"Gun Control Debate"

[Dukasaur]

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?

That's not a good analogy. A better one would be: If you are the torchbearer that our village trusts to carry the torch around at night and scare away werewolves, but 39 nights out of 40 you set fire to someone's house and the werewolves come in anyway, do you think we should continue to trust you with the torch?

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

I think ethics needs to consider the result. Unintended consequences are consequences just the same. If a policy starts out with good intentions but ends up not working, it needs to be reconsidered.

[nagerous]

Ever notice it is always people in their 20s that go batshit crazy and shoot a place up. Increase the minimum age, and impose tighter restrictions on who can buy a gun and who cannot, such as a system of personal references etc. and the frequency of these type of situations will be reduced.

[karel]

guns dont kill people,its the stupid jackass with guns that kill people,besides i will never let the gov take my guns,f*ck them.........cant help it if these younger peop0le are all fucked in the head

[Maugena]

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*

You're quite possibly the only one to actually address my post... hah.

how is it that the "USA" values the toys etc more than the "innocent"?

Gun control is not the problem. Nor is having guns the answer.
Protection and security measures are the only way to go.
My statement was directed at the idea that many people would find being taxed for protection for their children in kindergartens, elementary schools, junior high schools, etc. completely absurd. Where else would that money go to? Probably their own entertainment. People can live on very little - let's not bullshit, here.
There's a plethora of things we could do for each other... but we don't because we're all selfish fucks. It's an everyman for himself type deal in this world. Only when it becomes a serious threat do we decide to do anything about it. Everyone caught in it beforehand is just a "tragedy".
And if you want to get worked up over talk about something, that's your choice. Does it do anything except give you high blood pressure? No. You're not going to do anything about this.

[puppydog85]

Ever notice it is always people in their 20s that go batshit crazy and shoot a place up.

Wrong,

The Nickel Mines Shooting and the Bath School disaster.

[GabonX]

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?

Having absolutely no knowledge of the context of this or the point you were trying to make, I would just like to say "yes".

[Haggis_McMutton]

Gun control is not the problem. Nor is having guns the answer.
Protection and security measures are the only way to go.

What exactly are you suggesting? Armed guards at every kindergarten, elementary, primary and high-school in the nation?

[Dukasaur]

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?

Having absolutely no knowledge of the context of this or the point you were trying to make, I would just like to say "yes".

He was responding to the 2nd last post on page 1.

[Maugena]

Gun control is not the problem. Nor is having guns the answer.
Protection and security measures are the only way to go.

What exactly are you suggesting? Armed guards at every kindergarten, elementary, primary and high-school in the nation?

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...)

No one reads, apparently.

Gun control is not the problem. Nor is having guns the answer.
Protection and security measures are the only way to go.

To further my point, see GabonX's thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182696

[spurgistan]

Ever notice it is always people in their 20s that go batshit crazy and shoot a place up.

Wrong,

The Nickel Mines Shooting and the Bath School disaster.

In this post, nagerous uses "always" not to literally mean "without exception," but instead, the common vernacular use of "incredibly frequently, to the point where if you don't know the age, GENDER OR RACE [ed. addition] and you guess, you will generally be right."

[Army of GOD]

what if we're all NPCs in a universal GTA game?

[rdsrds2120]

Ever notice it is always people in their 20s that go batshit crazy and shoot a place up.

Wrong,

The Nickel Mines Shooting and the Bath School disaster.

In this post, nagerous uses "always" not to literally mean "without exception," but instead, the common vernacular use of "incredibly frequently, to the point where if you don't know the age, GENDER OR RACE [ed. addition] and you guess, you will generally be right."

I don't believe you! I'll also prove nagerous wrong with photographic evidence:



Yosemite Sam is clearly in his 30's.

BMO

[/]

I agree that guns can escalate the situation, war always demands escalation.
Everyone has fists to protect themselves, so the killer wants a pointy stick
Everyone has a pointy stick to match the killer, so the killer wants a sword

Personally, I do think weapons have a place, when used in strict moderation, but I don't think a gun in every hand, or an army of security guards will protect us from an escalation to sniper riffles and flak jackets unless we find a way to stop either; the source of the conflicts, the killers, or the tools they rely on.

