Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:11 am**

I'm not going to actually debate anything here, but I'd like to share this little tidbit I thought of...
"It's interesting how there's this argument in which someone claims that with everyone having a gun, a crazed person would be less likely to fire... While I may disagree with that logic, I'd like to make it a point that a crazed person would more than likely desire to go to a place where there would be little to no resistance. There will always be places in which there aren't any weapons. Thus there really isn't a "winnable" scenario in which a shooting spree will never happen. Guns don't protect... they dissuade or escalate the situation. You can still die, holding a gun in your hand with your trigger finger caught mid pull. If public places are truly concerned about keeping people safe, they'll install security measures everywhere. Problem being - it's not going to be cost-effective. It will be too large of an investment and too costly to maintain. The United States of America as a whole will not value the innocent as much as they do their HD TV's or new sports car. It's beyond unfortunate - it's tragic. Reality is shit. We're all victims... Puppets in an endless sea of apathy and misery."
I suppose I go on a smidgen of a rant there, but anyway...

Also: It's not about guns, either, really. Just weapons in general. You can't control everything but you can do your best to take preventative measures. (AKA - it's impossible to completely remove weapons... but having weapons doesn't do anything either...)

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:12 am**

If you like, I can move this to another thread, but I think you are really missing the point.

Here is the problem. Many people today have little or no knowledge of hunting. To them, guns mean gangs and robberies. Worse, when they DO hear about hunting, it is often the bad stuff.. it is the idiot who goes out and shoots wantonly just for the "thrill" (the bit about maybe donating the meat to charity is not mentioned, also is not universally possible, even), the guy who shoots a pregnant woman getting into her care in her own driveway, etc, etc, etc.

Then in comes folks like Ted Nugent, talking about "rights". To the parents, family, this is about safety. Its about having their kids walk to school, knowing they are safe (and I don't mean just the rare and few incidents like just happened, I mean the daily shootings, daily violance we all have to endure, even in the "safest" of communities). What many hear is "my being able to go out and spend big money to kill whatever I want is more imporant than your child."

Both are knee-jerk, almost unthinking reactions. But, let's face it. Any of us who are parents, if we are honest, would we really pick someone else's ability to have fun over the safety of our own children?

Now for many of us, those who are in favor of keeping gun rights, etc... that is a false question. Safety in guns is like safety on a bike or anything else. There are idiots and there are safe ways to do things. BUT, as long as we allow the Ted Nugents to stomp out and dismiss the very real concerns of parents, particularly moms-- even moms in hunting communities (sometimes especially them.. and if you live in one, you know what I mean. Having a gun does turn some sensible people into complete jerks!), as long as we dismiss the validity of this debate, there will be no communication, no resolution.

And, note... there are far more people out there worried about the safety of their kids than who care about being able to take a gun and shoot a deer or pheasant for food or pleasure. So, if hunters and sportsshooters of all stripes are not willing to honest analyze and POLICE themselves, then guess who will..... it will be the moms and dads toting plackards saying "keep our children safe".

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:15 am**

no debate,guns are here to stay,its our right

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:22 am**

karel wrote:no debate,guns are here to stay,its our right

why?

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:00 am**

Because it's true....Shaddap Playa.

I find your "bit of a rant" offensive Magoona.....how is it that the "USA" values the toys etc more than the "innocent"? Not only are you anthropomorphising, but that's one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard. AND, it pisses me off that you just lurk here at a GAMING site when you don't gots game....go away or play

*incres foe list.....feels much better*

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:18 am**

karel wrote:no debate,guns are here to stay,its our right

There you have it...'its our right'...regardless of the cost.So sad..

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:25 am**

KoolBak wrote:Because it's true....Shaddap Playa.

why?

If you cannot answer, then you are the one "shutting up"... and the result will be most of the world ignoring you.

(that is my point, in case you were too busy assuming and missed the words I wrote )

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:38 am**

Ok, lemme first mention that I also think the US should have somewhat stricter gun control. You guys seem to have a fetish for the things.
However, the US has way bigger crime related problems than gun control.

I guess I'm gonna be the asshole here, but nationwide a kid shooting up a school is not a big deal. Does the fact that those kids died in the same building somehow make their deaths more significant than the X amount of people that are killed every day anyway?

