Gun Control: Your Opinion

[SaintB]

I humbly disagree.

If your willing to die for an X-Box 360 so be it, just don't expect me to think you have your priorities very straight.

[Dorksonian]

I humbly disagree.

If your willing to die for an X-Box 360 so be it, just don't expect me to think you have your priorities very straight.

I'm not dying for anything. I'm saying the thief will die for it. But, upon careful contemplation, I don't think I'd shoot him. I'd choke him so I could watch his eyes roll back in his head.

[SaintB]

I humbly disagree.

If your willing to die for an X-Box 360 so be it, just don't expect me to think you have your priorities very straight.

I'm not dying for anything. I'm saying the thief will die for it. But, upon careful contemplation, I don't think I'd shoot him. I'd choke him so I could watch his eyes roll back in his head.

You're either playing tough or are one sick individual.

[Dorksonian]

Thank you

[Gravlen]

That is cowardly, you would let someone steal your money and possibly your identity? I person that just let person get away with a crime will constantly get assaulted and mugged because the mugger will figure that the person will not stand up for themselves. Those who will not stand up for something will fall for anything.

Its cowardly to not endanger other people?

It's cowardly not to risk your own life / die to protect the contents of your wallet, no matter how much money you might have in. It's also cowardly not being willing to kill a person to keep your $10. Because it's the principle of the matter.

Apparently.

[South Norwega]

That is cowardly, you would let someone steal your money and possibly your identity? I person that just let person get away with a crime will constantly get assaulted and mugged because the mugger will figure that the person will not stand up for themselves. Those who will not stand up for something will fall for anything.

Its cowardly to not endanger other people?

It's cowardly not to risk your own life / die to protect the contents of your wallet, no matter how much money you might have in. It's also cowardly not being willing to kill a person to keep your $10. Because it's the principle of the matter.

Apparently.

Oh yes. If someone so much as looks at you funny you must challenge them to a duel or be forever shamed as a coward. And that's why guns shouldn't be regulated. Duels! With Flame-throwers!

[Gun Manufacturers]

I am a proponent of waiting periods, and registering firearms. I also would like to see laws making it mandatory that one pass a safety course and a written or verbal test before being allowed to own and purchase a weapon.

I support waiting periods because they allow people who may buy a weapon when angry with the intent of using it on another person the chance to cool their heels and I support registering weapons to aid in police investigations; if someone is shot with X firearm and it is reported to be stolen it helps to remove people from the suspicion list.

I'm sort of in the air about the debate about automatic weapons. The rights of collectors have to be considered, as well as a few other things. I tend to settle on private citizens should be allowed to own a single copy of a designated assault class weapon (such as a fully automatic rifle or pistol) but anything else is rather excessive and dangerous.

People that legally own full auto/select fire weapons aren't a problem. The full auto/select fire weapons are so much more expensive than their semi-auto counterparts (my AR15 cost me < $700, whereas a transferable M16 costs over $12k), that it would be fiscally stupid to do ANYTHING that would risk the owner from losing their right to own firearms.

What I am saying there, is I don't see a reason why someone would need more than a single M-16, or single PSG-1, or a single MP5. Not saying they should only be allowed one type of assault weapon, but I see no reason why someone needs more than than one of each.

Do you know how many different variants of M16 there are? Do you know how many variants of MP5 there are? Collectors may want more than one variant, and there really isn't a reason to limit it (these people are not the kind of people to risk their firearms rights, when an MP5 costs > $15k, and an M16 costs > $12k). Also, the PSG-1 is semi auto, not select fire like the G3.

[Skeptikosia]

That is cowardly, you would let someone steal your money and possibly your identity? I person that just let person get away with a crime will constantly get assaulted and mugged because the mugger will figure that the person will not stand up for themselves. Those who will not stand up for something will fall for anything.

Its cowardly to not endanger other people?

It's cowardly not to risk your own life / die to protect the contents of your wallet, no matter how much money you might have in. It's also cowardly not being willing to kill a person to keep your $10. Because it's the principle of the matter.

Apparently.

The principle of the matter for me is that the dollar value of an item is correlated to how much of my life I had to spend acquiring it and how much more of my life I'd have to spend replacing it when stolen by someone who doesn't have the ethical wherewithal to earn it themselves.

I'm not going to work to earn something just to have it taken away by someone who thinks they should have something without earning it themselves.

They aren't stealing $10 they're stealing an hour of my life, after taxes.

[New Heliopolis]

Gun control would work about as much as any other form of prohibition...not much, in other words.

[Neu California]

I somehow missed this post

2. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns. I know, it's a cliche, but what makes you think that people who have already shown a propensity to ignore the rights of other people will suddenly respect a decree from the capitol? Those who find it easier to plunder than to produce will take any measure they can to make their trade of plunder more effective.

Show me one major gun control advocacy organization or lobbying group that wants to ban guns, please

If no-one in favor of "gun-control" is in favor of gun bans then explain Washington D.C. and Chicago.

There's a reason I said MAJOR ADVOCACY GROUP but thanks for playing

Edit: and I should point out that I didn't mean to include governments.

Edit 2: But I'll admit you're right if you can prove that a local gov't falls into an advocacy or lobbying group

Edit 3: and that they lobby for banning guns

(I really need to think this through more before posting, to keep from editing all the time)

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not dying for anything. I'm saying the thief will die for it.

And, knowing that you intend to shoot on sight, a smart thief would - of course - disable or kill you before they attempted to rob you.

Congratulations - you just died for a Playstation.

[Greed and Death]

I'm not dying for anything. I'm saying the thief will die for it.

And, knowing that you intend to shoot on sight, a smart thief would - of course - disable or kill you before they attempted to rob you.

Congratulations - you just died for a Playstation.

And a smart home owner will try to do the same to the thief first.
Knowing my abilities and being a light sleeper I prefer to take my chance with the gun method.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not dying for anything. I'm saying the thief will die for it.

And, knowing that you intend to shoot on sight, a smart thief would - of course - disable or kill you before they attempted to rob you.

Congratulations - you just died for a Playstation.

And a smart home owner will try to do the same to the thief first.
Knowing my abilities and being a light sleeper I prefer to take my chance with the gun method.

This 'machismo' angle is cute online, but ultimately pointless in real life.

You're not bulletproof, even if you play one on tv.

A smart thief steals your shit while you're not even there. The idea that there are 'bad guys' lining up to charge down the end of your rifle is laughable.

[The Parkus Empire]

This 'machismo' angle is cute online, but ultimately pointless in real life.

You're not bulletproof, even if you play one on tv.

A smart thief steals your shit while you're not even there. The idea that there are 'bad guys' lining up to charge down the end of your rifle is laughable.

A smart thief would probably steal guns, too. As was said before, criminals tend to use to illegal firearms, which are generally stolen.

That said, a "smart thief" is not common, and thieves do sometimes break-in while the home is still occupied, either by mistake or because they don't give a rat's ass. This typically happens in an isolated home, for obvious reasons.

[Gravlen]

That is cowardly, you would let someone steal your money and possibly your identity? I person that just let person get away with a crime will constantly get assaulted and mugged because the mugger will figure that the person will not stand up for themselves. Those who will not stand up for something will fall for anything.

Its cowardly to not endanger other people?

It's cowardly not to risk your own life / die to protect the contents of your wallet, no matter how much money you might have in. It's also cowardly not being willing to kill a person to keep your $10. Because it's the principle of the matter.

Apparently.

The principle of the matter for me is that the dollar value of an item is correlated to how much of my life I had to spend acquiring it and how much more of my life I'd have to spend replacing it when stolen by someone who doesn't have the ethical wherewithal to earn it themselves.

I'm not going to work to earn something just to have it taken away by someone who thinks they should have something without earning it themselves.

And that's a principle you're willing to kill or be killed over...

They aren't stealing $10 they're stealing an hour of my life, after taxes.

First of all, you need to start earning more money.

Secondly, so what? The creators of Paranormal Activity stole 90 minutes of my life, and I gave them my money freely. I'm not about to go shoot at them for it

[Gravlen]

I'm not dying for anything. I'm saying the thief will die for it.