[Night Strike]

Ever notice it is always people in their 20s that go batshit crazy and shoot a place up. Increase the minimum age, and impose tighter restrictions on who can buy a gun and who cannot, such as a system of personal references etc. and the frequency of these type of situations will be reduced.

They're also the first generation raised under full governmental entitlements and a direct assault on traditional family values. Furthermore, the person who shot the kids in Connecticut was too young to own a gun by law. And there are many of the gang members that duke it out in cities like Chicago are too young to own a gun already. So raising the age has no impact.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Gun control is not the problem. Nor is having guns the answer.
Protection and security measures are the only way to go.

What exactly are you suggesting? Armed guards at every kindergarten, elementary, primary and high-school in the nation?

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...)

No one reads, apparently.

Gun control is not the problem. Nor is having guns the answer.
Protection and security measures are the only way to go.

To further my point, see GabonX's thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182696

You say we should put armed guards everywhere, then you say it's not cost effective then you say people are selfish pricks for not paying for it.

I'm too stoopid to follow the reasoning past 3 negation so please spell it out for me.

Do you believe putting armed guards everywhere is what should be done or not?

[betiko]

is there any yearly stats about US famillies that saved their asses retaliating with their gun after an assault on their property? I have trouble believing it could even match yearly stats of people accidentally shooting someone with the familly gun.

[Phatscotty]

Ever notice it is always people in their 20s that go batshit crazy and shoot a place up. Increase the minimum age, and impose tighter restrictions on who can buy a gun and who cannot, such as a system of personal references etc. and the frequency of these type of situations will be reduced.

I don't see how that addresses the situation, where a young person in the 20's steals the weapons from someone who is over 40 years old.

and about it always being young people....YES! YES I NOTICE THAT!!!!!!!!!

[AndyDufresne]

I remember coming across some random collection of statistics, and I think my favorite was that the percentage of households in America with guns has been declining since the 70's, but the number of guns any household owns has increased.


--Andy

[rdsrds2120]

I remember coming across some random collection of statistics, and I think my favorite was that the percentage of households in America with guns has been declining since the 70's, but the number of guns any household owns has increased.


--Andy

They're gathering in clandestine households. At this rate, I predict all guns will reach a common node in 2050.

BMO

[stahrgazer]

I agree that guns can escalate the situation, war always demands escalation.
Everyone has fists to protect themselves, so the killer wants a pointy stick
Everyone has a pointy stick to match the killer, so the killer wants a sword

Personally, I do think weapons have a place, when used in strict moderation, but I don't think a gun in every hand, or an army of security guards will protect us from an escalation to sniper riffles and flak jackets unless we find a way to stop either; the source of the conflicts, the killers, or the tools they rely on.

Bombs can kill more people faster than guns, and can be made with fairly easy to get products, so you really won't be able to get rid of the tools killers rely on.

Finding a way to stop the source of the conflicts is unlikely, since I doubt the kid who massacred little kids had any sort of viable "conflict" with those kids.

That leaves us to finding ways to stop the killers before they snap and become killers, which can be difficult because most of these mass murderers don't show how bad off they are until they...do.

[thegreekdog]

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.

This was pretty much my initial reaction. I understand the reaction to this incident given the number and age of the victims, but I couldn't help but think about the number of murders that occur on a regular basis in my immediate area.

[Pope Joan]

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.

This was pretty much my initial reaction. I understand the reaction to this incident given the number and age of the victims, but I couldn't help but think about the number of murders that occur on a regular basis in my immediate area.

I have my own conspiracy theory. They guy was paid by the gun control lobby Why on Earth otherwise would you go out and shoot 20 random kids?

[xeno]

Evil exists in our hearts. Guns are not evil.

[chang50]

Evil exists in our hearts. Guns are not evil.

Given evil exists surely we need to do all we can to restrict it's access to guns..