TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 38910111213141516171823 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 642

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #301
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    Somehow killing yourself through alcohol poisoning seems like something that a libertarian would argue is a personal right, but killing someone else through whatever means is stepping your personal rights all over someone else's, something that every libertarian should abhor. So why aren't libertarians in favor of reasonable gun control? It seems like a natural for them given their professed beliefs.
    Because the big L Libertarians know that everyone will behave themselves appropriately in their perfect little world, so there's no need for gun control.

  2. #302
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    Somehow killing yourself through alcohol poisoning seems like something that a libertarian would argue is a personal right, but killing someone else through whatever means is stepping your personal rights all over someone else's, something that every libertarian should abhor. So why aren't libertarians in favor of reasonable gun control? It seems like a natural for them given their professed beliefs.
    We have laws against murder. And yeah mostly libertarian here

  3. #303
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    One thing you gotta say about the Libertarians, outside of the communists, they're consistently the most disappointed bunch of people currently engaged in American politics today, yet they always stay so cheery.

    Someday soon, the tyranny will end. When that day comes, we'll all save 5 cents on gas.

  4. #304
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    A lot of people own alcohol, and a lot of Americans die from it regularly- ~90,000 per year, blowing guns out of the water as far as death toll is concerned, to say nothing of the lives and families destroyed by substance abuse. It's not terribly regulated either. But if you try to tell someone that their enjoyment of a beer on the weekend makes them complicit in children being killed by drunk drivers, that their hobby doesn't outweigh lives, I think the majority of the public would consider you to be some kind of moralistic loon.
    If I were to say that alcohol is contributing to tens of thousands of deaths every year, it doesn't necessarily mean I would be saying that people who buy and drink alcohol on the weekend are somehow complicit in children being killed by drunk drivers. Rather, I would be referring to alcohol as a public health hazard. And this is the same with guns.

    Also, governments do try to limit alcohol-related deaths though policy, by not allowing people to drive when drunk, for example. And in many places there are limits on how and to whom alcohol can be marketed. Excise duties are another popular measure.


    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    I'm not trying to say 'well if guns are banned you should ban alcohol!!!'; but it highlights the difference in how people react depending on whether or not they're personally invested in the item under discussion. If you're in the group that drinks or owns guns or raises tigers or whatever you'll probably blame misuse on the individuals rather than the object they misused, and if you're not in the group (and not personally affected or invested) then you'll probably blame the object itself. There's a massive perspective disconnect between people who have grown up with guns and people who haven't.
    Well, I have not talked about banning guns, only about concentrating guns into the hands of responsible owners in order to limit the undeniable harm that guns do in the hands of irresponsible owners.

    In fact, guns are not banned in most countries (with the possible exception of Jamaica and maybe Japan, if you stretch the idea of a ban far enough), so the fear of guns being banned in the US is rather irrational.
    Last edited by Starker; 22nd Mar 2018 at 00:12.

  5. #305
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    One thing you gotta say about the Libertarians, outside of the communists, they're consistently the most disappointed bunch of people currently engaged in American politics today, yet they always stay so cheery.

    Someday soon, the tyranny will end. When that day comes, we'll all save 5 cents on gas.
    Reality is over rated hence the reason we are cheery

  6. #306
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    Reality is over rated hence the reason we are cheery
    Well, you're all kinda uptight, too. It's a weird combination.

  7. #307
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    They're able to successfully recruit casual gun owners (eg hunters) to their cause by pointing to the historically incremental trend of gun control and saying you'll be next. Put yourself in their shoes: Okay, so gun owners will be allowed to keep their semi-auto AR-15s for now. But if they think you're going to just come back in a few years to try to ban them anyways, well, why would they give you a stepping-stone now?
    So, wait, what was allowed in the past that isn't now? fully automatic weapons?

    The cake comic seems fairly ridiculous. As I understand it America has widespread legal gun ownership, semi-automatic weapons can be bought, many states allow concealed carry etc. How much of that cake is really gone?

  8. #308
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    just the icing

  9. #309
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpy Chompy View Post
    So, wait, what was allowed in the past that isn't now? fully automatic weapons?
    Fully automatic weapons are still allowed, but you have to get a license and the guns are expensive due to the limited supply.

  10. #310
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Kind of funny how team never-compromise is always going on about the need for their opponents to compromise. It's not like they're ever going to accept a compromise. It's just another distraction to throw at the wall.

  11. #311
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpy Chompy View Post
    So, wait, what was allowed in the past that isn't now? fully automatic weapons?
    On a federal level, automatic weapons, rifles with barrels under 16", shotguns with barrels under 18", pistols with any kind of grip or stabilizer, high-caliber rifles, anything involving explosives, and suppressors are extremely heavily regulated (with automatics being de facto banned unless you have $20k+ lying around), while foreign imports, inter-state sales, and deactivated relics are banned altogether. On a state level, open carry, concealed carry, assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, handguns altogether, and private sale are restricted or banned to various degrees. About the only regulations I can think of that were rolled back were the 1994 AWB (only because it was built into the law), a few states have taken measures to allow permitless concealed carry, and DC's ban on handguns was overturned by the Supreme Court in favor of a ban-unless-you're-connected, like NYC.

    Many of those restrictions aren't even shared by more gun-restrictive countries. Canada doesn't have any qualms about short-barreled rifles or shotguns, our restrictions on imports are tied to international politics rather than public safety, and most European countries advocate the use of suppressors as a safety measure and to reduce noise pollution.

    If you want to claim that America still has most of its 'cake', well, sure, I agree. I think the cake comic is hyperbolic and referenced it to illustrate the trend, not to claim that Americans' gun rights are hanging on by a thread. But when you've got politicians praising Australia's gun control, where hundred-year-old pump shotguns were banned, and so much clamor domestically over banning assault weapons or semiautomatics altogether, gun owners have zero reason to trust that this time gun control advocates will take just the one thing they're asking for and that'll be it.

    I mean, I think Renzatic is on the right track: Throw out all the useless crap, start with a clean slate, and write a consistent set of regulations to target the legitimate issues. That gives you compromise on both sides and (hopefully) everyone can walk away happy. The strategy we're seeing now is just tug-of-war, where there's no incentive for either side to compromise at all, and each new restriction passed in California or New York galvanizes national opposition.

  12. #312
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    In Australia, a whole lot of people handed in their guns to be destroyed, it wasnt just about the banning. Would this happen in the US?

    http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthrea...&highlight=gun oddly enough this thread brings up the tiger analogy as well

    this was recent http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthrea...&highlight=gun

    the same arguments over and over, just face it catbarf you like owning guns and thats it
    Last edited by PigLick; 22nd Mar 2018 at 09:53.

  13. #313
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    nice post catbarf & PigLick we like having RIGHTS, not going through endless stupid loops for some perceived safety, we are NOT Australians. or Japanese and NEVER will be.

  14. #314
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    ok

  15. #315
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus

    we have far too many laws already.

  16. #316
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    I think the cake comic is hyperbolic and referenced it to illustrate the trend, not to claim that Americans' gun rights are hanging on by a thread. But when you've got politicians praising Australia's gun control, where hundred-year-old pump shotguns were banned, and so much clamor domestically over banning assault weapons or semiautomatics altogether, gun owners have zero reason to trust that this time gun control advocates will take just the one thing they're asking for and that'll be it.
    I dunno, a lot of that trend seems to amount to fussing over details, restricting stuff only soldiers should have anyway, or making you get a permit before you can take a gun when you pop down the shops for milk and dogfood. I don't see some inevitable slippery slope from there to BAN EVERYTHING. That can't, won't happen unless a majority of Americans want it to (and they don't). Too much of a societal shift would have to happen first.

    I looked back at what you consider sensible gun control law, you seem to be more focused on the means by which criminals get guns, like straw purchases. Looks good. That and addressing social problems like gang crime. Again, good and noble goals!

    But it still seems prudent to take the more ridiculous hardware off the table, even if it only takes a few percent off the death rate. Sure, very few people are murdered by Barett rifles. Not many people are murdered by releasing an enraged pet gorilla into their office either. But legal gorilla ownership probably isn't a stellar idea.
    Last edited by Chimpy Chompy; 22nd Mar 2018 at 12:02.

  17. #317
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Let's just ban ammunition. Ammunition is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Own all the guns you want. But if you want to hurt someone with your gun, you have to swing it like a baseball bat or throw it at them.

    Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
    Last edited by LarryG; 22nd Mar 2018 at 11:33.

  18. #318
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpy Chompy View Post
    I dunno, a lot of that trend seems to amount to fussing over details, restricting stuff only soldiers should have anyway, or making you get a permit before you can take a gun when you pop down the shops for milk and dogfood. I don't see some inevitable slippery slope from there to BAN EVERYTHING. That can't, won't happen unless a majority of Americans wants it to (and they don't). Too much of a societal shift has to happen first.

    I looked back at what you consider sensible gun control law, you seem to be more focused on the means by which criminals get guns, like straw purchases. Looks good. That and addressing social problems like gang crime. Again, good and noble goals!

    But it still seems sense to take some of the more ridiculous hardware off the table, even if it only takes a few percent off the death rate. Sure, very few people are murdered by Barett rifles. Not many people are murdered by releasing an enraged pet gorilla into their office either. But legal gorilla ownership probably isn't a stellar idea.
    you guys are funny.

  19. #319
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    Let's just ban ammunition. Ammunition is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Own all the guns you want. But if you want to hurt someone with your gun, you have to swing it like a baseball bat or throw it at them.

    Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
    SEE post 315

  20. #320
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    you are just memes and noise. If you want to contribute be more like catbarf.

  21. #321
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    ha, you guys want to legislate rights based on nothing more than your feelings and you have no clue about what you want to legislate. meme fits you perfectly.

  22. #322
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpy Chompy View Post
    I dunno, a lot of that trend seems to amount to fussing over details, restricting stuff only soldiers should have anyway, or making you get a permit before you can take a gun when you pop down the shops for milk and dogfood. I don't see some inevitable slippery slope from there to BAN EVERYTHING. That can't, won't happen unless a majority of Americans wants it to (and they don't). Too much of a societal shift has to happen first.
    No, I don't think it's likely, or inevitable, or something the majority of Americans currently want. But we're already seeing a considerable societal shift in attitudes towards firearms, so I don't think it's safe to treat that as a constant. There's already a vocal minority calling for either a total ban on firearms or more restrictive laws than even our European counterparts, and the public attitude towards guns is a lot more contentious than it was fifty years ago.

    I don't see it as an inevitable slippery slope, and if I've made it sound like 'if we have any reform, then it inevitably leads to a total ban!' then I haven't conveyed myself well. It's just much easier to reach a state of heavy restriction through incremental change rather than immediate reform. California's been a clear example of this, and it makes gun owners in other states go 'nah, let's not go down that road at all, take your registry and shove it'.

    In that respect, one thing that would be useful would be for Democrats to figure out exactly what they want. We know the hardline crazy Republicans want no restriction whatsoever, but the Democratic Party as a whole can't seem to make up its mind as to what level of gun regulation it sees as ideal. When they say 'nobody's coming for your guns' but then Gov. Cuomo says 'confiscation is an option' or Feinstein praises Australia's mandatory buyback program, it sets the alarm bells ringing and the NRA donations start rolling in.

    You might not be able to win over the really hardline gun nuts, but the reasonable majority would be much more receptive to compromise if they didn't keep hearing these quips that make them think mass disarmament is the end goal. The guy who just owns a pump shotgun for hunting is not going to be throwing his lot in with the hardliners if he isn't afraid of some overbearing, ill-conceived legislation coming for him next.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpy Chompy View Post
    But it still seems sense to take some of the more ridiculous hardware off the table, even if it only takes a few percent off the death rate. Sure, very few people are murdered by Barett rifles.
    I just don't see the point if there's no public health utility to it. For most of the ridiculous hardware, we're not talking reducing a few percent off the death levels, we're talking zero. Like, I've literally never heard of a Barrett being used to commit a crime. So what's the objective with denying ownership? In any Western society it's not up to individuals to justify their ownership of an object, it's up to the state to demonstrate an undue harm that can only be mitigated through restriction.

    I'm fine with regulating stuff that research demonstrates deserves regulation; I'm not fine with regulating stuff just out of subjective moral principle.

  23. #323
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by PigLick View Post
    In Australia, a whole lot of people handed in their guns to be destroyed, it wasnt just about the banning. Would this happen in the US?
    New York had a mandatory registration of assault weapons back in '13 as part of the SAFE Act. Failure to register was a felony, but current estimates peg the compliance rate at 4%, with many local authorities outright refusing to carry out enforcement of the SAFE Act. I can't imagine a mandatory buyback being anything besides a total non-compliance shitshow, followed by an actual bloodbath in the streets if law enforcement tries to force the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by PigLick View Post
    just face it catbarf you like owning guns and thats it
    Well, yeah, I'm not sure I've ever denied it. I'm a white, middle-class, physically-able, young male living in a reasonably peaceful suburban neighborhood. I have no demonstrable fears for my safety or well-being, so my interest in historical and exotic firearms is purely academic and recreational. But I know a lot of people who aren't nearly so fortunate, and have demonstrable need for self-defense, and more than that I resent legislation for legislation's sake that doesn't fix or even mitigate the severe problems we have as a society.

  24. #324
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    I don't see it as an inevitable slippery slope, and if I've made it sound like 'if we have any reform, then it inevitably leads to a total ban!' then I haven't conveyed myself well. It's just much easier to reach a state of heavy restriction through incremental change rather than immediate reform.
    Whatever new equilibrium might be reached, probably wouldn't get so heavy as to stop you having a rifle for hunting or a shotgun to defend the home.

    Incidentally, as I understand it Cuomo said confiscation was an option for "assault weapons", I know the definition gets a bit hazy but that clearly doesn't mean all guns.


    I just don't see the point if there's no public health utility to it. For most of the ridiculous hardware, we're not talking reducing a few percent off the death levels, we're talking zero. Like, I've literally never heard of a Barrett being used to commit a crime. So what's the objective with denying ownership? In any Western society it's not up to individuals to justify their ownership of an object, it's up to the state to demonstrate an undue harm that can only be mitigated through restriction.
    I'm fine with individuals justifying ownership of an item that is highly dangerous and not essential to their livelihoods. You can have fun shooting shit with a much less potent weapon.

    I am a statist european tho so i realise I may be out of sync with a lot of American thinking. I would just try and avoid these arguments but I'm married to an American and I'd rather none of her family get shot at... (funnily enough she's even more anti gun than I am).

  25. #325
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    about 8-12 k murders in the U.S per year, mostly thugs & hood rats taking each other out so they don't make the news, statistically your wife's family is safe from getting shot, the numbers do increase when it comes to violent crime . btw the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting .

Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 38910111213141516171823 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •