[Inquisitor]

Sooner or later, someone is going to realize that despite their presence in the Second Amendment firearms are just as inherently dangerous as automobiles when operated incorrectly and force a national requirement for licensing and standardized safety training.  Gun control is not the problem - owner control and knowledge is.

I love this presentation. You are my new hero. at least for the day

[Flipside]

Agree 100%, Gun control begins and ends with the person with the gun, that's why I've been stating since the start of the thread that the people calling for banning etc are fringe groups and how the stupid few are ruining it for the sensible many

Some people seem to have not got my message, but that is, in essence, what I am saying.

[WeatherOp]

I'm not talking about all silly. I'm questioning if that number is above fifty percent. I just don't think it is; a lot of cases of "stupidity" can be explained away by apathy and the inability of our society to allocate mental resources properly.

By my definition, that basically means stupid. 

[Thaeris]

So when one idiot father leaves a gun in an unsafe position and when one idiot boy (most young children fear guns, that is a generalization that is actually true) finds the gun and accidentally shoots his sister, THAT DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE IS STUPID. JUST BECAUSE ONE IDIOT FAMILY DID THIS, AND THE MEDIA REPORTS IT, DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE IS STUPID. The media selects the worst stories and over-represents them. In fact, considering how biased the media is in reporting the horrifying and disturbing over the boringly happy, people are actually quite responsible in general considering how few times this gets reported. Because you see, IF YOU HAVE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, THEN SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE STUPID. SOME. MAYBE A VERY SMALL NUMBER - which will then get overrepresented via the media, thus making them look MUCH MORE NUMEROUS THAN THEY REALLY ARE. In fact, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd believe the media was intentionally doing this to support elites by trying to prove that the common people are idiots. Whatever; intentional or not, you all have taken it hook, line and sinker.

Most applaudable statement.  

As stated or implied earlier in this thread, it ultimately comes down to the individual. If the individual lacks morals or discipline, then to hell with laws or governance. People generally have a way of doing whatever they want, even in light of the repercussions. The best laws are the laws which enable, not deprive. However, if the individual (which so often is made to represent the whole of society, also noted in previous posts) posesses no or insufficient levels of discipline and/or moral fiber, then laws are implemented which deprive: laws which control. The reasons for this are as vast as the limits of logic or imagination. The worse a socity is precieved by its leaders as being (media at work...), the more restrictive the laws become. Figuring out the rest is child's play.

Tenants of honor and disciple carry a society. Once those are lost, the whole thing goes to the gutter. The best example of this I can think of is Rome.

-Thaeris

[Polpolion]

I'm not talking about all silly. I'm questioning if that number is above fifty percent. I just don't think it is; a lot of cases of "stupidity" can be explained away by apathy and the inability of our society to allocate mental resources properly.

By my definition, that basically means stupid. 

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), "properly" is subjective in this case.

[Colonol Dekker]

This is going well... But i'm watching just in case. There have been too many locks for silly things lately. I'm glad this is going so smoothly

[Mr. Vega]

I'm not talking about all silly. I'm questioning if that number is above fifty percent. I just don't think it is; a lot of cases of "stupidity" can be explained away by apathy and the inability of our society to allocate mental resources properly.

By my definition, that basically means stupid. 

But will their future actions be stupid if their circumstances are altered, if they are put in a social and economic environment that caters to their strengths? We want a complete description of someone's nature, not just an account of what they did in the past.

This is going well... But i'm watching just in case. There have been too many locks for silly things lately. I'm glad this is going so smoothly

Um, I may be out of the loop and I may be gullible, but is Colonel Dekker really a moderator? Colonel Dekker?! Does he at least have to take a breathalyzer test before he gets mod rights?

[Scotty]

Umm, he's been a mod for longer than I've been here.  It actually has his name under the GenDisc "Moderators" list.  It's right there on the main page of the forums.

[Mr. Vega]

Wow, I never caught that. I'm still terrified though.

[Snail]

I'm a mod too!

[Scotty]

Yes, but you aren't terrifying as a concept.

[Colonol Dekker]

Back on track please.....

Or at least throw in a token comment to validate the post.

Snail pulls his weight.....i think 


I agree with individual responsibility being paramount, but a sizable chunk of the cause is obviously down to distribution regulation. Actually now i think about it, why the heck do they produce so many for civil use? Surely there are enough about now?

[karajorma]

BY STEALING THE LEGAL ONES.

Funny how that last bit never seems to get added.

The evidence I've seen suggests this accounts for slightly less than half of illegal firearms in areas of the US with looser gun-control laws. The guns you'll find on the street in California or New York being used for crimes were most likely purchased, legally, in bulk, at a gun show somewhere in Texas or Georgia. Try again Kara.

So another route that wouldn't be possible if purchase of firearms were banned then? Fine if you want to be pedantic about it and kill the joke.

BY STEALING THE LEGAL ONES OR BUYING THEM OFF SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT THEM LEGALLY.

Most of the arguments that criminals can always get guns I hear are simple two dimensional arguments that ignore where the gun came from before the criminal got it.

