults can own and do what they want on their property as long as it doesn't endanger others applies. Why shouldn't it apply to guns as well?

# ? Mar 15, 2018 07:46

MixMastaTJ: Dec 14, 2017

Dead Reckoning posted:

Again, the principle that adults can own and do what they want on their property as long as it doesn't endanger others applies. Why shouldn't it apply to guns as well?

For real though, if this is your criteria this is less an argument for gun ownership and more why alcohol should be illegal.

Rather than a dumb blanket "does it endanger someone?" the question is "does it serve any value BESIDES endangerment." In the case of alcohol, yes, it is a beverage and health risks are an unfortunate side effect. Pools are for exercise and the drowning risk is an unfortunate side effect.

Killing is not a side effect of guns. Endangering people's lives is the stated goal of a gun.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 08:02

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Dead Reckoning posted:

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying or owning a car without a driver's license. You can even drive it, as long as you keep it on private property.

Again, the principle that adults can own and do what they want on their property as long as it doesn't endanger others applies. Why shouldn't it apply to guns as well?

So it's your position that guns should only be allowed on private property unless the carrier has a license? Plus all guns have to be registered regardless? You might be onto something there. And naturally that opens the door to gun inspections, relicensing, etc. Sound good to you?

And for that analogy to really hold up you'd have to be able to easily conceal a car on your person. Hmm, perhaps it's only legal to own large artillery pieces then?

# ? Mar 15, 2018 08:41

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

MixMastaTJ posted:

For real though, if this is your criteria this is less an argument for gun ownership and more why alcohol should be illegal.

Rather than a dumb blanket "does it endanger someone?" the question is "does it serve any value BESIDES endangerment." In the case of alcohol, yes, it is a beverage and health risks are an unfortunate side effect. Pools are for exercise and the drowning risk is an unfortunate side effect.

Killing is not a side effect of guns. Endangering people's lives is the stated goal of a gun.

This isn't really coherent. Someone owning a car and wine does not endanger anyone, even though at any time they might recklessly decide to combine the two, so it is not illegal. Someone driving in the fast lane after drinking a bottle of wine does endanger others, which is why it is illegal. Someone owning a gun does not endanger their neighbors. Someone torching off rounds into their neighbor's house does endanger their neighbors, which is why this is already illegal.

Guns can be used for hunting, recreation, and self-defense, which is certainly more utility than alcoholic beverages' "lowers inhibitions, impairs judgement, decreases coordination" utility. The fact that you don't care about any of the utility guns have does not erase that utility.

Also, you have yet to explain why we should judge things based off of what their designers intended for them.

QuarkJets posted:

So it's your position that guns should only be allowed on private property unless the carrier has a license? Plus all guns have to be registered regardless? You might be onto something there. And naturally that opens the door to gun inspections, relicensing, etc. Sound good to you?

And for that analogy to really hold up you'd have to be able to easily conceal a car on your person. Hmm, perhaps it's only legal to own large artillery pieces then?

You only have to register your car if you want to drive it on public roads.

I've said before several times that I would be comfortable with a legal framework wherein gun owners could own whatever they wanted in their homes and shoot it at private or public ranges without burden, but carrying or using guns in public places (hunting, concealed carry, being an armed guard, etc) would be regulated by a series of shall-issue licenses depending on what exactly you wanted to do in public with your guns, with the most basic being available for $20 to any 16 year old with a pulse and having 50 state reciprocity. I think it would be reasonable as part of that permitting process to require owners to register any gun which they wanted to carry loaded in public with the state.

I feel this would reasonably balance the rights of individuals with interests of public safety.

I fail to see how concealability is relevant to the discussion.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 09:04

MixMastaTJ: Dec 14, 2017

Dead Reckoning posted:

This isn't really coherent. Someone owning a car and wine does not endanger anyone, even though at any time they might recklessly decide to combine the two, so it is not illegal. Someone driving in the fast lane after drinking a bottle of wine does endanger others, which is why it is illegal. Someone owning a gun does not endanger their neighbors. Someone torching off rounds into their neighbor's house does endanger their neighbors, which is why this is already illegal.

