NationStates

Saint Yosx wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
You vastly overestimate how complicated firearms are. As long as you know how to check if it's loaded and how to enable the safety you're pretty much good to go, and that doesn't take long at all to figure out.

Ok, so what about when to use it? Or what's considered a threat or not? How do I determine that? There is an obvious fallacy in saying you can teach how to use a gun properly in a day or two.

That's not really something you can be taught, at least not in any specific way beyond the basic legalese of self defense. Different people view different situations as having varying levels of threat.

Saint Yosx wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
You vastly overestimate how complicated firearms are. As long as you know how to check if it's loaded and how to enable the safety you're pretty much good to go, and that doesn't take long at all to figure out.

Ok, so what about when to use it? Or what's considered a threat or not? How do I determine that? There is an obvious fallacy in saying you can teach how to use a gun properly in a day or two.

There is an obvious fallacy in trying to say smoking weed leads to you killing another human being too.

As for teaching someone how to use a firearm in a day, I taught my uncle how to wield a pistol in 1.5 hours. After 1.5 hours, he could disassemble the pistol, reassemble, and shoot straight enough to hit a 1x1 ft. paper target at 15 yards. You obviously don't have much experience in the field of firearms so perhaps I can be of assistance. Have fun for 12 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BypuKXOmEkg

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Saint Yosx wrote:

Ok, so what about when to use it? Or what's considered a threat or not? How do I determine that? There is an obvious fallacy in saying you can teach how to use a gun properly in a day or two.

That's not really something you can be taught, at least not in any specific way beyond the basic legalese of self defense. Different people view different situations as having varying levels of threat.

I really hope "You'll figure it out" is not what they're teaching gun owners regarding when it's okay to use them on another human being.

There were 14,542 gun related murders in 2017.

Contrarily there were 169,936 accidental Deaths in 2017. (Car crashes, falls, drug overdose/poisoning, drowning, fires.)

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Which only serves to further emphasise that having a gun in every household won't make a blind bit of difference.

I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

The fact that an attempt to overthrow the US government could be resisted with considerable force did not deter people from trying it. So why would we expect arming every household to deter people from breaking in?

Saint Yosx wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
You vastly overestimate how complicated firearms are. As long as you know how to check if it's loaded and how to enable the safety you're pretty much good to go, and that doesn't take long at all to figure out.

Ok, so what about when to use it? Or what's considered a threat or not? How do I determine that? There is an obvious fallacy in saying you can teach how to use a gun properly in a day or two.

You use it when you're at a range, hunting, or need to save your life.

If you are wrong you go to jail. So only do it when you're sure. Simple.

Kernen wrote:

Saint Yosx wrote:

Well if John really wanted a gun he would wait the amount of time (it should take at least 3-5 weeks) and after receiving trading and a background check he would have a gun. Guns are not and I just think it shouldn’t be as easy as one two three to get them.

Why should it take that long?

Depends if it's their first legal gun or not. I think 5 weeks is a bit long, but some waiting period would help to distinguish between people buying a gun to commit a crime, and people buying a gun for some legal purpose.

Someone who's bought guns before is likely not buying a new one to commit a crime. How do we know that? They haven't been arrested for a gun crime.


Of course, no-one is born a criminal. They all have a first crime (it's often not serious, they're often not caught) and not every criminal is necessarily buying a gun to commit a crime with. Other than continuous monitoring of someone's state of mind, it's only by their coming to the attention of police that we'd ever know that a person should have their gun taken off them to prevent their next crime taking a life.

So filtering out a few trying to make their FIRST purchase is far more likely to reduce gun crime, than trying to filter at the time of any later purchase. We're looking for criminals with no record yet, who want a gun for future more serious crimes, and the benefit of a waiting period is that they'll either drop their plan for a gun crime (particularly if it's for money: eg drug addiction is going to resolve one way or the other in that time), or they'll get caught trying to make an illegal purchase of a gun. Yes of course all private sales should also be subject to a background check, with penalties for prohibited persons trying to buy (not licensed yet, in waiting period, is a prohibited person) and also gun owners selling to a prohibited person.

It goes without saying that to distinguish between first-gun buyers and subsequent-gun buyers, it is necessary that every legal gun owner has a valid license. I'd also like individual guns to be licensed, but that's not relevant to the question of waiting periods.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Saint Yosx wrote:

However they are both concepts that are very similar, they both involve a product, which was illegiazied, and changed how the product looked and tasted like after it was illegal.

...what?