And that's assuming you're correct about cause and effect. While you might be correct that the guns might have originally been bought in Texas or Georgia what proof do you have that they weren't also stolen from Texas or Georgia too? States which have looser laws on buying guns also tend to have looser laws on reporting stolen guns. In fact only a handful of states require a gun owner to even report a lost or missing gun and studies I've seen state that half a million guns are lost or stolen every year in America so it's a little hard to prove the chain of custody for the gun between purchase and use in a crime.

[WeatherOp]

I'm not talking about all silly. I'm questioning if that number is above fifty percent. I just don't think it is; a lot of cases of "stupidity" can be explained away by apathy and the inability of our society to allocate mental resources properly.

By my definition, that basically means stupid.  

But will their future actions be stupid if their circumstances are altered, if they are put in a social and economic environment that caters to their strengths? We want a complete description of someone's nature, not just an account of what they did in the past.

Ahh, I understand, that is where the words; dimwit, idiot, moron, ignoramus, airhead and kook come into play. As you see, there are many types of stupid once you narrow it down.  

[Polpolion]

I must say, even with all of the people telling me that a gun ban would prevent a lot of gun crime, and even assuming that is true, I still don't want to ban guns.

Banning guns would save lives. Then again, so would banning cigarettes. And matches. And alcohol. And cars.

On a personal level, I don't mind trading a perfectly safe home for some guns and a slightly less safe home. But I can't speak for anyone else.

I don't think having a nation-wide vote on whether to ban guns or not is a bright move. I don't think electing 435 representatives and a president to decide for us is a bright move. I don't think having a state-wide vote is a bright idea. And a county-wide vote is just plain stupid.

Plain and simple, someone will always be complaining. Unless you physically separate the two sides', which is so stupid I shouldn't have bothered to mention it. But guns do indeed kill people, and you know, even if a gun band would result in a net gain of one person's life, it might be worth it.

But then we'd need to get into the practicality of how to do any possible gun ban. How do you collect millions of firearms from millions of people on millions of square miles of land? Would the ban turn into prohibition from the 20's? How could such a turn of events be prevented? How will the American people be told that the second amendment is null and void? What do we do with the millions of responsible gun owners that will inevitably keep their weapons, and much more concerning with the millions of irresponsible gun owners?

Call me a cynical, terrible, evil person, but I don't think that a gun ban is worth not only the trouble, but the denial millions of deserving people their weapons.

Personally, I'd think the way to go would be to do what MP-Ryan was talking about a page or two back.

But we could be wrong, maybe more attention to proper enforcement of gun laws, or a less stringent gun ban, or whatever is the right thing to do.

EDIT: You know what, screw the rest of this post. All I actually want to do is keep on plinking and shooting clay pigeon at my cottage. That's pretty much the only reason that I don't want guns banned or anything.

[colecampbell666]

Wow, I never caught that. I'm still terrified though.

Look who the other GenDisc mod is.

I think that the answer to a lot of the worlds (and North America's) problems is education. People need to be taught to think rationally and problem solve, people need to be taught how to use a gun, how to drive a car etc. If we do this, they will go on to teach their kids the same thing, thus creating a cycle of not-stupid.

[Liberator]

^ THIS

However, you can't get there when the Education system is control by groups who seek "social justice" by deed if not by creed.  Who are aided and abetted by a system that rewards mediocrity on the part of those "in the trenches", IE teachers and they're immediate superiors.

[NGTM-1R]

So another route that wouldn't be possible if purchase of firearms were banned then? Fine if you want to be pedantic about it and kill the joke.

And then they get smuggled in from Mexico. Or China. ****, they already do. The LA Port Authority and US Customs have seized gun shipments coming through the Port of Los Angeles enough times by now that it should be obvious there will always be a source.

As to why I know: you don't crack down on theft in LA to get guns off the street. You watch people who are coming into high-crime areas from out of state. Smuggling, if you can call it that, guns across state lines is slightly less profitable than running drugs, but much safer.

[MP-Ryan]

Sooner or later, someone is going to realize that despite their presence in the Second Amendment firearms are just as inherently dangerous as automobiles when operated incorrectly and force a national requirement for licensing and standardized safety training.  Gun control is not the problem - owner control and knowledge is.

I love this presentation. You are my new hero. at least for the day

Do you realize I've been your hero something like four times in the last six months?  I'm starting to feel embarrassed

[Flipside]

Changing the tack of the subject sightly, but after all the outrage over 'Chemo Kid' running away because he didn't want treatment, and all the work to find him, I was amazed to see this:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/07/24/ava-worthingtons-parents-found-not-guilty-of-manslaughter/

Which doesn't make any sense whatsoever, all things considered...

Sorry about the source, there are others, but this was the first I came across.

Edit: It should also be noted, before any comments about 'Christians' come in, that many religious groups also were somewhat baffled by the ruling, especially considering there is another court case pending from the same family where another child died of the same problem and the same negligence. How many children does this 'church' have to kill before it's not 'OK'?