The W
Views: 100932128
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.11.07 0240
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Thinking Rationally About Guns Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2055 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (39 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 232/4700
EXP: 21669553
For next: 167109

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1305 days
Last activity: 1102 days
#1 Posted on 27.8.02 0824.12
Reposted on: 27.8.09 0829.06
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3499

The above is a letter to the editor from 1981 written by fiction authro Chip Elliot in response to an anti-gun diatribe in Esquire magazine. Don't dismiss the websource, as this was published in Esquire back in 1981.

I know a lot of people are either rabidly for gun rights or against, but I hope this sparks off a debate and maybe gets people to reconsider what it is they believe.
Promote this thread!
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 102/561
EXP: 895077
For next: 52247

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 118 days
Last activity: 118 days
#2 Posted on 27.8.02 1143.14
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1150.36
I'll be the first one here to acknowledge i am a fairly recent addition to the ranks of the card carrying members of the NRA. I am not a gun owner, but would like to have my 2nd amendment rights protected for that day when I do have something worth protecting with a firearm.

there's lots of cool benefits you get for being a member, like 30% off discounts at various hotels. but jeez louise! the NRA sends TONS of mail. I've got this huge pile of it I haven't been able to get to yet.


MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 592/2109
EXP: 6645791
For next: 4899

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 56 min.
#3 Posted on 27.8.02 1202.37
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1209.10
Ilikedthe article. I think it was written for a different time period than right now though. My own thoughts on gun control are essentially this: Do Gun's yes, fine. Don Gun's no, fine. Do gun's 'guess so,' get squished, like grape. I don't worry about the people that have guns that know how to use them, that have been raised with them, or even hadn't but still respect them. And I don't worry about the people without guns that don't want them (like me). But there are a lot of idiots out there that get jumpy (and that's being generous, sometimes it's just for norational reason at all), figure they should buy a gun, and end up shooting their kid in the middle of the night because they thought it was a robber. They think having a gun makes everything OK. Having a gun doesn't make you able to protect yourself and family anymore than having a car makes you able to drive. They are both tools that can have unintended deadly results very easily, and the government needs to make damn sure that people with these tools know how to use them right and respect them. A lot more than they do now, at least in some states. I would love it if we were either like Switzerland, where EVERYONE has a gun *and respects and knows how to use it) and there is no gun violence, or like Japan, where NOBODY has a gun and there is no gun violence. But we're in the middle, and the resulting astronomic gun fatality numbers reflect that.

As for crime, that article was written for a different time. Here in New York, crime wasn't slashed dramatically by everyone starting to carry guns. It was done by a change in the essential attitudes of the people, police, and criminals.

Crime isn't thought of anymore as 'just something inevitable that you have to put up with in the city,' like traffic jams and summertime heat. It is now viewed as something not normal. It can no longer be explained away as 'that's just part of living in New York.' That's led to citizens, polititians, and police chiefs not putting up with inadiquate police work or protection. That's lead to criminals (and potential criminals) knowing that there's really nothing they can get away with anymore. And that's how criminals work: they'll do whatever they think they can get away with. Nothing else works except to show then that they can't. This leads to the cops jobs actually being easier, it leads to more people out at night, more businesses open, making it a lot harder for criminals to work. The first mayor with a rise in crime is getting booted. It's that simple now. Now that we know it can be done, there are no more excuses. We won't put up with it.

This wasn't accomplished by more guns. It was accomplished by a change in culture and attitude, which is what we needed.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 233/4700
EXP: 21669553
For next: 167109

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1305 days
Last activity: 1102 days
#4 Posted on 27.8.02 1324.59
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1329.01
Moe, I agree with some(but not all) of your points. NYC's crime drop was not due to guns, but I do believe that the Sullivan Laws of 1911(which heavily restricted gun ownership in NYC) had something to do with the rise in crime(much like England's crime rate has rocketed through the roof since the ban of 1996)....Japan's crime rate is lower becuase of the culture over there. Other than that, pretty rational.
Stephanie
Landjager
Level: 63

Posts: 419/946
EXP: 1997470
For next: 99693

Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 557 days
Last activity: 26 days
#5 Posted on 27.8.02 1400.14
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1401.50

"Guns don't kill people. Apes with guns kill people."
- Robin Williams as Charlton Heston

OK, I read the article. The author's viewpoint is the easy viewpoint, one that appeals to everyone's inner caveman: If someone threatens you, shoot them. Or knife them. Or poke them with a pointed stick. (image removed)

You can kill or maim these toughs all you want, but it's like clipping buds off of dandelions - the roots remain, and produces more buds. What must be done is to strike out the roots of this problem - the overriding importance of possessions and the loss of respect.

From near the time of birth, the youth of today are taught that the greatest act they can do is to satiate their egos with possessions - money, cars, jewelry, etc. A permissive society has allowed them to seek these goods by any means possible. Stealing, cheating, lying - they occur routinely among today's youth. Those who should be able to redirect their goals - police, teachers, parents - have been told not to stifle these children's creativity, lest that affect them later in life. If they interfere, they're labelled "poor facilitators" or - if they raise a hand to the little dears - "child abusers". As a result, nobody respects anyone else.

Guns are not the answer. Police allowed to lay hands on young scofflaws would be better. Teachers allowed to raise their voices without fearing for their jobs is better. Parents who care more about their kids than their possessions are the answer. Parents who can discipline their children without fear of legal reprisals and the loss of their children are the answer.

Am I advocating wide-scale oppression of children, or recommending that they be hung upside down and beat with briars? Not in the least. I'm saying that a policeman should be able to break up a group of punks and turn them over to their *involved* parents to discipline. I'm saying that teachers should be able to discipline (not necessarily *hit*) children in school and have the parents back up their actions. Most of all, I'm asking that parents be *involved* in their children's lives - put them before their monetary desires and selfish needs. Give them love, give them encouragement, give them interest, but don't be afraid to give them a spanking if they deserve it.

Will this happen? It will take a commitment of time, of money, and of interest. Many seem to think that's too much to ask - that a $200 handgun is a cheaper solution. But it's a poor short-term solution, and an even worse long-term solution. Only by changing the playfield - *before* the child gets a chance to mark out a territory - will there truly be an improved quality of life for all.

Steph

P.S. WAKE UP! (image removed)

(edited by Stephanie on 27.8.02 1421)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 234/4700
EXP: 21669553
For next: 167109

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1305 days
Last activity: 1102 days
#6 Posted on 27.8.02 1453.21
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1459.01
....combined with more guns. The stuff about the kids is dead on. But violence and war is part of the state of nature. Throughout time individuals have had a right and a need to defend themselves, whetehr by sticks, stones, pickaxes, swords, muskets or handguns.
Stephanie
Landjager
Level: 63

Posts: 420/946
EXP: 1997470
For next: 99693

Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 557 days
Last activity: 26 days
#7 Posted on 27.8.02 1525.09
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1529.03
Kids are impressionable, and guns make a big impression. You can't tell a child not to use guns one day and then ventilate a punk with your revolver the next day. If we are truly the higher beings we claim we are, we should be able to form a system that can settle our grievances without weapons. It won't be quick, and it won't be easy, to set up such a system. However, it's the right thing to do, and its' long-term consequences are preferable to an armed mob of a population.

Steph
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 236/4700
EXP: 21669553
For next: 167109

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1305 days
Last activity: 1102 days
#8 Posted on 27.8.02 1539.42
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1539.42

    Originally posted by Stephanie
    Kids are impressionable, and guns make a big impression. You can't tell a child not to use guns one day and then ventilate a punk with your revolver the next day.[quotend]

    If kids are told that guns are not toys and should only be used for defensive purposes and hunting(like they started on this continent in 1607) they the impression is one of respect and not opportunity.


    If we are truly the higher beings we claim we are, we should be able to form a system that can settle our grievances without weapons. It won't be quick, and it won't be easy, to set up such a system. However, it's the right thing to do, and its' long-term consequences are preferable to an armed mob of a population.


We're not. We have primal instincts that tell us to fight. There will always be violence. There will always be crime. And there will always be a need to defend one's self or else anarchy will rule. Please refer to this:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings080202.asp

for further proof that a gunless society is a dangerous place.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 715/3273
EXP: 12825444
For next: 265909

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 234 days
Last activity: 35 days
#9 Posted on 27.8.02 1556.20
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1559.02
Okay, to note: I'm not a gun advocate. I would appreciate it if the people who had guns actually respected them, or didn't have them at all. Anyway here's a thought:

(Note, I completely lost the phrasing I was going to use, so this might not make sense)

Guns are elitist. When you use them to defend yourself and your territory you only end up using them against poor people who can only try to steal from you physically. But what about all those employees that lost their jobs and their pensions because Enron basically stole it from them? I'm sure some of those employees are gun-owners, yet not a single one of them has defended that Pension, by shooting one of those accountants.

Errr. Anyway, maybe that expressed what I was trying to say, maybe not. It was a thought.

-Jag

Stephanie is having fun with smiley's lately...
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 103/561
EXP: 895077
For next: 52247

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 118 days
Last activity: 118 days
#10 Posted on 27.8.02 1651.40
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1659.07
I agree with some points made by both Stephanie(love the smilies with the stick) and Grimis, but i disagree with Jaguar's comment about guns being elitist.

The ideal world would be one in which we didn't need guns to defend ourselves. And I agree with Stephanie in regards to the long term changes in society that would make more people law abiding and not criminals. Bur, Long term solutions don't protect anyone now, which is why we need the 2nd amendment.

I am not an advocate of vigilante justice, and I've not seen anything in the tons of mail from the NRA that suggests they are either. Supporting gun ownership isn't something so crass as saying "let's go around and blow away criminals". It's about protecting yourself, your family, and your possessions from those out to do you harm. Pick up any paper on any given day and there's a chance you'll find a report of something like a crackhead who killed someone for the change in their pocket. The criminal element has no regard for the lives of decent people and it's up to the people to defend themselves.

We all aren't Jet Li in that we can defend ourselves without firearms against foes bigger and stronger and more numerous than us. What do you do if some drug addict wacked out of his mind breaks into your home? Hit him with a baseball bat? Maybe pepper spray? Or call 911? If that's all you have, you'd be the one in the paper the next day with a slit throat because some junkie needed a quick fix. No matter what the peaceniks say, a gun is the best way to defend yourself in your house. Fire a warning shot with a shotgun, and see if the home invaders don't reconsider what they are doing.

And I couldn't disagree more strongly with what Jaguar said. I don't see how it is elitist to protect your wife and children from people out to kill or rape or harm them in any way. Enron has nothing to do with violent people breaking into homes. I can't recall ever reading about someone breaking into a house, looting the place and leaving the inhabitants in peace. Sure, you can say, "here brother, take my worldly possessions since i am not elitist and leave in peace. maybe before you go we can sing kumbaya". But, I doubt it would work. You'd be dead, or beaten, with worse things happening to your girlfriend/wife.

Anyway, the reason I joined the NRA was that when i buy a house and have something worth defending, i want to make sure my 2nd amendment right to protect myself still exists.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 716/3273
EXP: 12825444
For next: 265909

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 234 days
Last activity: 35 days
#11 Posted on 27.8.02 1712.28
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1729.01
Well, I'm not saying it was a thought that I completely agree with, it was just a thought. I still think it's an interesting thought: The difference between White Collar and Blue Collar crime, and how we react to each. Obviously, it's a lot easier to defend oneself physically from Blue Collar crime with a gun. So what about White Collar crime?


-Jag

I'm just rambling now. For my real response to Gun Control and all that, just reference Moe's post. Maybe throw in some of Steph's post, but I think child raising should be a thread unto itself.
StampedeFan23
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 183/631
EXP: 1086907
For next: 70219

Since: 12.1.02
From: BC, Canada

Since last post: 2088 days
Last activity: 1624 days
#12 Posted on 27.8.02 1747.42
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1754.38
This is completely off-topic, but how does Steph make those funky smilies?
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 328/3033
EXP: 11324868
For next: 146577

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 27.8.02 1754.49
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1759.03
Should we take away all the guns? Of course not. But, then again, the only people who talk about taking all the guns away are in the NRA trying to scare gun owners into voting Bush.

Any group that's against the elimination of gun sales at gun shows, is against background checks, and is against the banning of semi-automatic weapons (which you really need to hunt deer) is as fucking wacky as, let's say, PETA.
kazhayashi81
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 157/677
EXP: 1187741
For next: 46136

Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Since last post: 2737 days
Last activity: 2687 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on 27.8.02 1806.05
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1806.25
My biggest thing about gun control is.. that only law abiding people follow the gun control. The criminals that have the guns aren't getting them through the places with background checks, they aren't registering their weaponry, and you can be damn sure they aren't using "trigger locks".

So basically, even if you take away the guns, look at England. The criminals still have the guns.
Stephanie
Landjager
Level: 63

Posts: 421/946
EXP: 1997470
For next: 99693

Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 557 days
Last activity: 26 days
#15 Posted on 27.8.02 1850.09
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1856.38

    Originally posted by StampedeFan23
    This is completely off-topic, but how does Steph make those funky smilies?


Click Here...there's 18 directories of them.

Steph
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 42/259
EXP: 285373
For next: 22740

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2580 days
Last activity: 683 days
#16 Posted on 27.8.02 1901.49
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1905.32
    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by Stephanie
      Kids are impressionable, and guns make a big impression. You can't tell a child not to use guns one day and then ventilate a punk with your revolver the next day.[quotend]

      If kids are told that guns are not toys and should only be used for defensive purposes and hunting(like they started on this continent in 1607) they the impression is one of respect and not opportunity.


      If we are truly the higher beings we claim we are, we should be able to form a system that can settle our grievances without weapons. It won't be quick, and it won't be easy, to set up such a system. However, it's the right thing to do, and its' long-term consequences are preferable to an armed mob of a population.


    We're not. We have primal instincts that tell us to fight. There will always be violence. There will always be crime. And there will always be a need to defend one's self or else anarchy will rule. Please refer to this:

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings080202.asp

    for further proof that a gunless society is a dangerous place.



Sure, there will always be violence - no argument. The problem is that with a gun, one can kill too quickly, too easily. One can pull the trigger and instantly regret it -- too late to do anything about it though, your target is dead.

Whereas if you get angry enough to try to kill someone with your bare hands, or a baseball bat, you have the option of realizing what you're doing, and stopping.

Animals that are naturally able to kill other members of the same species fairly easily (say, wolves) won't usually kill another member of the same species. Those that don't have overt lethal capability (chickens, for example) will kill members of the same species - they lack the instinct to know when to stop.
Guns amplify the effect of our natural violent instinct to a very high degree. It has the effect of turning people, who have no naturally-occuring lethal abilities into a lethal animal, without the accompanying psychology.

Another distinction that no one seems to have brought up is the distinction between handguns, automatic weapons, and shotguns/rifles. In Canada, handguns are restricted to law-enforcement, shotguns and rifles are generally available, and automatic weapons are for the military only. And as someone who has lived in Canada, the US, and Italy, let me tell you - Canada was definitely felt the least dangerous of the three. (Not that it proves anything - just my opinion.)

-wow - that kind of rambles - time to go get food. -

(edited by Mr. Heat Miser on 27.8.02 2016)
WyldeWolf1
Boerewors
Level: 41

Posts: 297/361
EXP: 462346
For next: 17803

Since: 20.6.02
From: Florida

Since last post: 4467 days
Last activity: 4467 days
#17 Posted on 27.8.02 1908.22
Reposted on: 27.8.09 1911.06
If you're trying to find a way to eliminate the need for weapons, you're not going to find it. People smarter than you and civilizations arguably more intellectually advanced than yours have tried and failed.

However, if you're talking about the 2nd amendment, remember this: its purpose was not to protect hunters. Everyone took for granted that you were allowed to hunt. It's there so you can defend yourself with force...primarily against your government. That's what the Framers did a few years before adopting the current Constitution. This is tied in to your inherent right to feel secure in your person (believe it or not, that phrase was not written to advocate abortion), and your rights to life and property. You need to understand the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution to get the big picture. Go and read any of the Federalist papers, and you'll see that all the Framers saw the Constitution as merely applying the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. You can't have the former without the latter.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 295/1528
EXP: 4100209
For next: 90939

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2866 days
Last activity: 2708 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on 27.8.02 2247.20
Reposted on: 27.8.09 2250.50

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Okay, to note: I'm not a gun advocate. I would appreciate it if the people who had guns actually respected them, or didn't have them at all. Anyway here's a thought:

    (Note, I completely lost the phrasing I was going to use, so this might not make sense)

    Guns are elitist. When you use them to defend yourself and your territory you only end up using them against poor people who can only try to steal from you physically. But what about all those employees that lost their jobs and their pensions because Enron basically stole it from them? I'm sure some of those employees are gun-owners, yet not a single one of them has defended that Pension, by shooting one of those accountants.

    Errr. Anyway, maybe that expressed what I was trying to say, maybe not. It was a thought.

    -Jag

    Stephanie is having fun with smiley's lately...



You're a loon.

Elitist? Yeah, so is the law. It keeps picking on those damn criminals. Are all robbers poor people, or vice versa? Should anyone give a rat's ass? If someone breaks into someone else's house and tries to steal their belongings or harm them or their family, well, they get what they deserve. Bottom line: force is a reasonable response to force. If someone punches you, you're justified in punching them back. Their tax bracket is completely irrelevant.

Are you going to say that I can't defend myself against a man robbing me at knifepoint unless I can also kill a corrupt executive while I'm at it? That seems like the logical conclusion to your argument, though I doubt logic ever comes into play when we can have fun with buzzwords like "elitist," and make up issues of class warfare where none exist.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 721/3273
EXP: 12825444
For next: 265909

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 234 days
Last activity: 35 days
#19 Posted on 27.8.02 2257.34
Reposted on: 27.8.09 2259.04
I did follow up my own post already. And 'Elitist' wasn't the term I wanted to use, but I got distracted and forgot how I was going to phrase it. Anyway, the thought of killing people in self-defence just seemed to slip into my mind along with the question, "But why not those people who do more damage with a pen, than a gun?" Er, right. I'm just going to let it drop.

-Jag

Thinking laterally? Nonono, I'm not even thinking!
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 296/1528
EXP: 4100209
For next: 90939

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2866 days
Last activity: 2708 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 27.8.02 2334.36
Reposted on: 27.8.09 2339.44
Well, the title of this thread *is* "Thinking Rationally About Guns."

;)
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: The McLaughlin Group's 20th Anniversary Clip Show
Next thread: USA Today turns 20
Previous thread: Cartoons!
(2055 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Thinking Rationally About GunsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.214 seconds.