I'm not gonna pretend to understand the societal, cultural, legislative and economic reasons that lead to the US having a homicide rate 2-5 times bigger than that in most civilised countries and a ridiculously high incarceration rate to boot, but I don't think stricter gun control will really even make a dent in these problems.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:44 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:Now for many of us, those who are in favor of keeping gun rights, etc... that is a false question. Safety in guns is like safety on a bike or anything else. There are idiots and there are safe ways to do things. BUT, as long as we allow the Ted Nugents to stomp out and dismiss the very real concerns of parents, particularly moms-- even moms in hunting communities (sometimes especially them.. and if you live in one, you know what I mean. Having a gun does turn some sensible people into complete jerks!), as long as we dismiss the validity of this debate, there will be no communication, no resolution.

Good point. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way of most things nowadays... there seems to be nothing but people with entrenched positions at opposite ends of the spectrum trying to outshout each other without the slightest desire to consider that there may be a middle ground.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:47 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:Here is the problem. Many people today have little or no knowledge of hunting.

I agree that many people have little or no knowledge of hunting, but I don't believe that is the key reason for the problem. It certainly doesn't help that the standard knee jerk defense is an appeal to the second amendment. (The amendment makes the case that because this nation could easily be invaded and because of the need for a militia to prevent that invasion, people should have the right to have and use arms. The second amendment doesn't really talk about hunting or home defense in and of itself.) The real problem is what happens when people just plain old flip out.

We all have the desire to feel "safe." But when people flip out, they flip out. There are lots of ways that a person can kill and seriously injure many people while venting his insane rage. Cars can be used to kill people; bombs can be used to kill people; and guns can be used to kill people. The real question is how we design those "safe" zones and how we ensure that those safe zones remain safe, within the bounds of reason.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:52 am**

The reason citizens need guns is to twofold.

Primarily, when democracy fails, upon need a gun to ravage upon the people who are dictators. When Gifford was shot, this is the perfect example of why americans need guns. Just like the founding fathers shooting at the extorting Brits, everybody should be shooting politicians.

Second, we need guns to take away the monopoly of government on violence. Why is that only Obama's angry young cronies are allowed to shoot up schools in Iraq? Everybody should be allowed to do it, and private militias should be more common.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:58 am**

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Ok, lemme first mention that I also think the US should have somewhat stricter gun control. You guys seem to have a fetish for the things.
However, the US has way bigger crime related problems than gun control.

I guess I'm gonna be the asshole here, but nationwide a kid shooting up a school is not a big deal. Does the fact that those kids died in the same building somehow make their deaths more significant than the X amount of people that are killed every day anyway?

I'm not gonna pretend to understand the societal, cultural, legislative and economic reasons that lead to the US having a homicide rate 2-5 times bigger than that in most civilised countries and a ridiculously high incarceration rate to boot, but I don't think stricter gun control will really even make a dent in these problems.

You bring up good points, but the thing is that here in the US people have just stopped talking intelligently about this issue... and that is bad for ALL, but ironically enough, worst for those who want to continue to have guns and other weapons.

It was care manufacturers and people driving cars who led to all the safety measures we have now, both. Manufacturers probably had more to do with safer road construction, drivers perhaps more to do with things like seatbelts. My breakdown may be wrong, but muy point is that it was people actually involved who led to limits. So, too, should limits here come as much or more from those within the gun community as without. Yet... the push is to do just the opposite.

As more and more extremist are allowed to be the "speakers" for guns, more and more idiots become the image and view most Americans, the world see. Anyone who wants that to not be the case needs to step up and talk sense, and talk DOWN the idiots who refuse to even acknowledge that other people have honest and legitimate fears and opinions.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:16 am**

Ted Nugent speaking publicly is a caricature. In real life he's a hunter. I'm sure there has been many law enforcement people that wasted time keeping an eye on him for a while until they realized reality is not Television and more recently YouTube.

His point should be pretty obvious, guns in the hands of someone responsible with the point of view that they are his right is not a problem for anyone in reality.

You really should ask why everyone can't remain rational when tzor makes total sense here.

tzor wrote:
We all have the desire to feel "safe." But when people flip out, they flip out. There are lots of ways that a person can kill and seriously injure many people while venting his insane rage. Cars can be used to kill people; bombs can be used to kill people; and guns can be used to kill people. The real question is how we design those "safe" zones and how we ensure that those safe zones remain safe, within the bounds of reason.

Guns are everywhere, go collect them they'll make more.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:43 am**

DoomYoshi wrote:Primarily, when democracy fails, upon need a gun to ravage upon the people who are dictators.