What I meant was that alcohol when it was legal, there were many options to choose from ( free market forces), whether you wanted to be really drunk, or to be a little drunk. When it was illegal however, it was much easier to ship more potent and more alcohol concertation. Same thing with weed. The illegalization of weed and alcohol made it more dangerous.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
That's not really something you can be taught, at least not in any specific way beyond the basic legalese of self defense. Different people view different situations as having varying levels of threat.

I really hope "You'll figure it out" is not what they're teaching gun owners regarding when it's okay to use them on another human being.

There's obviously more depth you can dive into on the topic but ultimately it comes down to making split second decisions in the heat of the moment. That's why a lot of training on the topic tries to focus more on keeping you calm under duress so you don't panic and can hopefully make a more rational choice.

Ifreann wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

The fact that an attempt to overthrow the US government could be resisted with considerable force did not deter people from trying it. So why would we expect arming every household to deter people from breaking in?

Well, it would deter them. The circumstances of the capital riot are an unusually extreme scenario.

Kernen wrote:

Saint Yosx wrote:

Ok, so what about when to use it? Or what's considered a threat or not? How do I determine that? There is an obvious fallacy in saying you can teach how to use a gun properly in a day or two.

You use it when you're at a range, hunting, or need to save your life.

If you are wrong you go to jail. So only do it when you're sure. Simple.

A white supremist could easily see any black person they come across as a threat. Not everybody is gonna be this moral person and know what is a threat and what is not at threat.

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:

Kernen wrote:Why should it take that long?

Depends if it's their first legal gun or not. I think 5 weeks is a bit long, but some waiting period would help to distinguish between people buying a gun to commit a crime, and people buying a gun for some legal purpose.

Someone who's bought guns before is likely not buying a new one to commit a crime. How do we know that? They haven't been arrested for a gun crime.


Of course, no-one is born a criminal. They all have a first crime (it's often not serious, they're often not caught) and not every criminal is necessarily buying a gun to commit a crime with. Other than continuous monitoring of someone's state of mind, it's only by their coming to the attention of police that we'd ever know that a person should have their gun taken off them to prevent their next crime taking a life.

So filtering out a few trying to make their FIRST purchase is far more likely to reduce gun crime, than trying to filter at the time of any later purchase. We're looking for criminals with no record yet, who want a gun for future more serious crimes, and the benefit of a waiting period is that they'll either drop their plan for a gun crime (particularly if it's for money: eg drug addiction is going to resolve one way or the other in that time), or they'll get caught trying to make an illegal purchase of a gun. Yes of course all private sales should also be subject to a background check, with penalties for prohibited persons trying to buy (not licensed yet, in waiting period, is a prohibited person) and also gun owners selling to a prohibited person.

It goes without saying that to distinguish between first-gun buyers and subsequent-gun buyers, it is necessary that every legal gun owner has a valid license. I'd also like individual guns to be licensed, but that's not relevant to the question of waiting periods.

This always seemed an optimistic view on waiting periods. I'd your goal is to commit a crime, your waiting period will just ensure you start sooner. Background checks and licensing verification takes a few hours at worst, and usually only a few minutes.

The best that can be said is it reduces the chances of somebody committing a crime of passion with a new gun, but I am not convinced that crimes of passion usually involve even the delay to go to a gun store and walk out with a gun. I'm just not seeing waiting periods are more than a disincentive to gun ownership in general, rather than an effective barrier to specific crimes.

Saint Yosx wrote:

Kernen wrote:You use it when you're at a range, hunting, or need to save your life.

If you are wrong you go to jail. So only do it when you're sure. Simple.

A white supremist could easily see any black person they come across as a threat. Not everybody is gonna be this moral person and know what is a threat and what is not at threat.

And if they're wrong they go to jail and die an agonizing chemical death. Society has one less white supremacist.

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:...It goes without saying that to distinguish between first-gun buyers and subsequent-gun buyers, it is necessary that every legal gun owner has a valid license. I'd also like individual guns to be licensed, but that's not relevant to the question of waiting periods.

Since the right to bear arms is a right under US law just like how voting is a right, should voters also be required to have a license to vote? A good chunk of folks support no special license required to vote. As such, if we're treating rights equally, then there shouldn't need to be a special license to own a firearm.

Saint Yosx wrote:

Kernen wrote:You use it when you're at a range, hunting, or need to save your life.

If you are wrong you go to jail. So only do it when you're sure. Simple.

A white supremist could easily see any black person they come across as a threat. Not everybody is gonna be this moral person and know what is a threat and what is not at threat.

You seem to suggest that one cannot or should not own a gun without perfect knowledge of the law and of a theoretical attacker's motives. This is an absurd standard.

A white supremacist does not have any reasonable basis to believe the mere existance of black people is itself an immediate threat. And you know that. People, believe it or not, are capable of objective assessment.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Saint Yosx wrote:


A white supremist could easily see any black person they come across as a threat. Not everybody is gonna be this moral person and know what is a threat and what is not at threat.

And if they're wrong they go to jail and die an agonizing chemical death. Society has one less white supremacist.

And how do we know that every white supremacist will go punished? We don't. So that wouldn't work. That's why teaching people when to use a gun is just as important as how to use it.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

No State Here wrote:People who’ve never used guns often overestimate how difficult it is to operate, usually happens when I’m debating Europeans online. Since CTOAN is an American, I assume they’ve used a gun or have seen someone use a gun at some point(?)

I am apparently a bit of a natural with a rifle but completely hopeless with a pistol which, since I'm left handed, are uncomfortable to use anyway. The rifle being oriented backwards wasn't great either.

But I wouldn't confuse my ability to point the gun in roughly the direction I want the bullet to go and firing it constitutes actual knowledge of its use in the same way I wouldn't say someone putting a car in gear and aiming it down the road as being able to drive.

If you can hit your targets reliably and not shoot stuff you don’t mean to shoot thats about all that goes into knowing how to use a gun.

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:

Adamede wrote:I think you’re missing what I was actually arguing dude.

Was your point "no need to worry about military coups, we just have to keep purging the officer class. It worked for Stalin."?

It’s like you people don’t even read what I actually write and instead just impose whatever meaning you want onto my comments instead.

Saint Yosx wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:...what?

What I meant was that alcohol when it was legal, there were many options to choose from ( free market forces), whether you wanted to be really drunk, or to be a little drunk. When it was illegal however, it was much easier to ship more potent and more alcohol concertation. Same thing with weed. The illegalization of weed and alcohol made it more dangerous.

I...why are you doing this, man? You're making weird points that even if you were right don't really go anywhere. First of all, when weed was illegal shwag existed. Dads smoked shwag. It was brown and crusty and gross and you probably got higher off oxygen deprivation than anything else. Occasionally...occasionally someone would show up with weed that had a name 'n shit and stuck to walls and was nice and potent, but most of the time it was kinda slipshod weed someone grew in their closet.

But now, at least in California, all the weed is tested for potency not to make it less potent, just so you don't get surprised after eating the whole cookie or dusting the bowl and then forgetting what time is when you just wanted to be kind of mellow. But the actual potency of the weed...soooooo much better from a dispensary than when I had to go to some dude's house and create small talk for half an hour so people weren't just going in and out of his house.

But for like ten bucks I'm walking out with a pre roll that has sticky weed wrapped in oil infused paper and dipped in keef that's potent enough to make me think 311 is an okay band.

Again, I'm obviously pro-legalization, but where are you going with these weird ass arguments?

The Emerald Legion wrote:There were 14,542 gun related murders in 2017.

Contrarily there were 169,936 accidental Deaths in 2017. (Car crashes, falls, drug overdose/poisoning, drowning, fires.)

Murders? Does that include school shootings, massacres, accidents etc.? and that is quite outdated given that its been 4 years and plenty of shootings have taken place since then. Plus it doesn't include killings overall in the last 5 years. And 14,000 is still a lot.

Saint Yosx wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
And if they're wrong they go to jail and die an agonizing chemical death. Society has one less white supremacist.

And how do we know that every white supremacist will go punished? We don't. So that wouldn't work. That's why teaching people when to use a gun is just as important as how to use it.

Not really. People can talk to a lawyer. Or they can take a risk. Life is like that.

Adamede wrote:

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
Was your point "no need to worry about military coups, we just have to keep purging the officer class. It worked for Stalin."?

It’s like you people don’t even read what I actually write and instead just impose whatever meaning you want onto my comments instead.

Welcome to the internet.

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Again, I'm obviously pro-legalization, but where are you going with these weird ass arguments?

Doing a morning mental gymnastics warmup routine. That's what Saint Yosx is trying to do. Seems like they're really warming up through it too.

Adamede wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:I am apparently a bit of a natural with a rifle but completely hopeless with a pistol which, since I'm left handed, are uncomfortable to use anyway. The rifle being oriented backwards wasn't great either.

But I wouldn't confuse my ability to point the gun in roughly the direction I want the bullet to go and firing it constitutes actual knowledge of its use in the same way I wouldn't say someone putting a car in gear and aiming it down the road as being able to drive.

If you can hit your targets reliably and not shoot stuff you don’t mean to shoot thats about all that goes into knowing how to use a gun.

I kinda feel like maybe you shouldn't own a gun...

HELL YEAH! A gun a day keeps the robbers away... And maybe abusive vagrants too...