Skronk, read my first post on this thread.

Skronk wrote:This post makes it sound like if you own a gun, you're a gun nut.

No it doesn't.

My post makes it sound like I think the proliferation of concealed, personal weapons in public places is an unlikely antidote to public shootings. I have nothing against guns or gun ownership, as such. I enjoy shooting guns. They have their place and their use, but that place is not city streets and that use is not curtailing homicides.

Andrew L. wrote: They have their place and their use, but that place is not city streets and that use is not curtailing homicides.

I think that this statement deserves a Fuckin' A!

Andrew L. wrote:

blackmarket wrote:

Andrew L. wrote:The people who want to suggest, at every mass shooting and/or gun death, that it's a matter of a lone "psychopathic killer" and in no way related to society and culture, are, in spite of themselves, begging the question: so why does the US produce so many lone psychopathic killers?

I don't think you will find anyone here who supports a right a bear arms deny the root of some of our gun issues directly relates to our culture, to the "glorification" of the gun.

Not true. On this thread, Lemuel implies that this shooting got out of hand because there *weren't enough* guns on the scene. The logic is that more concealed weapons equals 'a fighting chance' for everyone, or whatever. Typical NRA-type argument (which valorizes handgun ownership).

Fact is, states with higher gun-ownership rates have higher homicide rates. Neighborhoods and demographics with higher handgun ownership have higher homicide rates.

Typical right-wing argument, though. People use guns to kill? That's only because not enough people have guns! Capitalism produces poverty? That's only because there's not enough capitalism!

You are full of shit. I live in West Virginia and damn near everyone has a gun...if not a fucking arsenal. Guess what? The state has one of the lowest homicide rates in the U.S., also one of the lowest crime rates as well. But does this have anything to do with gun control laws and/or gun ownership rates? I doubt it. There is an argument that the controversy and division over gun control laws is basically a split between between urban/rural opinions and experiences. For instance, I have lived in both Phoenix, AZ and Houston, TX for some time. Both states had very lax attitudes toward gun-control..actually they're a buch of gun nuts. But in living there I could see the argument for gun control....alot of ridiculous violence. I'm sure the same can be said for L.A, NYC, Chicago...whatever. However, here in WV there is a similar attitude toward guns...very normal to have a gun, carry a gun, own a shitload of guns. But no one really glorifies guns...they're just another tool. The difference is that there isn't alot of violence...why?...for one it's a rural area, the other is that people here own guns for different reasons. Not saying that gun-violence doesn't occur...just not as frequent or under the same circumstances. Living here...I can see the argument that gun-control is a bit restrictive and unnecessary. The irony of today's events, in light of my argument, is that the shootings took place in a very rural area...Blacksburg, VA. Does that mean anything though...not really. Some people are fucked-up and do terrible things. It has nothing to do with guns, gun control, or any of the laws concerning us. Relax.

Skronk do you think everyone who wants one should have the right to own a hydrogen bomb?

Y'know, just in case.

The phrase "the right to bear arms" makes me wonder how far the anti-gun control voices would take this right.

The obvious, cartoon extension of this right would be access to nuclear weapons. "I'm a grown, responsible, adult individual: the government should have no say in whether I own atom bombs." This would be absurd, or course.

But where would you draw the line at this right? Before assault weapons? Rocket launchers? Cluster bombs? I would expect people to bring up common sense, here. However, I am curious to see what people would judge to be common sense. I think that someone here has already said that they would not want to lose the right to have an assault rifle, despite their not wanting one.

For the record, I think that the ownership of automatic weapons should be severely restricted. Outside agricultural, military and (limited) law enforcement use, I don't think they are necessary. I would feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea that fellow citizens possessed concealed firearms.

JC23by5 wrote:You are full of shit.

I fail to see where Andrew was "full of shit" in his comment. You have challenged him on the gun-ownership vs. gun death connection with the W Virginia example, but the "not enough people have guns!" argument is one that I've heard often enough, which is the focus of his own opposition.

The logic of the "more guns!" argument leads to a conclusion that it is in fact one's responsibility as a law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm in order to negate the bad ones. Which is lunatic.

Boombats wrote:

djensen wrote:Any time I see a zombie movie, it makes me consider buying a gun.

Fuck baseball bats and other wimpy zombie killing tools.
(Chainsaws are still cool.)

