<!--quoteo(post=1716858:date=Jul 11 2009, 06:22 AM:name=PhiXX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PhiXX @ Jul 11 2009, 06:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716858"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But good ol' Germany, tries to ban paintball, banned full auto airsofts, no laser pointer on your marker or such. All forbidden, you could go to jail for breaking these laws. AND THAT'S what bugs me, all these senseless laws which result out of your strict gunlaw... Ofcourse the majority here won't care about these types of sports, well I do. And it pisses me off every time when they try to blame the next sport, or e-sport... You know what they called airsoft here in germany? "Tötungssimulation" what I guess means "Killingsimulation" lol...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank god I don't live in Germany, though I'm a 1/3rd German.
I own 3 fully automatic airsoft guns (AEGs - automatic electric guns) and one gas powered Sig Saur p226 replica pistol.
I was going to ask something about economical stuff, but I answered my own question lol.
So CS -only- is banned right? I can still play Soldier of Fortune (though old), Fear 2, Killzone 2, Call of Duties and those games except KZ2 are WAY more violent than CS?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1716890:date=Jul 11 2009, 03:07 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 11 2009, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Stick, what I was saying is that there is no more inherent danger in a gun than there is a bat. That's because, by itself, it can't do a thing. Yes, in the hands of someone who wants to cause the maximum amount of harm they'll be more successful with a gun compared to a paperweight but it takes the person intending to do harm before either of those objects is considered a threat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do you even care to bring that up? The world is not a perfect place, people will misuse guns and act irrational. You can't just ignore consequences because "it's not the gun's fault". It's debates like this that make me think the Libertarian party is to the Constitution what PETA is to animals. <!--quoteo(post=1716890:date=Jul 11 2009, 03:07 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 11 2009, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Continue this trend and....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is where you go wrong. This is just a slippery slope argument. Because we ban individuals from holding nuclear warheads doesn't mean we have to ban kitchen knives.
A gun is just a weapon. Americans have the right to bear arms, so Americans have the right to own a gun provided they do so in a reasonable manner. This doesn't mean everyone will be allowed to carry a gun at all times and in all places. A gun is not like a kitchen knife. It is not just a tool, it is a weapon with one use. Like all weapons it requires a wielder, but that doesn't make the gun stop being a weapon and only a weapon.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What we ARE saying, however, is that it is extraordinarily easy to turn a gun into a deadly or dangerous object by anyone unstable who gets their hands on it. While a knife, bat, axe or chainsaw are also objects that can become dangerous in the wrong hands, they are not as easily turned into a death dealing item. You have to get close to someone, put effort into hurting them with it. There's no detatchment in it. With a gun you aim and pull a trigger (and while some gun folk will claim there's more to it than that, I doubt it). There's a level of detachment there. It's easier to go through with the act.
You seem to be claiming that a gun is no more inherently dangerous than a bat or a knife, which is patently false. As lolfighter says above, centuries of warfare say so. If a gun is no more dangerous than a knife, why has every modern military in the world abandoned swords and knives and started using guns instead? Because guns kill people easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The discussion is that in a rage, guns are the worst weapons to have made readily available. I'm in agreement to that to an extent. Though I think the point was that a gun owned by an educated gun owner wouldn't have one laying around with the safety off and fully loaded for that exact reason. A smart gun owner won't have incidents of this type.
At that point, the solution is to educate the population.
<!--quoteo(post=1717039:date=Jul 12 2009, 11:29 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 12 2009, 11:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717039"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The discussion is that in a rage, guns are the worst weapons to have made readily available.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1717054:date=Jul 12 2009, 07:55 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jul 12 2009, 07:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717054"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What about missiles? Nukes? Anthrax?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's hard to use those weapons and not suffer collateral damage(including damage to your self). Between two people, a gun seems the most effective weapon.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1717039:date=Jul 12 2009, 11:29 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 12 2009, 11:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717039"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The discussion is that in a rage, guns are the worst weapons to have made readily available. I'm in agreement to that to an extent. Though I think the point was that a gun owned by an educated gun owner wouldn't have one laying around with the safety off and fully loaded for that exact reason. A smart gun owner won't have incidents of this type.
At that point, the solution is to educate the population.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the counter point to that is that clearly, a disturbing amount of people aren't educated enough to be trusted with guns.
And rather than letting everyone have guns, *then* educating them, surely it's better to make sure the populace is capable of handling guns, and *then* allowing guns.
This is a point I was referring to earlier. Everyone probably knows one or two gun owners (with the super highway interwebs even letting people in no-gun countries know some) who are 100% trustable, people who would never let their gun be used in a dangerous way, people who keep their guns locked away unloaded with ammo kept somewhere else, people who teach their children proper gun handling procedures etc.
But then for every one person as described above, there are maybe 2-3 people (source: pulled out of my ass) who are less careful with their guns. People who will leave them in drawers, maybe even loaded, around the home. They themselves might not go out and shoot someone, but their lax control means that other people can (such as unstable children in the home). And then on top of that are people who can and will use a gunto go rob somewhere/kill someone (although those people will probably be obtaining their guns illegally and thus gun control won't do anything, I'm just throwing it in here for discussion).
So while you yourself, or your friends, may be handling weapons in a perfectly safe way, and think "if everyone was like me/my friends there'd be no problem", the annoying reality is that not everyone is like you/your friends. People are stupid and dangerous. And to be brutally honest, I'd rather piss off all the safe gun owners in the world in order to make it harder for Johnny Shootingspree to get his hands on a gun than appease them and keep guns widely circulated.
<!--quoteo(post=1717067:date=Jul 13 2009, 02:27 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jul 13 2009, 02:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So while you yourself, or your friends, may be handling weapons in a perfectly safe way, and think "if everyone was like me/my friends there'd be no problem", the annoying reality is that not everyone is like you/your friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After all, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" target="_blank">no educated gun owner would allow something bad to happen with his firearm</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1717071:date=Jul 13 2009, 11:42 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 13 2009, 11:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After all, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" target="_blank">no educated gun owner would allow something bad to happen with his firearm</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Comment RE: something in australian news today.
Neighbour accidental shot through two garage walls (metal I think, didn't look indepth) when someone was cleaning their gun.
Educated, yet still... shot his neighbour accidentally.
<!--quoteo(post=1717071:date=Jul 12 2009, 09:42 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 12 2009, 09:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After all, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" target="_blank">no educated gun owner would allow something bad to happen with his firearm</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your link doesn't really apply, considering that we have already established the behavior of a "safe firearms user." Anyone who would practice otherwise is obviously not a "safe firearms user."
I hardly think cleaning a loaded gun qualifies a person as a "safe firearms user." He might as well have been staring down the barrel of a .45 to make sure it was thoroughly cleaned for all the safety he employs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But the counter point to that is that clearly, a disturbing amount of people aren't educated enough to be trusted with guns.
And rather than letting everyone have guns, *then* educating them, surely it's better to make sure the populace is capable of handling guns, and *then* allowing guns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm in complete agreement. I don't have any problem with the government making an obligatory course educating those who wish to purchase a gun prior to receiving a license. It would surely cut down on the number of gun accidents, yet at the same time, a burglar with a knife couldn't burst in my home, steal everything I own while I watch. Gun control is not educating the population but outright preventing people from having them.
Passing a law to remove guns from the population to prevent gun-related deaths is like the united nations deciding that all countries should destroy nuclear weapons. Perhaps there are good intentions behind doing so, but ultimately you're only removing weapons from those who are honest enough to admit they have them. Ultimately all you've done is remove the power struggle between two parties, though you've given the power to the party which still has a weapon and will arguably use it to their advantage. For a country, it means all they need is a small army to march into a country and take it over, because they could always threaten to use a nuke if they resist. For a burglar, it means all they need is a gun in hand and know that the family whose house he is invading does not have any way to defend themselves.
Granted, there are pitfalls in having gun-related accidents, but in my opinion, it's worse the reality of granting every criminal the means to do whatever they like with no more consequence than having to deal with their own conscience.
<!--quoteo(post=1717082:date=Jul 13 2009, 05:14 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jul 13 2009, 05:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your link doesn't really apply, considering that we have already established the behavior of a "safe firearms user." Anyone who would practice otherwise is obviously not a "safe firearms user."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good, I'll start feeling ashamed of my mistake as soon as the word "educated" means the same thing as "safe."
You're dancing. The argument was that if everyone who owned weapons acted responsibly with them, there wouldn't be an issue. This isn't a generalized statement of character over an entire set of the population; it's a direct and specific description of how someone should act with a weapon. If they don't act that way, it's because they're not the type of person we're looking for. Your argument doesn't apply, nor would it lend much strength to your position if it did apply because this hypothetical person probably doesn't really exist, anyway.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1717159:date=Jul 13 2009, 03:54 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 13 2009, 03:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Passing a law to remove guns from the population to prevent gun-related deaths is like the united nations deciding that all countries should destroy nuclear weapons. Perhaps there are good intentions behind doing so, but ultimately you're only removing weapons from those who are honest enough to admit they have them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is why no one here is suggesting an outright ban. <!--quoteo(post=1717159:date=Jul 13 2009, 03:54 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 13 2009, 03:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ultimately all you've done is remove the power struggle between two parties, though you've given the power to the party which still has a weapon and will arguably use it to their advantage. ... For a burglar, it means all they need is a gun in hand and know that the family whose house he is invading does not have any way to defend themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You do see the contradiction in arguing that banning guns won't reduce crime because criminals will do what they will, and then arguing that allowing more guns would somehow reduce crime, right?
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1716890:date=Jul 12 2009, 01:07 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 12 2009, 01:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I'm understanding correctly, you're argument is: "Currently guns are the most efficient means of killing someone, so they should be banned to reduce their potential killing power." My question to you, then, is after you ban guns a new tool will emerge as the most efficient means of killing someone. Using the above logic, that tool should then be banned. Continue this trend and....
See? A full circle.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't see anyone argue that we should remove kitchen knives and screwdrivers. You made a straw man argument.
I think that Scandinavian countries and Japan suffer from few homicides because of the homogeneous population and people of low status aren't pushed into crime. Scandinavia is so egalitarian that there is more to lose than gain from crime, as even the lowest paid jobs are decent. In Japan perhaps everyone has their place in such a group-oriented culture, that doing crime on your own outside the Yakuzas just isn't the same.
School shootings probably have more to do with young adolescents giving up on society and vice versa rather than the amount of violence they've watched.
<!--quoteo(post=1717163:date=Jul 13 2009, 09:39 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jul 13 2009, 09:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're dancing. The argument was that if everyone who owned weapons acted responsibly with them, there wouldn't be an issue. This isn't a generalized statement of character over an entire set of the population; it's a direct and specific description of how someone should act with a weapon. If they don't act that way, it's because they're not the type of person we're looking for. Your argument doesn't apply, nor would it lend much strength to your position if it did apply because this hypothetical person probably doesn't really exist, anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but you're repeatedly assuming I'm referring to "the safety-consciousness" of the owner. What I'm saying is that the education they receive will not make someone a safe gun owner, do you see the difference? You're arguing against Stickman's point, not mine, and although my argument backs his up a portion of his argument, it is not the same argument. I can't be dancing around a claim I never made.
<!--quoteo(post=1717269:date=Jul 14 2009, 11:25 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 14 2009, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717269"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes but you're repeatedly assuming I'm referring to "the safety-consciousness" of the owner. What I'm saying is that the education they receive will not make someone a safe gun owner, do you see the difference? You're arguing against Stickman's point, not mine, and although my argument backs his up a portion of his argument, it is not the same argument. I can't be dancing around a claim I never made.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I'm confused. You posted a link of a snarky comment to a wikipedia article that explained a logical fallacy based on a subjective view placed on a generic set of people, in this case "gun owners." The fallacy stems from the fact that how a "gun owner" should act is subjective and a person may attempt to use this reasoning to conclude that someone else is not a "gun owner" unless they follow those subjective rules.