And, knowing that you intend to shoot on sight, a smart thief would - of course - disable or kill you before they attempted to rob you.

Congratulations - you just died for a Playstation.

And a smart home owner will try to do the same to the thief first.

So you'd go out and track down potential thieves and shoot them first?

[Skeptikosia]

That is cowardly, you would let someone steal your money and possibly your identity? I person that just let person get away with a crime will constantly get assaulted and mugged because the mugger will figure that the person will not stand up for themselves. Those who will not stand up for something will fall for anything.

Its cowardly to not endanger other people?

It's cowardly not to risk your own life / die to protect the contents of your wallet, no matter how much money you might have in. It's also cowardly not being willing to kill a person to keep your $10. Because it's the principle of the matter.

Apparently.

The principle of the matter for me is that the dollar value of an item is correlated to how much of my life I had to spend acquiring it and how much more of my life I'd have to spend replacing it when stolen by someone who doesn't have the ethical wherewithal to earn it themselves.

I'm not going to work to earn something just to have it taken away by someone who thinks they should have something without earning it themselves.

And that's a principle you're willing to kill or be killed over...

They aren't stealing $10 they're stealing an hour of my life, after taxes.

First of all, you need to start earning more money.

Secondly, so what? The creators of Paranormal Activity stole 90 minutes of my life, and I gave them my money freely. I'm not about to go shoot at them for it

Correct

And indeed I do, but that's the most I can get people to pay for errant labor around here when I can get it.

You opted in to Paranormal Activity, I didn't opt in to Criminal Activity.

[Grave_n_idle]

This 'machismo' angle is cute online, but ultimately pointless in real life.

You're not bulletproof, even if you play one on tv.

A smart thief steals your shit while you're not even there. The idea that there are 'bad guys' lining up to charge down the end of your rifle is laughable.

A smart thief would probably steal guns, too. As was said before, criminals tend to use to illegal firearms, which are generally stolen.

That said, a "smart thief" is not common, and thieves do sometimes break-in while the home is still occupied, either by mistake or because they don't give a rat's ass. This typically happens in an isolated home, for obvious reasons.

I think of it in terms of evolution. If there was no profit to theft, there would be no thieves. If there was an actual good answer to theft, there'd be no profit in it.

Thus, thieves are collectively mostly 'smart' in their specialisation.

If a thief knows youve got a lot of expensive stuff, and that you're (probably) armed - they will take precautions if they decide that the payoff is worth the risks.

[New Heliopolis]

This 'machismo' angle is cute online, but ultimately pointless in real life.

You're not bulletproof, even if you play one on tv.

A smart thief steals your shit while you're not even there. The idea that there are 'bad guys' lining up to charge down the end of your rifle is laughable.

A smart thief would probably steal guns, too. As was said before, criminals tend to use to illegal firearms, which are generally stolen.

That said, a "smart thief" is not common, and thieves do sometimes break-in while the home is still occupied, either by mistake or because they don't give a rat's ass. This typically happens in an isolated home, for obvious reasons.

I think of it in terms of evolution. If there was no profit to theft, there would be no thieves. If there was an actual good answer to theft, there'd be no profit in it.

Thus, thieves are collectively mostly 'smart' in their specialisation.

If a thief knows youve got a lot of expensive stuff, and that you're (probably) armed - they will take precautions if they decide that the payoff is worth the risks.

Meh. Your assumption is that no disadvantageous traits in a minority can survive. Homosexuality proves otherwise (you're really disadvantaged evolutionarily if you're not even inclined to have kids.

EDIT: Wait, do you mean metaphorically speaking...?

[Grave_n_idle]

Meh. Your assumption is that no disadvantageous traits in a minority can survive. Homosexuality proves otherwise (you're really disadvantaged evolutionarily if you're not even inclined to have kids.

I'm ignoring your derail into the relative merits of homosexuality, so I'll just... oh, that's all you had.

[New Heliopolis]

Meh. Your assumption is that no disadvantageous traits in a minority can survive. Homosexuality proves otherwise (you're really disadvantaged evolutionarily if you're not even inclined to have kids.

I'm ignoring your derail into the relative merits of homosexuality, so I'll just... oh, that's all you had.

I'm not talking about right/wrong, or qualifying it, I'm just saying that the winners of the "evolutionary game" so to speak, are the ones who propagate. Thus the fact that it exists means the evolutionarily unfit can survive, meaning thieves don't neccessarily have to be evolutionarily better.

Then I realized you were probably using metaphor...I admit where I blundered.

[Skeptikosia]

This 'machismo' angle is cute online, but ultimately pointless in real life.

You're not bulletproof, even if you play one on tv.

A smart thief steals your shit while you're not even there. The idea that there are 'bad guys' lining up to charge down the end of your rifle is laughable.

A smart thief would probably steal guns, too. As was said before, criminals tend to use to illegal firearms, which are generally stolen.

That said, a "smart thief" is not common, and thieves do sometimes break-in while the home is still occupied, either by mistake or because they don't give a rat's ass. This typically happens in an isolated home, for obvious reasons.

I think of it in terms of evolution. If there was no profit to theft, there would be no thieves. If there was an actual good answer to theft, there'd be no profit in it.

Thus, thieves are collectively mostly 'smart' in their specialisation.

If a thief knows youve got a lot of expensive stuff, and that you're (probably) armed - they will take precautions if they decide that the payoff is worth the risks.

The issue here I believe is that the modern criminal justice system has allowed thievery to have less of a downside.

And knowing run of the mill burglars and thieves as I do, they aren't the sharpest bulbs in the drawer.

Last I heard, the average functional/linguistic IQ of inmates in prison was 10 points below the national average.

They're more the algae eaters of the fish tank world than the betas, so to speak.

[Grave_n_idle]

Meh. Your assumption is that no disadvantageous traits in a minority can survive. Homosexuality proves otherwise (you're really disadvantaged evolutionarily if you're not even inclined to have kids.

I'm ignoring your derail into the relative merits of homosexuality, so I'll just... oh, that's all you had.

I'm not talking about right/wrong, or qualifying it, I'm just saying that the winners of the "evolutionary game" so to speak, are the ones who propagate.

Then I realized you were probably using metaphor...I admit where I blundered.

The 'evolution' reference is that crime exists because it is an arena where 'survival of the fittest' applies. People who steal stuff in front of armed defence don't tend to be successful thieves, thus the thieves that are successful, are those that steal ina more circumspect fashion - a response based on the defence presented.

I'm not suggesting that there's a genetic component of theft, passed on at the moment of insemination, culminating in some eventual 'criminal' side-species.

[Grave_n_idle]

This 'machismo' angle is cute online, but ultimately pointless in real life.

You're not bulletproof, even if you play one on tv.

A smart thief steals your shit while you're not even there. The idea that there are 'bad guys' lining up to charge down the end of your rifle is laughable.

A smart thief would probably steal guns, too. As was said before, criminals tend to use to illegal firearms, which are generally stolen.

That said, a "smart thief" is not common, and thieves do sometimes break-in while the home is still occupied, either by mistake or because they don't give a rat's ass. This typically happens in an isolated home, for obvious reasons.

I think of it in terms of evolution. If there was no profit to theft, there would be no thieves. If there was an actual good answer to theft, there'd be no profit in it.

Thus, thieves are collectively mostly 'smart' in their specialisation.

If a thief knows youve got a lot of expensive stuff, and that you're (probably) armed - they will take precautions if they decide that the payoff is worth the risks.

The issue here I believe is that the modern criminal justice system has allowed thievery to have less of a downside.

And knowing run of the mill burglars and thieves as I do, they aren't the sharpest bulbs in the drawer.

Last I heard, the average functional/linguistic IQ of inmates in prison was 10 points below the national average.

They're more the algae eaters of the fish tank world than the betas, so to speak.

I hate to have to point it out, but the thieves you'd tend to meet in prison aren't going to be the 'fittest' - by definition.

[Maurepas]

I'm not suggesting that there's a genetic component of theft, passed on at the moment of insemination, culminating in some eventual 'criminal' side-species.

Although, now that you mention it, such a species would have its uses,