Hefty short/to/medium lenght swords are also excellent. Katana is #1. Also a really long machete can do the trick. Polearms are good for keeping zombies at bay, although their effectiveness is everely limited indoors.

But nothing beats a shottie.

Depending on the kind of zombie at hand, couldn't a sword be more of a liability than an asset? If they're limb-regenerating zombies, for instance. Or zombies whose severed limbs continue to crawl at you after being lopped off.

I'm just sayin'

Earwicker wrote:Skronk do you think everyone who wants one should have the right to own a hydrogen bomb?

Y'know, just in case.

Snap!

i can't see any serious pros of living in easy gun accsess society, and i have problems with understanding why this system is defended so much.
the "too bad people didn't have guns on the campus" statement blows my mind. yeah, let's have whole lot of panicked students and some rambo wannabies carrying their guns running around trying to take out the killer.
"hey, i saw someone with a gun on the 4th floor"
also, it would make it a lot easier for police to eventually take control over the situation, for sure.
but even on a normal day, i wouldn't want to be any close to a gun-filled student house. unless the US students are far more responsible that polish ones, but i doubt that.
it's similar to "my fella shot his way out of troubles" argument. of course in some cases it can be useful to carry a gun, but on far more occasions people will endup getting them selfs or other people unintentionally hurt. the criminal usually knows how to use a gun far more better than regular joe who keeps one in his closet.
plus the chances of being harassed with a gun are near to non-existent in where i live. i've never heard about a friend of a friend of a friend etc being thretened with a gun. i've never heard a gun shot in my life, all the guns i've seen were carried by cops. i don't recall seeing one gun-store in my life. and this is THANKS to a strict gun policy. if you have gun in every house you will have a lot of guns stolen, therefore out of control so yeah it will be become very easy to buy one on the black market, if you for some reason wan't to avoid going to a store and buying it nearly as easily - so the "if someone wants one, he will get it anyway" stands.
but it doesn't work like that here. police firmly investigates every case when someone was reported to hold (not even use) a gun. each time shots are fired everywhere it hits the news.
in last week there was a very similar story - a young man had a quarrell with a girlfriend. he went to the highhschool she attended and stabbed her with a knife in a rampage, then he tried attacking other people. the girl died. guess what would have happend if he had a gun in his house or available in every mall.
so get rid of them, crminialize them, make people give them away. it would take a lot of effort but it can be done. sure that some people are responsible enough, but hey - i like explosions and blowing stuff up but i don't call for TNT to be legally available for everyone. i give my personal freedom to responsibly blow things up away in exchange for confidence that my house won't be blown up by some iditot. i feel the same way about guns.
oh and "new york has strict gun policy but still a lot crimes with guns involved take place there" is bogus. how hard is to transit a gun into the city, from the other state even?

edit: the onion's spot on take on the situation.

the onion wrote:Timothy should be held up as an example to people who think we don't need these bullets—or fully automatic assault weapons, or concealable handguns which are impervious to metal detectors, for that matter," said NRA president Charlton Heston, who plans to congratulate Cummings in person as soon as he is through lobbying for Senate repeal of recently passed legislation mandating background checks for gun buyers.

"If we ban teflon-coated bullets, automatic weapons would be next," Heston said. "Then all handguns. Next thing you know, the law would deny our citizens' children the personal freedom to blow holes through their own legs."

there is no reason handguns should be legal anywhere, not to mention semi automatics or others.

Skronk wrote:
What about a city like New York? It has some of the tightest laws on the books, yet homicide is still a major occurrence. Albeit, not what it once was, thank God.

I was under the impression that the murder rate in New York is actually low for a US city. I think that I heard David Simon (producer of the Wire - one of those pesky liberals!) state that more people were depicted as being killed in New York on television in one particular year (in the current decade) than were actually killed in New York in that year.

A quick search has given me this Department of Justice sitewhich gives regional trends in murder rates.

I would bear in mind the maxim about there being lies, damned lies, and statistics in reading too much into this. A search on google for "US homicide rates gun control" led to pages contradicting each other, all using statistics.

Regarding the Second Amendment, here's the quote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As a gun bearer, do you feel like a member of a Militia? The context seems inappropriate unless you are pushing for secession or replacement of the current armed forces.

sparky wrote:Regarding the Second Amendment, here's the quote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

i think clocker bob got it right. it doesn't say you have to be in a militia to bear arms.
btw, people actually defend this stuff? militias keeping a free state secure? it is outdated by at least 100 years, no?