VTech

Pages

AuthorTopic: VTech
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #50
Illegal guns begin as legal guns, generally. More legal guns means more opportunity for people to get illegal guns.

Yes, some people are determined and will always get what they want no matter how illegal it is. But some people are just stupid kids who think guns are cool.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #51
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. That's a restriction on your liberty, yet you aren't out in the streets protesting it.
Incorrect. You lack the right to cause a false alarm. Everyone has the right to announce a fire exists.

quote:
We already recognize that there is some amount of reasonable restriction on our liberty, and the only real question is how much for what benefit.
Such actions are taken very infrequently, and certainly for greater cause than this.
quote:
The benefits of people having guns seem minimal. The real benefits (self-defense, for example) could be achieved by other means.
You seem uniquely qualified to make a statement like that. I assume you have studied this in-depth, conducting numerous interviews with actual gun owners, and have summarily decided that they are all idiots, for they own something that lacks benefit. How gracious of you to take such a parental attitude. :rolleyes:

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #52
Speaking of which, it is remarkable how many people shift dramatically in their poltiical views and attitudes when they finally have a family of their own to consider, or become the victim of violation in their own home or rape at knifepoint in an alley. Anyone proposing the disarming of the law-abiding against such possibilities might do well to immerse themselves in that side of the reality.

-S-

--------------------
A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #53
We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #54
Guns would be woefully ineffective at protecting ourselves from our government. They have far more effective ways to kill us if they wanted to and guns could do little.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #55
But Tully, if we are armed, how do you expect to successfully execute your coup to become dictator?

-S-

--------------------
A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #56
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Illegal guns begin as legal guns, generally. More legal guns means more opportunity for people to get illegal guns.
Short of banning the manufacture, distribution, ownership, possession, or use of firearms by anyone, there is no way to keep them from people who get them through illegal means. Countless thousands of military weapons have gone missing over the years. Thousands of police issue weapons have been lost. Reduce the motive to use/possess a gun illegally, and there will be fewer illegally possessed guns.

Edit: Tully, don't be silly. We all know that the government thinks you are mostly harmless.

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 16:12: Message edited by: Spent Salmon ]

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #57
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I am wondering aloud why does it not, and what does this say for American values?
And the answer that you received is that it says nothing about American values and much more about the nature of emergency situations. At least one person, maybe more, sacrificed his own life at the Virginia Tech shooting to save many others, as I indicated with the article that I linked, so I would be hesitant to condemn the valor of the thirty-two victims at this shooting.
quote:
Originally written by Spent Salmon:

You seem uniquely qualified to make a statement like that. I assume you have studied this in-depth, conducting numerous interviews with actual gun owners, and have summarily decided that they are all idiots, for they own something that lacks benefit. How gracious of you to take such a parental attitude. :rolleyes:
Don't be a jerk. Having guns may bring benefits. But judged in relation to saving people's lives, those benefits are minimal. That's what I actually said, not whatever you thought you read.

If you disagree, make a real argument and quit trolling.
quote:
Such actions are taken very infrequently, and certainly for greater cause than this.
Greater cause than saving thousands of lives each year? What on earth are you talking about?

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 16:16: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #58
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I am wondering aloud why does it not, and what does this say for American values?
And the answer that you received is that it says nothing about American values and much more about the nature of emergency situations.
Because our values play no role in how we behave in threatening situations? Really now. That's quite a pronouncement. Can't say I agree with that assessment of the human being.

-S-

--------------------
A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #59
quote:
Originally written by Spent Salmon:

quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Illegal guns begin as legal guns, generally. More legal guns means more opportunity for people to get illegal guns.
Short of banning the manufacture, distribution, ownership, possession, or use of firearms by anyone, there is no way to keep them from people who get them through illegal means. Countless thousands of military weapons have gone missing over the years. Thousands of police issue weapons have been lost. Reduce the motive to use/possess a gun illegally, and there will be fewer illegally possessed guns.

Edit: Tully, don't be silly. We all know that the government thinks you are mostly harmless.

The objective is to make illegal guns LESS AVAILABLE rather than UNAVAILABLE. The latter is clearly impossible. But the former is both POSSIBLE and BENEFICIAL. Not every criminal who uses a gun is determined, well-connected, or particularly bright.

Reread that a few times till you get it.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #60
While I agree Ash, having less guns would make some criminals less likelly to have them. However, I sincerely doubt that tighter gun control laws would have prevented this trajedy, not that you were suggesting that. When a person intends to kill, and in large numbers, they will get the guns regardless.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #61
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Don't be a jerk. Having guns may bring benefits. But judged in relation to saving people's lives, those benefits are minimal. That's what I actually said, not whatever you thought you read.

If you disagree, make a real argument and quit trolling.

Actually, Slith was trolling and I took the bait. Using the tragedy at Virginia Tech to champion the disarming of all America seems a little extreme. As to arguing, I'm not. You are welcome to your opinion about gun ownership. But when assessing benefits, please restrict yourself to a statement that you don't find ownership to be a benefit. Countless Americans do find it to have benefits, and to imply otherwise is discounting their intelligence.
quote:
Greater cause than saving thousands of lives each year? What on earth are you talking about?
How about smoking? While I realize that wiki is a crappy resource,
this seems to indicate that your impression of gun related fatalities is a little off. I'm sure with a little more digging, a person could assess how many violent gun crimes were perpetrated by the owners of legally obtained firearms or legally owned rifles, or illegally obtained weapons.

I agree that guns as a vehicle for violence is a thing that should be stopped. I just happen to think that exploring the roots of the problem is a lot more helpful to society than changing the means. But that's just my attitude.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Guardian
Member # 5360
Profile #62
quote:
As to arguing, I'm not. You are welcome to your opinion about gun ownership. But when assessing benefits, please restrict yourself to a statement that you don't find ownership to be a benefit. Countless Americans do find it to have benefits, and to imply otherwise is discounting their intelligence.


What benefits? Nald is just curious, mind you, and not taking any sides here.

--------------------
May the fires of Undeath burn in your soul, and consume it.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #63
quote:
Originally written by Spokesmage of the Dead:

What benefits? Nald is just curious, mind you, and not taking any sides here.
As it seems I am in the vocal minority, I'll just point out I've already answered that question. You may not see benefit where I see benefit, and that is fine. Taking guns away from me is not going to save any lives. Taking guns away from me is not going to change anything, except that I don't get to do certain things that are legal in this state and country. My weapons are not readily stolen, as that is a problem.

Looking back, I mispoke and erred in calling out Enraged Slith as a troller. He specified handguns, and I combined his post with the one above (Goldenking) in my mind when I replied. It was to Goldenking that I levy the charge of trolling, as his sole contribution to a thread expressing concern for fellow Spiderweb enthusiasts and later to the students, friends, and familes of VTech, was a call for modification of the Bill of Rights. Again, E. Slith, I apologize for the slander.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #64
I agree with you, Salmon, but you clearly know this issue better than I do, and it looks as if any argument would be the equivalent of banging one's head against a steel wall. The only thing that would result in either case is a severe headache.

--------------------
I tried to think of something witty to put here.

Needless to say, I failed.
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
Agent
Member # 27
Profile #65
No worries. What about collapsible stocks? I'm pretty sure those were legalized in America a few years back (that or they were failed to be outlawed). They essentially allow a person to sneak a full automatic rifle into a public area under their coats.

EDIT:
quote:
Taking guns away from me is not going to save any lives.
Yeah, probably not, but guns seem to add this extra level of uneccesary tension. In a society where guns are a common product, its dangerous not to own one. If bad people are able to use these weapons against you, why place yourself at a disadvantage? We should just arm everyone, so everytime someone pulls a gun on someone else *BLAM* disaster prevented. Not counting the accidents, the problem would be solved forever.

As you all know, guns are a means. People will do bad things regardless of whether or not they have guns, but why provide them the means in the first place? Why make it easy?

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 17:48: Message edited by: Enraged Slith ]
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #66
(Answering Slith)

A month or so ago, there was a fellow that wrote for Outdoors magazine who made a statement on his weblog to the effect that AR-15 rifles should not be allowed for hunting. A huge number of gun owners took offense to that, as did certain manufacturers who were sponsoring this guy. Short story, he was fired, disgraced, and spent a bunch of effort back pedaling.

I agreed with him. AR-15s are marketed as a hunting rifle for "varmints." You know, the crap that you don't want to eat, but just feel like shooting because it is alive and perhaps within your shooting range. They look (because they are copies) like the M-15. They look like assault weapons. I don't want to be walking down a logging road (with my pistol in its holster) and turn the corner to come across a group of camo-clad hunters carrying what look like assault weapons. I wouldn't freak out, but imagine that a city person might do that.

I got quite a bit of flack for supporting (a) Jim Zumbo's right to have his opinion, and (b) his position that AR-15s shouldn't be used because they look too much like assault weapons. I supported him because hunters and gun owners are finding that some people don't want anyone to own guns, and it seemed like a reasonable way of improving the common perception of hunters.

I think of myself as a hunter, rather than a gun owner. I choose the gun as my tool because I lack the stealth to archery hunt and I believe I could get a cleaner kill with a rifle. I own a semi-automatic weapon though. It is a Remington 740 and is about 50 years old. Each time I pull the trigger, a bullet leaves the barrel. Well, up to 4 times, since that is the capacity of the weapon. It looks like a hunting rifle, yet it is a semi. Honestly, if I had the money I would get a bolt-action rifle since I think they are more practical. But this is a decent tool, and has put a lot of food on my table.

I guess I don't understand the mentality that drives a person to own a weapon merely for the sake of ownership, but I will never stand in their way if it is legal. That is the part about being American I like. I get to do my thing because it causes no harm to others, and I don't bother other people for their hobbies unless it is causing harm to me. :)

Edit- Legal purchase of firearms creates very few criminals. Unfortunately some do get stolen from legal owners for various reasons. Responsible owners make sure that it is very difficult to steal weapons, and disable them as well. I do. I don't really know what tension you are talking about though. You should realize that I live in the country, with < 20 houses per square mile. The closest town is 2000 people, and is 7 miles away. I don't carry a weapon unless I am going hiking, fishing, or hunting. There is no point otherwise.

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 18:16: Message edited by: Spent Salmon ]

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
Profile Homepage #67
How typical to have a topic about a tragic event turn into a political debate. That's spiderweb for you.
My two cents:
I've never really cared about the right to own weapons, since I own none and have no intention to buy any. Thus it is very easy for me to call for the banning of firearms. I would probably feel very differently if I was a hunter. Non hunting weapons are a lot harder for me to find justification for. I cannot see why any law abiding person other than a bank teller or a convenience store worker would need a gun for self defense.

--------------------
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein
--------------------
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #68
quote:
Originally written by Spent Salmon:

While I realize that wiki is a crappy resource,
this seems to indicate that your impression of gun related fatalities is a little off.

I don't know why you said this. If you click on "gun violence" and find the United States, you find 3.6 firearm homicides per 100,000 people, which, multiplied by the U.S.'s population of approximately 300,000,000, produces 10,800. That's ten thousand per year, and while it was a few years back, I don't think that gun violence has dropped by orders of magnitude in the past couple of years, although if I'm not mistaken it has declined somewhat. Indeed, according to this article, guns were involved in "68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005," which comes out to 8,916 in a year.

As for the rest of it, I don't know if we have any common ground upon which even to begin a conversation, so I think I'm going to leave this one alone.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #69
My wife and I had a conversation this morning about individuals not acting to try to take the gunman down. Synergy, you questioned the nature of our societal values, but I think what really happens within our minds during such situations taps into something nested a little deeper - our instincts. And our instincts probably haven't evolved to account for dealing with a gunman. We are pretty programmed to look out for number one, and to do so predominantly through flight; I think the only stronger instinctual impulse is to protect one's family. I think what this demonstrates, however, is that nature tends not to reward heroes.

Regardless of your intent, your post definitely came across as questioning the courage of the victims, which is why it received the reaction it did.

And Salmon, you really don't have a speech right, at least according to natural law, to raise a false alarm (unless we're going to get all Hobbes and establish that there's no such thing as rights except in society, but that undercuts your expressed liberty interests in gun ownership). Further, I would say that right to life does trump other liberty interests, since without life, which the taking of is the biggest no-no in natural law, no one can enjoy liberty.

[ Wednesday, April 18, 2007 13:45: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #70
I'd like to take a step back, and point out that this topic has very quickly generated angry (or otherwise fairly impassioned) posts from a number of posters. This must be pretty sensitive stuff.

Synergy is right, I think, about values playing a role in emergency reactions, though I would maybe say personality or psychology rather than just values. Drew is also right. What we do is mostly instinct, but we also make choices that draw on bare bones, deep-seated pieces of our values and personality. People often talk about the "fight-or-flight" reaction. Well, what do you think determines whether you choose fight or flight? It's an instinctual choice, it's not something you ruminate on, but it will be different for different people.

That said, I also agree that Synergy is off his rocker for suggesting that tackling the gunman would be successful. Almost no one will choose to "fight" in a very dangerous situation if it doesn't look likely to succeed, no matter what their values are.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
Profile Homepage #71
It doesn't actually matter unless anyone here is involved in government decision-making, but now is probably the worst time in ages to have an actual rational discussion about gun ownership. It leads to way too much focus on one event.

--------------------
Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram.

desperance.net - Don't follow this link
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #72
I was living in Montreal when something nearly as bad happened there, nearly 20 years ago now. I was nowhere near the actual event, just studying at another school in the same city. At the time I was also an officer in a reserve infantry unit. The fantasy that kept running through my mind then came back now, of course: that if I had been there with a few of my buddies, we could have taken the guy down. Quite likely some of us would have been killed, but he couldn't have gotten all of us before we got him, and a lot of people would have been saved.

But the reason we could have done it was that any one of us could have shouted a few words and there would have been an instant common plan. And crucially: we would all have known that the other guys would be with us.

Yeah, maybe if it had really happened that way, I would only have been horribly (and perhaps fatally) disappointed in my friends, or in myself.

But if I had been the lone military guy in a room full of civilian victims, it would have been an awful lot harder to convince myself to try anything, since I would have been pretty sure that I'd end up as the one guy rushing the shooter.

Maybe a bunch of sports teammates could pull it off, too. But you'd need a reliable team, of some kind, already formed. You can't get a bunch of strangers to run into gunfire on a moment's notice. Humans aren't like that.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7331
Profile Homepage #73
Yeah, I think that's why gunmen aren't rushed, except by people who know they can trust each other.

--------------------
You Shall Die Laughing: http://www.worfthecat.ermarian.net/converted

The Roost: www.roost01.proboards104.com. Birds of a feather flock together.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #74
The purpose of having a gun is to defend yourself. For example, how would the people in Virginia Tech have defended themselves without a gun. They could charge but that would end up bloody, they could throw something but it isn't likely to prevent the shooter from firing. If the people have guns, then they can effectively defend themselves.

Enacting stricter gun control laws will make things worse. Criminals will still gain possesion of guns, and the law-abiding citizens will often be incapable from defending themselves from a gun-wielding attacker, as it would be difficult for them to obtain one. So stricter gun control laws will give the innocent general public less possibilities to defend themselves, and allow criminals to commit gun related crimes with less difficulty.

America's carelessness has allowed its culture to glorify violence, and its government to become corrupt. Many parents allow their children to play games containing graphic material at a young age, or watch movies with violence or explicit sexual scenes. When pubescent and pre-pubescent individuals engage in such activities for entertainment, violent or sexually explicit images are implanted in their developing minds, and as their minds develop, those images still stay. Therefore, it often convinces them that it's ok. Only mature people should play M games or watch R movies. In my opinion, the government or parents should take responsibility and prevent the youth of America by being corrupted through such forms of media.

--------------------
WWJD?
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00

Pages