It's possible I'm an idiot who doesn't understand the word endangerment but I would typically consider increasing the odds of someones death "endangerment." As we've gone over thousands of times now, owning a firearm increases the likelihood of someone in your household dying from a firearm related incident.

quote:

Guns can be used for hunting, recreation, and self-defense, which is certainly more utility than alcoholic beverages' "lowers inhibitions, impairs judgement, decreases coordination" utility. The fact that you don't care about any of the utility guns have does not erase that utility.

Hunting- killing animals.
Self defense- killing "aggressors."

So for starters, as we've been over, self defense is 100% bullshit BUT even if I give you that, the point remains guns are for killing someone. The explicit use of a firearm is firearm related death. It's the death of someone you may be in the right to kill, but it is still a death.

And if you're arguing target shooting as the main utility of firearms then you can't defend any caliber higher than a .22.

quote:

Also, you have yet to explain why we should judge things based off of what their designers intended for them.
You only have to register your car if you want to drive it on public roads.

This is insane. I never said anything about "creators intent" I'm talking about the item's singular use- killing things. If we found out that an unintendid use for guns was that they worked as a miracle toilet cleaner and people started buying guns to clean their toilets this would be a different matter. We'd be weighing your right to clean your toilet against the risk of gun death. As it stands we're weighing the right to risk gun death against the risk of gun death.

Anyway, I'm not even making these arguments because I want all guns banned. This is just a ridiculous, obnoxious argument where you take the stance that guns aren't a weapon and that there is no difference between weapons and things that aren't weapons and you can't concieve why we would ever have different laws for weapons than we do things that aren't weapons.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 17:07

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Can you provide an example, please, of a time when a political majority said, "We think additional regulation would be good and desirable, and we have the votes to do it, but we aren't going to because the people we want to regulate have been so accommodating in the past."?

Literally any other country that has implemented gun control but hasn't banned 100% of guns which is pretty much every other Western democracy.

Will there still be some people that want to ban all guns, yeah probably you can find "some" people who will support almost anything. Will they have public support and public outrage propelling them into power if we passed some laws today that made mass shootings here as rare as everywhere else. Definitely not.

But hey whatevs, I really don't mind whether they take my guns or not. If you want to enable another 20 years of massacres, have fun living under the politicians that will be in power when the kids that survive grow up :shrug:

# ? Mar 15, 2018 17:14

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Liquor, cars, in ground swimming pools, whatever, it just seems really intellectually lazy to argue that we can't consider guns under the same guidelines we use to consider pretty much every other harm in society because "They Were Designed For Killing", but then refuse to make any argument whatsoever for why designer's intent should be the primary metric by which we judge things or apply that metric to any other sort of harm.

We should pass laws that reduce deaths from those harms. And we do.

"So you want to ban pools?!?!?!"
No, safe storage laws are fine.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 15, 2018

# ? Mar 15, 2018 17:16

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Dead Reckoning posted:

You only have to register your car if you want to drive it on public roads.

I've said before several times that I would be comfortable with a legal framework wherein gun owners could own whatever they wanted in their homes and shoot it at private or public ranges without burden, but carrying or using guns in public places (hunting, concealed carry, being an armed guard, etc) would be regulated by a series of shall-issue licenses depending on what exactly you wanted to do in public with your guns, with the most basic being available for $20 to any 16 year old with a pulse and having 50 state reciprocity. I think it would be reasonable as part of that permitting process to require owners to register any gun which they wanted to carry loaded in public with the state.

I feel this would reasonably balance the rights of individuals with interests of public safety.

I fail to see how concealability is relevant to the discussion.

In many states (such as CA) you are required to register all of your vehicles. The vehicles that you don't intend to take on public roads simply cost less to register

Why shouldn't registration apply to any kind of carrying at all? It's not like keeping a cartridge inches from the weapon significantly impedes the weapon's use.

How about mandatory insurance?

Concealability is relevant because it's a lot easier to identify someone driving in an unregistered car than it is to identify someone concealed-carrying an unregistered pistol. This imposes a number of problems with respect to the car analogy

# ? Mar 15, 2018 18:38

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

zapplez posted:

Yeah, no , it wasn't.

yeah, unfortunately, it was.

there was a risk that a standing army might one day answer to a northerner, you see.

# ? Mar 15, 2018 18:41

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Dead Reckoning posted:

This would make sense, if the only residents who weren't licensed drivers were those prohibited due to disability or criminality.

Uh what? Holding a valid driver's license is proof the state thinks you meet the bare minimum standards to be trusted on the public roads. I showed you right there, even the most generous state with authorizations to drive on public roads still has 17.1% of its population not currently deemed trustworthy for that. New York on the other end holds that 42% of its population is not trustworthy to drive.

Pretty telling that you think the only reason someone shouldn't be allowed to drive is "disability" or "criminality" and can't even consider things like "too old or young" or "just plain doesn't know how to".

fishmech fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Mar 16, 2018

# ? Mar 15, 2018 23:21

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

reminder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ

# ? Mar 16, 2018 00:32

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Remember when gun nuts were all "THEY WANT TO BAN ALL UR GUNS !"

And were like, no they don't you are loving crazy.

Turns out a bunch of people actually want to ban all the guns.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 02:51

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

zapplez posted:

Remember when gun nuts were all "THEY WANT TO BAN ALL UR GUNS !"

And were like, no they don't you are loving crazy.

Turns out a bunch of people actually want to ban all the guns.

for some odd reason children do not want to be shot to death, using guns.

i know, this must be hard for you to hear

# ? Mar 16, 2018 03:00

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

zapplez posted:

Remember when gun nuts were all "THEY WANT TO BAN ALL UR GUNS !"

And were like, no they don't you are loving crazy.

Turns out a bunch of people actually want to ban all the guns.

Years of arguing with dipshits has radicalized me. I used to not give a poo poo, but posters like twodot and Dead Reckoning have convinced me that the true only solution is a full ban and meltdown.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 03:02

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

zapplez posted:

Remember when gun nuts were all "THEY WANT TO BAN ALL UR GUNS !"

And were like, no they don't you are loving crazy.

Turns out a bunch of people actually want to ban all the guns.

I'd say banning all guns for people who are afraid of "all guns being banned" is a great first step.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 03:12

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

The sad thing is there is a real chance of banning guns that excel at mass shootings. Eg centrefire rifles with detachable mags with more than ten round capacity, and you could probably get them banned within the next ten years.

But if the message is "literally ban all the guns" then you will never have a chance of doing any real change.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 03:25

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

zapplez posted:

The sad thing is there is a real chance of banning guns that excel at mass shootings. Eg centrefire rifles with detachable mags with more than ten round capacity, and you could probably get them banned within the next ten years.

But if the message is "literally ban all the guns" then you will never have a chance of doing any real change.

I'm going to personally ban all guns that ever reach a 50 foot radius of you.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 04:04

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

zapplez posted:

Remember when gun nuts were all "THEY WANT TO BAN ALL UR GUNS !"

And were like, no they don't you are loving crazy.

Turns out a bunch of people actually want to ban all the guns.

You can find someone willing to ban literally anything so that by itself is not a very interesting point. Most people don't want to ban all the guns. Even today most people are advocating for gun control, not gun bans

# ? Mar 16, 2018 04:32

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

You can't ban these guns.

*flexes*

# ? Mar 16, 2018 06:12

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

No one is interested in banning your spit shooters

# ? Mar 16, 2018 06:38

r.y.f.s.o.: Mar 1, 2003; classically trained

I used to be for registration but the progun side has convinced me they won't work. Gonna have to ban 'em instead, sorry gun havers.

Living in a society where shootings happen all the time is no longer acceptable.

zapplez posted:

The sad thing is there is a real chance of banning guns that excel at mass shootings. Eg centrefire rifles with detachable mags with more than ten round capacity, and you could probably get them banned within the next ten years.

