I'm all for gun control

[jj]

I think everyone who wants to get a gun should have to watch a half-hour film on what guns do to people, and I mean up close, including the big exit holes, the blood, the crying relatives, etc.

And anyone who salivates excessively or has their plesmethogram show a strong reaction should not get a gun.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

OK, on the off chance that you mean it.

I've studied various martial arts off and on throught my life, but I've never been involved in more than a scuffle with a beligerent drunk. I hope I never have to hurt anyone as long as I live. Should martial artists "have to watch a half-hour film on what [blunt head trauma can] do to people, and I mean up close, including the [brain damage], the blood, the crying relatives, etc.

And anyone who salivates excessively or has their plesmethogram show a strong reaction should not get a [martial arts training]."

Replace those references with automobile references, if you prefer.

I too support gun control, but come on, is this the best you've got?

 

[jj]

OK, on the off chance that you mean it.

Unh... Errr. You did see the at the end, yeah?

I am MILDLY serious about the last part, if somebody 'gets it on' by seeing people get hurt, I don't want them to have a gun.

Your attempt at a slippery slope, on the other hand, fails mightily on the question of how much damage from how far with how much ease, and as such, is a ludicrous straw man in any case.

 

[Drewbot]

I think everyone who wants to get a gun should have to watch a half-hour film on what guns do to people, and I mean up close, including the big exit holes, the blood, the crying relatives, etc.

I would say to this, anyone who wants to keep responsible law-abiding people from choosing to get a gun for protection, should probably read about the Petit family http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19957752/

As to your points:

If someone is in your house, about to harm you or your family, then they are up close. I wouldn't need a video to see what I would do to them.

Big Exit holes- if someone is about to harm my family, I want the biggest holes I can get. You could use bird shot, and have a lot of small superficial holes, but that would probably just make someone intent on hurting your family- angry.

Blood- having some blood on your floor is probably a small price to pay, for being able to protect your family.

Crying relatives- Hopefully the monster that was about to harm one of my loved ones, has someone to cry for him.

 

[Jimbo07]

I'm all for proper gun control:

- always keep your weapon pointed downrange
- know your drills
- don't jerk the trigger
- etc.

Your attempt at a slippery slope, on the other hand, fails mightily on the question of how much damage from how far with how much ease, and as such, is a ludicrous straw man in any case.

Bingo. In old-timey days a person had to train for a long time to become a competent martial artist (read: swordsman, samurai, knight, longbowman, etc.) With a 9 mm, any member of the great unwashed becomes a menace, even if they're a bad shot!

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I think a lot of 'gun control' intent could be achieved without direct government involvement by simply requiring that everyone who owns a handgun carry liability insurance for it. This is similar in principal to requiring that anyone who drives a car have insurance in case they injure anyone else with their vehicle--intentionally or not. Similarly, careless gun use can injure innocent 3rd parties, and the careless users should be required to have the means to compensate the victims / heirs of victims.
What this would do is get the major insurers involved in figuring out who would be a 'low-risk' versus a 'high-risk' gun owner, and further, it would get some good analysis of what kinds of trigger locks/gun safes/safety training actually works in terms of reducing risk. All without the government dictating how higher safety levels would be attained.

I grew up in a house with guns, and I'd have much rather reached into the fireplace and grabbed a burning log than have touched one of my Dad's weapons without permission. He also gave us a most effective "gun effects" lesson: He showed us a coyote he'd pegged with a 30.06 from across the valley. The left side of the coyote had a bullet hole in the ribcage behind the front leg; there was no right side of the coyote, really.
I'll never point a gun--empty or not--at anything I'm not willing to put a round into.

I believe passionately in our right to bear arms--but that doesn't give you the right to be careless or stupid with deadly force that can penetrate your wall and kill or maim your neighbor. So I think getting the free market involved in assessing risk is of benefit to all parties involved.

Just my thoughts, Miss Kitt

 

[jj]

I would say to this, anyone who wants to keep responsible law-abiding people from choosing to get a gun for protection, should probably read about the Petit family http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19957752/

Perhaps your rush to defend your right to murder and maim got ahead of you there.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Do you think people who "get one one" when viewing harm to others should have guns?
2) Do you think people who see "food" when they see injured humans should have guns?

In case you haven't noticed, I've very deliberately set a very, very low, and very easy (for most of us at least) standard to pass.

But for some reason, you appear angry with me.

 

[1337m4n]

Perhaps your rush to defend your right to murder and maim got ahead of you there.

But for some reason, you appear angry with me.

I tend to get angry at people who accuse me of wanting to "murder and maim" regardless of what their political beliefs are.

 

[Matt Black]

1) Do you think people who "get one one" when viewing harm to others should have guns?

Err...huh?

2) Do you think people who see "food" when they see injured humans should have guns?

Sure. Everyone should have a gun.



The problem with gun control is that criminals don't obey the law, whoa . Think I'm on to something here, wait...

 

[Oliver]

I think everyone who wants to get a gun should have to watch a half-hour film on what guns do to people, and I mean up close, including the big exit holes, the blood, the crying relatives, etc.

And anyone who salivates excessively or has their plesmethogram show a strong reaction should not get a gun.

BLASPHEMY!!!

[/churchofnra]

 

[Quad4_72]

Perhaps your rush to defend your right to murder and maim got ahead of you there.

That's a very stupid, silly statement and you know it.

 

[jj]

That's a very stupid, silly statement and you know it.

Guns are for killing. So it's nothing silly. It's what they are for, after all, aside from target weapons (which which I have no problem as long as they are aimed at targets...).

My OP is in fact a stunningly low bar for gun ownership, but here we see almost-rabid responses.

In fact, my point was that the bar should be very, very low, and what's funny is that it's the pro-gun people who are going ballistic here.

Well, except for a couple of them who show rather a lot of evidence of a clue, that is...

But my point was simple, and it's almost funny how people misread it. My point is that nearly everyone who is willing TO BE RESPONSIBLE should be able to have a gun. Yes, I would like to sort out some very unusual kinds of sadists and cannibals. That is, after all, what I sorted out. And what I sorted out is, Virginia, a very, very small element of the population.

 

[jj]

I tend to get angry at people who accuse me of wanting to "murder and maim" regardless of what their political beliefs are.

I said no such thing. The fact you think so shows either your inability to understand simple words OR your intent to "frame the debate" in terms that one can attempt to use as faux-insult so that one can pick a fight.

So, was it miscomprehension, or were you trying to pick a fight? Either way, I submit that creates a very serious question here about your ability to correctly handle deadly force.

A hint: Your (or anyone's) desire to have the RIGHT to have a tool that can murder and maim does not in any way, shape, or form imply that you have a DESIRE to do so. The claim otherwise is due to your own misinterpretation.

 

[gtc]

your intent to "frame the debate"

I hate the term but you are the one rushing to frame the debate. In all jurisdictions I have come across, killing someone in self defence is not murder.

So, was it miscomprehension, or were you trying to pick a fight? Either way, I submit that creates a very serious question here about your ability to correctly handle deadly force.

Oh BS. He did neither but misunderstanding you or picking a fight on the internet has no relevance when it comes to someone's suitability to own a gun.

A hint: Your (or anyone's) desire to have the RIGHT to have a tool that can murder and maim does not in any way, shape, or form imply that you have a DESIRE to do so. The claim otherwise is due to your own misinterpretation.

Your words are clear. You were not talking about his right to have a tool that could murder or maim you suggested he was claiming the right to murder or maim.

Perhaps your rush to defend your right to murder and maim got ahead of you there.

 

[1337m4n]

I said no such thing. The fact you think so shows either your inability to understand simple words OR your intent to "frame the debate" in terms that one can attempt to use as faux-insult so that one can pick a fight.

So, was it miscomprehension, or were you trying to pick a fight? Either way, I submit that creates a very serious question here about your ability to correctly handle deadly force.

A hint: Your (or anyone's) desire to have the RIGHT to have a tool that can murder and maim does not in any way, shape, or form imply that you have a DESIRE to do so. The claim otherwise is due to your own misinterpretation.

Perhaps your rush to defend your right to murder and maim got ahead of you there.

I don't see the word "tool" anywhere in there smart guy. The only one here trying to pick a fight is you. You are obviously trying to provoke a hostile reaction from people or else you would have not used the language "murder and maim". Where I come from this practice is known as "trolling".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion

 

[luchog]

1) Do you think people who "get one one" when viewing harm to others should have guns?
2) Do you think people who see "food" when they see injured humans should have guns?

In case you haven't noticed, I've very deliberately set a very, very low, and very easy (for most of us at least) standard to pass.

It's stupid to just stop there. Think of all the damage and suffering that could be avoided if that policy were expanded to it's natural conclusion? Every single person should undergo periodic and extensive psychological evaluation, and their privileges adjusted depending on how they test. Anyone showing even the slightest affection for children should be prohibited from being allowed to work with them (actually, this would explain many of my teachers). Anyone who shows even the slightest tendency toward violence should be immediately sent to re-education camps. Anyone with who shows a prediliction for drug use should be subjected to weekly drug testing. Anyone with anti-authoritarian attitude should be prohibited from any sort of public expression of opinion. Anyone with homosexual tendencies should be institutionalized for proper therapy. Anyone with even the slightest tendency toward libertarianism should be hauled out into the streets and shot.

Thought Police FTW!

 

[gtc]

In fact, my point was that the bar should be very, very low, and what's funny is that it's the pro-gun people who are going ballistic here.

No one is going ballistic about your proposal. Your proposal is sadistic and a stunningly bad idea. Mandated training prior to owning a licence (much as we do for vehicles) and mandated safe and secure storage of weapons strikes me as being more likely to be effective than forcing people to watch sadistic and exploitative films.

It is your suggestion that people are demanding the right to murder and your suggestion that people who have disagreed with you on the internet are unsuitable to possess weapons seems to be what is generating the heat in this thread. These are also completely irrelevant to the topic. I hope you know this and are just trolling because it doesn't reflect well on you otherwise.

 

[1337m4n]

Guns are for killing. So it's nothing silly. It's what they are for, after all, aside from target weapons (which which I have no problem as long as they are aimed at targets...).

You did not say "killing". You said "murder". You are committing a non-sequiter fallacy--not all killing is murder.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

Main Entry:
1mur·der
Pronunciation:
\ˈmər-dər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date:
before 12th century
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

My OP is in fact a stunningly low bar for gun ownership, but here we see almost-rabid responses.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

In fact, my point was that the bar should be very, very low

Really? I don't remember you ever writing anything like that. Perhaps you could quote yourself where you said that.

and what's funny is that it's the pro-gun people who are going ballistic here.

I think it's funny that you can't answer a simple question about whether or not you have stopped beating your wife yet.

But my point was simple, and it's almost funny how people misread it.

Perhaps people "misread" it because you said the exact opposite of what your point was supposed to be. How were we supposed to know that when you said "Gun owners want the right to murder and maim", what you ACTUALLY meant was "Gun owners are really nice people"?

 

[jj]

You guys are funny. "right to do 'x'" does not imply 'desire to do "X"'

Get real.

 

[jj]

It is your suggestion that people are demanding the right to murder

Nice attempt at defining what I said.

But bzzzzt.

Nowhere have I said anyone WANTS to. That's what the previous individual went all fantastical about.