I used to think that, but I've changed my mind. The fact is that homo sapiens is a tribal species, and when the shit hits the fan they are far more likely to rally around the dictator than to attack him. Our dictators in the Western world have a lot of experience in this, and political science really is a science. Every time you think the people are getting tired of getting screwed, just give them a little Reichstag fire and wait for CNN to tell them its time to salute the flag. I really thought that when Bush suspended habeas corpus and started extrajudicial arrests, attacking the very foundation of a free society, that Americans wouldn't stand for it. Lol, was that an eye-opener! Nobody except a few marginalised ACLU lawyers seemed the slightest bit concerned, and in the next election he was easily re-elected. So I no longer have the slightest faith in the peoples' desire to rise up against dictators.

Furthermore, even in those rare instances when a dictator is removed, his replacement is usually worse. Louis was followed by Robespierre, and Robespierre was followed by Napoleon. Sun Yat-sen was followed by Chiang Kai-shek, and Chiang Kai-shek was followed by Mao Tse-tung. Sure, you can point to a few examples where the opposite happened, but that's just like rolling three sixes on your first try: sure it will happen, but you're a fool if you're counting on it. Thirty-nine times out of forty, revolution results in a new government that is even worse than the old. So I no longer have any faith in people's ability to actually improve their situation by removing a dictator.

In summary, people don't actually use their guns to attack dictators (statistical anomalies aside) and when they do they rarely accomplish a positive change (again barring statistical anomalies), so I'm finished with defending people's right to defend themselves.

Edit: I guess I should qualify that by saying that "I'm finished with defending people's right to defend themselves against dictators." I still think there is a case to be made for a right to arm yourself against common non-institutional criminals.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:26 pm**

Dukasaur, if you spend all your money on heroin 39 times out of 40, does that make it moral for me to steal your money and spend it on something else?

My point is that the right should not depend on the result. Or do you prefer pragmatic philosophy to real questions of ethics?

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:30 pm**

at this point, the US is saturated enough with guns that any large-scale attempt at gun control would just lead to a black market.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:34 pm**

john9blue wrote:at this point, the US is saturated enough with guns that any large-scale attempt at gun control would just lead to a black market.

There already is a legal kind of black market. 40% of gun purchases in the US are through the gun shows, without the requirement of federal background checks.

Closing that loophole might well be a good step.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:24 pm**

Closing your loop-hole would be an even better step.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:29 pm**

HapSmo19 wrote:Closing your loop-hole would be an even better step.

Huh?

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:36 pm**

HapSmo19 wrote:Closing your loop-hole would be an even better step.

A great example of why certain people shouldn't have guns.....

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:41 pm**

chang50 wrote:
karel wrote:no debate,guns are here to stay,its our right

There you have it...'its our right'...regardless of the cost.So sad..

I'm sure you feel the same way about healthcare as a right...."regardless of the cost"?

And why is everyone so concerned about crime, but could give 2 shit about trillions more dollars in debt? It's too bad yall don't see that your own pockets are being picked by debt and inflation and printing money even to the point of robbing the next generation before they are even born.

That is the real crime

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:52 pm**

2dimes wrote:Ted Nugent speaking publicly is a caricature. In real life he's a hunter. I'm sure there has been many law enforcement people that wasted time keeping an eye on him for a while until they realized reality is not Television and more recently YouTube.

His point should be pretty obvious, guns in the hands of someone responsible with the point of view that they are his right is not a problem for anyone in reality.

I wish this were true. However, his public voice has become too much of "the" voice..

2dimes wrote:You really should ask why everyone can't remain rational when tzor makes total sense here.
tzor wrote:
We all have the desire to feel "safe." But when people flip out, they flip out. There are lots of ways that a person can kill and seriously injure many people while venting his insane rage. Cars can be used to kill people; bombs can be used to kill people; and guns can be used to kill people. The real question is how we design those "safe" zones and how we ensure that those safe zones remain safe, within the bounds of reason.

Guns are everywhere, go collect them they'll make more.

Tzor does absolutely make sense, but that is also part of why we need to have real, sensible debate. If we cannot even talk rationally about guns, how can we possibly speak about all the other form of violance?

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:36 pm**

Ok then ban violence.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:42 pm**

All civilised countries do.

Posted: **Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:46 pm**

2dimes wrote:Ok then ban violence.

GENIUS!

Conquer Club

"Gun Control Debate"

"Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re:

Re: "Gun Control Debate"

Re: