Another shooting in the USA. Remind me about the reason for having guns again. - by SubJeff
Papy on 28/8/2012 at 00:32
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
Now you have 2 or 3 of those people, who know about guns, know the difference between a pistol and an assault rifle or a shotgun and could tell the difference, who are licensed, trained, competent and responsible, and yet just ordinary citizens, and put them in that colorado theater, and I WILL bet you things had gone differently, even if buddy had a shit load of body armor on.
I agree on that, but you completely miss the problem.
During my military service, one thing was obvious : some people, particularly from those who are shy and kind, the ones I call "beta" males, suddenly feel powerful when you give them a gun. They suddenly feel they now have a right to be "respected". They feel they don't have to take any "shit" anymore. From shy and kind, they become assholes. The fact is they just can't handle power. As long as they are under a tight control, it doesn't show too much, but when they are left in charge it's a disaster waiting to happen.
It's not about training, months of military training don't change anything, it's simply about personality. To me, Zimmerman would have been the same asshole, no matter how much training he could have received.
Personally, I know how to handle a weapon and I know how to manage power (I ended my military service as a sergeant) and yet I would not accept to play the role of a local vigilante. If that's what I wanted to do, I would have become a policeman. If I go to a theater, I want to be able to enjoy the show without having to think about "security". So not only I don't have a gun, not even a hunting riffle (I think it's less trouble to buy my food at my local groceries), not only I don't see the need for one, but I really don't want to have one because I know the constant thinking about security would destroy a bit of my quality of life.
So the question I'm asking myself is : who are the honest people who want to always have a gun with them? And my answer is mostly people like Zimmerman. To me, that's the problem.
CCCToad on 28/8/2012 at 01:49
Quote Posted by Vivian
I think we could copy and paste this entire thread from the archives from here on in, so here's a picture of a bald man with a water balloon exploding on his head instead:
A water balloon exploding? No....he is beginning to comprehend.
CCCToad on 28/8/2012 at 02:00
Quote:
During my military service, one thing was obvious : some people, particularly from those who are shy and kind, the ones I call "beta" males, suddenly feel powerful when you give them a gun. They suddenly feel they now have a right to be "respected". They feel they don't have to take any "shit" anymore. From shy and kind, they become assholes. The fact is they just can't handle power. As long as they are under a tight control, it doesn't show too much, but when they are left in charge it's a disaster waiting to happen.
you also have the same problem when those types end up in leadership positions. A lot of these types have, to be fair, been treated like shit by the world as a whole and had their niceness taken advantage of. So as a result, most have some major, unresolved resentments but lack the power to take it out on anyone......until you give them weapons or authority.
Volitions Advocate on 28/8/2012 at 07:02
You make a very valid point Papy. One I can't argue with to be honest. I don't think I would fall into the beta male category, but you bring to mind another debate about vigilante vs. law enforcement and who chooses to be whom (or is it whom chooses to be who? I never get that right). Are private military contractors full of these beta males? I don't want to get into it here, maybe another thread. But interesting topic for debate.
Also, When I was talking about training and licensing, I meant it as a more comprehensive screening process. I realize it would probably never work, but I'd assume you're right about Zimmerman, which is why I wish there was a good enough system in force to have denied him the privilege of owning or carrying a gun.
Vivian on 28/8/2012 at 07:20
Quote Posted by catbarf
Handguns are overwhelmingly the weapons used in crime, not assault rifles or submachine guns.
Quote Posted by Vivian
I mostly mean pistols and pistol like things
*ahem
catbarf on 28/8/2012 at 14:14
Quote Posted by Vivian
*ahem
I know. I read that. What you suggested was restricting not just handguns, but also handgun-like things like submachine guns, as well as assault rifles and 'things in general meant for killing people'.
And there are problems with restricting any of those, as I said. Just to summarize:
-Handguns are the weapons used in crime, but are also the only weapons suitable for self defense. Ban ownership of handguns, and you effectively ban the use of firearms for self defense, while anyone with a black market connection can get one anyways.
-Automatic weapons like submachine guns and full-auto rifles are already very hard to get legally, and are almost never used in crime so there's no point to restriction.
-Assault rifles are almost never used criminally, but are often used legitimately by hunters and for home defense. Again, no point to restriction.
-There is no functional difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle, nor between a target pistol and combat handgun. None. Banning weapons because they look scary is exactly the sort of nonsense the government's been pushing to no effect for the last twenty years.
Chimpy Chompy on 28/8/2012 at 15:52
Quote Posted by Vivian
so it's all cultural and i'm racist because I don't understand the need to own little hand-held weapons that can put a tube of metal straight through your head at 600 meters per second or whatever. Whatever. Guns are gay and getting butthurt about not being able to have one any more (for reasons that don't make any fucking sense) is double gay.
Cultural yeah. I mean America was a frontier society relatively recently. And had that bit written into their constitution. And they have more of an independent-minded thing going on I think - in this context right to self defence as a part of pursuing liberty\happiness etc.
I might be super-generalising, just the impression I get.
Might help to actually try and understand. I used to be really anti-gun myself but I've mellowed slightly, I think we get a bit emotional\knee-jerk in the UK. (Not that I really want this country to be awash with handguns. But we have the luxury of that not already being the case.)
catbarf on 28/8/2012 at 16:33
Quote Posted by Vivian
I'm totally proposing banning the use of handguns for self-defense, yes. Do they even work for that?
Well, yeah. A look at historical crime rates in the United States shows the efficacy of handguns for self-defense, and banning thereof.
Inline Image:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1524/weaponsfr.pngHandguns became heavily restricted in the late 80s, and gun crime shot up almost immediately. The rate of gun violence remained high until the early to mid 90s, (
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif) when states became much more lax about issuing concealed carry permits, and the gun crime rate dropped. Turns out armed citizenry is an effective deterrent to many would-be criminals.
Even today, a quick look at Chicago or Washington DC, where handguns are banned altogether, shows how effective that restriction has been. Banning handguns may work for nations like England (leaving aside their significant non-gun violent crime), but the UK doesn't have a border with Mexico, thriving black market fueled by drug gangs, or long history of gun ownership.
There just isn't any reason to think criminalizing handguns will reduce gun crime. It might eliminate straw purchases, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to what the drug cartels are up to.
Vivian on 28/8/2012 at 16:51
Quote Posted by catbarf
... but the UK doesn't have a long history of gun ownership.
Ha ha, what the fuck. Rest of your post you might be right, dunno (I'm seeing the Brady Act and the anti-assault weapons act in 93 and 94, smack-bang in the middle of that downturn in gun violence you're attributing to more guns and less legislation. I'm not convinced. You don't think maybe the explosion of crack cocaine dealing and use might also be involved in the rise of mid-late 80's inner city gun crime?), but people have owned guns in the UK for as long as there have been guns. The first piece of gun control legislation was in the 1600s.
Anyway, culled off wikipedia:
(
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l703x27114u87372/) Examining Space-Time Interaction in City-Level Homicide Data: Crack Markets and the Diffusion of Guns Among Youth
(
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf) Homicide trends in the United States
Most of that murder spike you're talking about was young inner city kids killing each other, most of them were involved in drug dealing, and most of them were also armed. So, basically, bullshit it was because someone took your guns away and only stopped when they were given back.