This contrasts with what was said about "safe firearms users" who are responsible and don't make mistakes. They're not a generic class manipulated with subjective reasoning, they're well defined. So, I believe that your specific link is invalid unless I misunderstand it's purpose.
Whether or not education sticks with people is another matter entirely, and I agree with you.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1716941:date=Jul 12 2009, 04:32 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jul 12 2009, 04:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At no point do we make it impossible to kill another person, but we make it PROGRESSIVELY MORE DIFFICULT for Random Joe Psycho to wipe his entire village out because he feels like it. I'd really like to see somebody manage that feat with a baseball bat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You should play more Fallout 3 then. Unless of course you live in <i>Germany</i>.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do see the contradiction in arguing that banning guns won't reduce crime because criminals will do what they will, and then arguing that allowing more guns would somehow reduce crime, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you're making the fallacy that just because I said gun control is bad that suddenly distributing guns like mardi gras beads is somehow good. I used the nuclear weapon metaphor before, and I think it still applies here. While you can't demand that all countries destroy all weapons of mass destruction for the fact that you'd end up with some very angry dictators with a little flashing red button in front of them with no way of being retaliated, also giving nukes to trigger-happy countries would be extraordinarily bad.
Though once you have a nuke, not like having more than one makes a big difference, does it? Getting killed by a rocket launcher vs a gun isn't a whole lot of difference in the large scheme of things. In the end you're dead all the same. For this reason, "more" guns is not "better" unless educated gun users owned them.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1717310:date=Jul 14 2009, 02:35 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 14 2009, 02:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717310"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you're making the fallacy that just because I said gun control is bad that suddenly distributing guns like mardi gras beads is somehow good. I used the nuclear weapon metaphor before, and I think it still applies here. While you can't demand that all countries destroy all weapons of mass destruction for the fact that you'd end up with some very angry dictators with a little flashing red button in front of them with no way of being retaliated, also giving nukes to trigger-happy countries would be extraordinarily bad.
Though once you have a nuke, not like having more than one makes a big difference, does it? Getting killed by a rocket launcher vs a gun isn't a whole lot of difference in the large scheme of things. In the end you're dead all the same. For this reason, "more" guns is not "better" unless educated gun users owned them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't follow you very well. You say preventing nuclear weapons from being accessible to trigger-happy dictators is good, which I agree with, but precede it with "gun control is bad" as if this metaphor supports this statement when it actually seems to do the opposite.
The German govorment are smoking crack, do they believe they can ban a game that over a million people play? I can understand if they ban Marijuana or smoking on bars, but a lan game? cmon somebody kill the german moral ###### who came up with this silly law... They can not just ban it like that, I truly feel sorry for the german people...
Yes, surely this has doomed the german people. Let their grisly fate stand as a reminder for what happens if you ban Counter-Strike from public LAN parties.
Comments
You know what they called airsoft here in germany? "Tötungssimulation" what I guess means "Killingsimulation" lol...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank god I don't live in Germany, though I'm a 1/3rd German.
I own 3 fully automatic airsoft guns (AEGs - automatic electric guns) and one gas powered Sig Saur p226 replica pistol.
I was going to ask something about economical stuff, but I answered my own question lol.
So CS -only- is banned right? I can still play Soldier of Fortune (though old), Fear 2, Killzone 2, Call of Duties and those games except KZ2 are WAY more violent than CS?
Fair trade off I suppose haha.
Why do you even care to bring that up? The world is not a perfect place, people will misuse guns and act irrational. You can't just ignore consequences because "it's not the gun's fault". It's debates like this that make me think the Libertarian party is to the Constitution what PETA is to animals.
<!--quoteo(post=1716890:date=Jul 11 2009, 03:07 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 11 2009, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Continue this trend and....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is where you go wrong. This is just a slippery slope argument. Because we ban individuals from holding nuclear warheads doesn't mean we have to ban kitchen knives.
A gun is just a weapon. Americans have the right to bear arms, so Americans have the right to own a gun provided they do so in a reasonable manner. This doesn't mean everyone will be allowed to carry a gun at all times and in all places. A gun is not like a kitchen knife. It is not just a tool, it is a weapon with one use. Like all weapons it requires a wielder, but that doesn't make the gun stop being a weapon and only a weapon.
You seem to be claiming that a gun is no more inherently dangerous than a bat or a knife, which is patently false. As lolfighter says above, centuries of warfare say so. If a gun is no more dangerous than a knife, why has every modern military in the world abandoned swords and knives and started using guns instead? Because guns kill people easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The discussion is that in a rage, guns are the worst weapons to have made readily available. I'm in agreement to that to an extent. Though I think the point was that a gun owned by an educated gun owner wouldn't have one laying around with the safety off and fully loaded for that exact reason. A smart gun owner won't have incidents of this type.
At that point, the solution is to educate the population.
What about missiles? Nukes? Anthrax?
It's hard to use those weapons and not suffer collateral damage(including damage to your self). Between two people, a gun seems the most effective weapon.
At that point, the solution is to educate the population.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the counter point to that is that clearly, a disturbing amount of people aren't educated enough to be trusted with guns.
And rather than letting everyone have guns, *then* educating them, surely it's better to make sure the populace is capable of handling guns, and *then* allowing guns.
This is a point I was referring to earlier. Everyone probably knows one or two gun owners (with the super highway interwebs even letting people in no-gun countries know some) who are 100% trustable, people who would never let their gun be used in a dangerous way, people who keep their guns locked away unloaded with ammo kept somewhere else, people who teach their children proper gun handling procedures etc.
But then for every one person as described above, there are maybe 2-3 people (source: pulled out of my ass) who are less careful with their guns. People who will leave them in drawers, maybe even loaded, around the home. They themselves might not go out and shoot someone, but their lax control means that other people can (such as unstable children in the home). And then on top of that are people who can and will use a gunto go rob somewhere/kill someone (although those people will probably be obtaining their guns illegally and thus gun control won't do anything, I'm just throwing it in here for discussion).
So while you yourself, or your friends, may be handling weapons in a perfectly safe way, and think "if everyone was like me/my friends there'd be no problem", the annoying reality is that not everyone is like you/your friends. People are stupid and dangerous. And to be brutally honest, I'd rather piss off all the safe gun owners in the world in order to make it harder for Johnny Shootingspree to get his hands on a gun than appease them and keep guns widely circulated.
After all, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" target="_blank">no educated gun owner would allow something bad to happen with his firearm</a>.
Comment RE: something in australian news today.
Neighbour accidental shot through two garage walls (metal I think, didn't look indepth) when someone was cleaning their gun.
Educated, yet still... shot his neighbour accidentally.
Obviously not careful enough however..
Your link doesn't really apply, considering that we have already established the behavior of a "safe firearms user." Anyone who would practice otherwise is obviously not a "safe firearms user."
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But the counter point to that is that clearly, a disturbing amount of people aren't educated enough to be trusted with guns.
And rather than letting everyone have guns, *then* educating them, surely it's better to make sure the populace is capable of handling guns, and *then* allowing guns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm in complete agreement. I don't have any problem with the government making an obligatory course educating those who wish to purchase a gun prior to receiving a license. It would surely cut down on the number of gun accidents, yet at the same time, a burglar with a knife couldn't burst in my home, steal everything I own while I watch. Gun control is not educating the population but outright preventing people from having them.
Passing a law to remove guns from the population to prevent gun-related deaths is like the united nations deciding that all countries should destroy nuclear weapons. Perhaps there are good intentions behind doing so, but ultimately you're only removing weapons from those who are honest enough to admit they have them. Ultimately all you've done is remove the power struggle between two parties, though you've given the power to the party which still has a weapon and will arguably use it to their advantage. For a country, it means all they need is a small army to march into a country and take it over, because they could always threaten to use a nuke if they resist. For a burglar, it means all they need is a gun in hand and know that the family whose house he is invading does not have any way to defend themselves.
Granted, there are pitfalls in having gun-related accidents, but in my opinion, it's worse the reality of granting every criminal the means to do whatever they like with no more consequence than having to deal with their own conscience.
Very good, I'll start feeling ashamed of my mistake as soon as the word "educated" means the same thing as "safe."
Which is why no one here is suggesting an outright ban.
<!--quoteo(post=1717159:date=Jul 13 2009, 03:54 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 13 2009, 03:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ultimately all you've done is remove the power struggle between two parties, though you've given the power to the party which still has a weapon and will arguably use it to their advantage. ... For a burglar, it means all they need is a gun in hand and know that the family whose house he is invading does not have any way to defend themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do see the contradiction in arguing that banning guns won't reduce crime because criminals will do what they will, and then arguing that allowing more guns would somehow reduce crime, right?
See? A full circle.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't see anyone argue that we should remove kitchen knives and screwdrivers. You made a straw man argument.
I think that Scandinavian countries and Japan suffer from few homicides because of the homogeneous population and people of low status aren't pushed into crime. Scandinavia is so egalitarian that there is more to lose than gain from crime, as even the lowest paid jobs are decent. In Japan perhaps everyone has their place in such a group-oriented culture, that doing crime on your own outside the Yakuzas just isn't the same.
School shootings probably have more to do with young adolescents giving up on society and vice versa rather than the amount of violence they've watched.
Yes but you're repeatedly assuming I'm referring to "the safety-consciousness" of the owner. What I'm saying is that the education they receive will not make someone a safe gun owner, do you see the difference? You're arguing against Stickman's point, not mine, and although my argument backs his up a portion of his argument, it is not the same argument. I can't be dancing around a claim I never made.
I guess I'm confused. You posted a link of a snarky comment to a wikipedia article that explained a logical fallacy based on a subjective view placed on a generic set of people, in this case "gun owners." The fallacy stems from the fact that how a "gun owner" should act is subjective and a person may attempt to use this reasoning to conclude that someone else is not a "gun owner" unless they follow those subjective rules.
This contrasts with what was said about "safe firearms users" who are responsible and don't make mistakes. They're not a generic class manipulated with subjective reasoning, they're well defined. So, I believe that your specific link is invalid unless I misunderstand it's purpose.
Whether or not education sticks with people is another matter entirely, and I agree with you.
You should play more Fallout 3 then. Unless of course you live in <i>Germany</i>.
Because you're *german*!
I think you're making the fallacy that just because I said gun control is bad that suddenly distributing guns like mardi gras beads is somehow good. I used the nuclear weapon metaphor before, and I think it still applies here. While you can't demand that all countries destroy all weapons of mass destruction for the fact that you'd end up with some very angry dictators with a little flashing red button in front of them with no way of being retaliated, also giving nukes to trigger-happy countries would be extraordinarily bad.
Though once you have a nuke, not like having more than one makes a big difference, does it? Getting killed by a rocket launcher vs a gun isn't a whole lot of difference in the large scheme of things. In the end you're dead all the same. For this reason, "more" guns is not "better" unless educated gun users owned them.
Though once you have a nuke, not like having more than one makes a big difference, does it? Getting killed by a rocket launcher vs a gun isn't a whole lot of difference in the large scheme of things. In the end you're dead all the same. For this reason, "more" guns is not "better" unless educated gun users owned them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't follow you very well. You say preventing nuclear weapons from being accessible to trigger-happy dictators is good, which I agree with, but precede it with "gun control is bad" as if this metaphor supports this statement when it actually seems to do the opposite.
You live in / come from whatever country I deem comically convenient for any given situation.
The German govorment are smoking crack, do they believe they can ban a game that over a million people play?
I can understand if they ban Marijuana or smoking on bars, but a lan game? cmon somebody kill the german moral ###### who came up with this silly law... They can not just ban it like that, I truly feel sorry for the german people...