But if the message is "literally ban all the guns" then you will never have a chance of doing any real change.

You don't start negotiations at the compromise position mate

r.y.f.s.o. fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Mar 16, 2018

# ? Mar 16, 2018 08:20

Commie: Sep 18, 2000

Dead Reckoning posted:

Guns can be used for hunting, recreation, and self-defense, which is certainly more utility than alcoholic beverages' "lowers inhibitions, impairs judgement, decreases coordination" utility. The fact that you don't care about any of the utility guns have does not erase that utility.

I'm firmly in the "gently caress you I like guns" camp but this is nonsense. Guns do one thing: they fire a metal projectile out of one end at a high enough velocity that the resulting transfer of energy upon impact is fatal to the target. I don't also use my rifles to dig a hole or iron my shirts.

"Hunting, recreation, and self-defense" are not three separate utilities, they're the same utility performed three slightly different ways: killing animals, pretending you're killing animals (or zombies), killing people in your house. As a sidenote, why stop at three examples? There's also war (killing people who have oil), celebrating weddings (killing family members by accident), and gambling (đi đi, mau). I can use your same logic on alcohol too: Alcohol can be used for getting drunk, recreation, giving yourself courage. Those are all the same utility.

Look, I'm in the 3% of gun owners and my experience with other gun enthusiasts leads me to believe that a licensing system with more regular and deeper background checks is a drat good idea. The kind of person anxious that a more thorough background check will prevent them from getting a gun is probably the kind of person that shouldn't be getting a gun.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 09:12

chesnok: Nov 14, 2014

seiferguy posted:

We would all be an upset person away from a gun going off in this instance.

chicago.jpg

# ? Mar 16, 2018 12:58

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

chesnok posted:

chicago.jpg

st. louis.jpg, even

it turns out that, surprising noone, a city with weaker gun control in the same region has a significantly higher murder rate

a well armed society is a polite society, and in unrelated news the police shoot people for jaywalking on grounds they're afraid they might be armed

# ? Mar 16, 2018 16:06

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Also I don't think its a insane argument ( but not valid anyways because its apples to oranges in how they are used)

But total alcohol Prohibition is probably a good idea that will never get implemented as it has the highest cost on society of any drug or destructive hobby.

Alcohol kills way more people than guns.

If your number one concern is saving lives, banning alcohol should be #1. The amount of people that become alcoholics and then commit more crime because of that is immense, the amount of domestic violence and homicides that are fueled by alcohol is gigantic. The amount of motor vehicle collision resulting in a death when alcohol is involved is huge. Then cigarettes #2. Then guns I guess.

And why do we keep alcohol around? So people can get drunk every once in a while and neglect their other responsibility?

Its a mass societal net harm. But we as a society think its worth it to keep it.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 16:43

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Prohibition doesn't work and is a greater harm.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 16:59

r.y.f.s.o.: Mar 1, 2003; classically trained

Drugs are not analogous to weapons in calculating tolerance for harm. Hope this helps.

# ? Mar 16, 2018 17:19

Flowers For Algeria: Dec 3, 2005; I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.

zapplez posted:

Also I don't think its a insane argument ( but not valid anyways because its apples to oranges in how they are used)

But total alcohol Prohibition is probably a good idea that will never get implemented as it has the highest cost on society of any drug or destructive hobby.

Alcohol kills way more people than guns.

If your number one concern is saving lives, banning alcohol should be #1. The amount of people that become alcoholics and then commit more crime because of that is immense, the amount of domestic violence and homicides that are fueled by alcohol is gigantic. The amount of motor vehicle collision resulting in a death when alcohol is involved is huge. Then cigarettes #2. Then guns I guess.

And why do we keep alcohol around? So people can get drunk every once in a while and neglect their other responsibility?

Its a mass societal net harm. But we as a society think its worth it to keep it.

Wow, way to show off your hand, islamist.
Why do you want sharia law in the US?

# ? Mar 16, 2018 17:30