"Hope and Change" You Can Rely On (iPod tax???!!!)

[GoDrex]

word up  :laughing7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFcVwDw4YLE

 

[Superlizard]

My whole point was that 'he could have killed him with a toothbrush" argument is bogus because it's really hard to kill people with toothbrushes. In fact, it's extremely unlikely that that guy could have / would have been able to kill three adult males with a toothbrush, to the point that's not a worthwhile thing to discuss.

Killing people with toothbrushes is not a thing that happens, it's not why people buy toothbrushes. You're right that people kill people...and they usually do that with a gun and not a toothbrush. So in some fantasy world we could imagine somebody committing mass murder with a toothbrush, and admit that it's not impossible. So what? It really has nothing to do with the fact that guns are dangerous.

Correct - the toothbrush analogy is bogus (Capt. Obviousism); however it was appropriate for showing the ridiculousness of the specious logic being exhibited with the whole "guns kill people".

The difference between a gun and any other thing is that access to a gun makes it a LOT easier to kill somebody with very little to no planning or skill. Therefore, if there are a lot more guns in a society, there will be a lot more of the kinds of stories like the above, and if guns are hard to come by there will be a lot fewer. That's why cops are so into gun control! So there's clearly a relationship between stories like that one, and gun ownership being easy in this country.

Yes, just like (in example) what the Brits did to India - take away all their guns, so the Brits could have *complete* control.  Nevertheless, guns still flourished.

There aren't enough cops to go around to protect everyone 24/7... nor should there be that many.  The optimum being we should be able to take care of ourselves.  Besides that, every human being should naturally have the right to defend themselves - by themselves.

I started out by saying I wanted to buy a gun, not that I wanted to eliminate your right to have one  - I don't know where you got that idea.

I don't know where you got the idea that I even insinuated that I thought *you* wanted to eliminate my gun rights.  I swear you have a penchant for seeing things in the text that aren't there...

Besides I have no power over your 2nd amendment rights so it's kind of pointless. But for instance if you're a recently released violent mental patient, and you want to buy an RPG and live next to me, I think I legitimately have an issue with that. Similarly, I do think that a hip-hop concert is a much safer place if there are NO guns, than if EVERYONE has a gun. There's a difference between gun control and wanting there to be fewer guns in general, and believing that noone should ever have any guns. If you have any advice as to what to buy for home security, I'd love to hear it!

A hip-hop concert would be safest if there were no hip-hop.

I'm no home security expert, but I'd go shotgun for the home.  I'd also go with a handgun which utilizes larger caliber rounds (but not too nutso - .45ACP is good stuff) for knockdown/spin around power.  Do you want to incapacitate them, or just shoot holes through them as they're rushing you? is the question

I've never killed anyone, nor do I want to.  But when the time comes and I need to play defense, survival instincts take over.  I'd say this goes for most humans, even the peaceniks.

 

[guitlouie]

Ok.  I stayed out of this as long as possible.  I LOOOOOVE how a person who is in favor of RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP, like myself, becomes a "Ban all guns forever, and take them away from everyone" lunatic in the eyes of all conservative gun owners.  I know a lot of people who believe that we are too lax in allowing people to obtain guns, but who themselves would own a gun.  Very few people I have ever come into contact with want guns banned and taken away from everyone.  However, the conservative gun lobby fights every and all new laws that are intended to make gun owners be responsible for the fact that that which they wish to posess was designed to inflict harm on living things.  What is wrong with a waiting period while your background is checked?  What is wrong with being wary of allowing persons with suspect mental health histories to be gun owners?  What is wrong with making certain weapons with no clear purpose other than to take out large quantities of living creatures in as little time as possible unattainable to the average, untrained civilian?  I'll tell you, and it goes back to what was being argued earlier.  It would cut into somebodies profits.  I am a father of two.  I own a gun.  My children will never be those kids you hear about on the news who accidentially shoot their best friend and have to live with that guilt forever.  Why?  Because I will make damn sure of it.  They will know the dangers, they will know how to be safe with a weapon.  They will understand that even though we have this thing, we will live every day of our lives hoping that we don't have to use it.  Be responsible.  And do not cry like little babies when the people around you want to be sure that you are being responsible. 

 

[tfarny]

OK, at some point I've gotta get back to work. But this is fun now. Look, the law has a hard time distinguishing intent, and by the time there are actions, it's too late to save lives. Your intent to defend yourself, and somebody else's intent to gun down a bunch of kids, start in the same place: the gun shop. So that's why they do a background check there (at least in NY) and make you wait a few days. Is that really so bad, honestly, if it deters a few crazies or stops somebody from doing something rash like gunning down his boss? I just don't get the whole extreme anti-control argument. Don't you believe in gun control for kids, convicted murderers, etc., or for restrictions on storing high explosives in urban areas? It seems like the only real debate is one of degree - how much gun control. The parts of the world where everybody IS packing tend to be really damn dangerous places that I'm glad I don't live in. The "Guatemala Model" for the USA, anybody?

 

[tfarny]

Oh, missed your post guitlouie!  +1 to everything you said!

 

[SrDeMaFp]

Well if I lived there I'd do as mentioned in the article and just go to Jersey to do my shopping.....And say F... NY...

I hate the Giants anyway..... :icon_jokercolor:

Booo this maaaaaaaannnn!!

I hope some crazy bastard goes all "Iraqi reporter"-like on Paterson. Only difference is he'd just stare straight ahead and get pelted right between the eyes. With not one but, 2 shoes. :laughing7:

 

[Superlizard]

I LOOOOOVE how a person who is in favor of RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP, like myself, becomes a "Ban all guns forever, and take them away from everyone" lunatic in the eyes of all conservative gun owners.

Who's calling you that?  I assume people you've met in person that you've debated with?

However, the conservative gun lobby fights every and all new laws that are intended to make gun owners be responsible for the fact that that which they wish to posess was designed to inflict harm on living things.  What is wrong with a waiting period while your background is checked?  What is wrong with being wary of allowing persons with suspect mental health histories to be gun owners?

While I don't follow the "official" nationwide gun debate closely, I can't say that I'm familiar with the "conservative gun lobby fighting every and all new laws that are intended to make gun owners responsible".  I agree with your overall position; however, that statement sounds far too generalized.  Do you have any sources on that?

 

[Superlizard]

The parts of the world where everybody IS packing tend to be really damn dangerous places that I'm glad I don't live in. The "Guatemala Model" for the USA, anybody?

What makes you think the US isn't "packing"?

You're also leaving out many other important factors - such as gov't, poverty, etc... (that have a far more reaching effect on crime than the fact that someone owns a firearm) in trying to use that analogy.

 

[guitlouie]

For opposing viewpoints, I frequently read from both the NRA and the Brady Center's Web sites.  But really there is a lot of information in more unbiased news outlets, and the gun lobby is very real, very powerful, and very convinced that anyone who wants people to be responsible gun owners are in fact out to take every gun away from every citizen, and then tear up up the constitution and take a dump on it.  They fought against background checks (invasion of privacy), they fought against waiting periods, they fought against using someone's mental history as a deterrent for owning a weapon.  And yes, I have had this discussion with a great many people face to face.  I do live in a rather gun loving area.  The point is that there is not just For Guns, and Against Guns.  

 

[tfarny]

Actually the comparison with other countries is really interesting - the more gun control, and the fewer guns, the fewer gun-related crimes. Wealthy countries like Japan, where I lived for years, have almost no gun crime and very few guns. They had a "Columbine" incident a few years ago where some psycho went into a school with a big knife and started cutting up kids - I think three people died and more were injured. Lot less lethal than our version.
Poor countries like Thailand, which has fewer guns, are safer than poor countries like neighboring Cambodia, which is filled with guns. Of course everywhere is different but there are people who lose their jobs and go batshite crazy in every country - just that some of the time, it's hard for them to get hold of a firearm.

This is really just common sense - denying that more guns -> more gun deaths is kind of a nonsense position to take. The "It's a dangerous world so I should have a gun" argument is totally logical but the rest of it is just corporate lobby talking points, as guitlouie said so well.

 

[rightintheface]

gun control is a very touchy subject with Americans, what with the third amendment or second amendment (please forgive my ignorance, hope i don't offend anyone here), but the viewpoint i have on it is pretty simple:

people kill people.

guns make it alot easier to kill people.

i'm not saying that there should be more guns, less guns, more control etc etc because hey, i don't live in your country and don't have much of a right to say. i am not "pro-gun", or "anti-gun".
but from an "outsiders" perspective, it's kinda an obvious problem: the more guns, the more gun crimes/violence. i don't know a single person who has been a victim of, or been involved in, any kind of gun-related violence or crime. that's here in australia. i live in a town of about 18,000 people, and i have a lot of friends about an hour away in Sydney (several million people there), and not one person i know has had that misfortune. or knows anyone who has.

in saying that i don't mean to be some big-shot know-it-all, because i for one don't have a solution to the problem. and there really is no easy solution. i also agree that people who are intending on doing bad things, WILL do bad things somehow. i just think guns make it a little too easy for bad things to happen, and they're alot worse when guns ARE involved. not in everyones hands mind you, just in the hands of people out to do harm/crime etc. it's always gonna be psycho's making the problems, whether it's with guns, or toothbrushes. the people doing the right thing aren't the problem, it's the fruit loops out there. owning a gun does not make you a "psycho", or likely to shoot someone or be involved in anything, don't get me wrong. but maybe, just maybe.. if there weren't any guns at all, then there would be a lot less opportunities for psychos to hurt people with them. and then maybe, good people like yourselves, would not have to feel the need to buy a gun to PROTECT themselves from the above-mentioned psycho's.

people are always gonna find a way to kill people. but a psycho with a 30 round magazine has lot more opportunity/ability to kill or hurt than a psycho with a knife.

just my two cents



i really don't mean to offend anyone, i'm just pointing out my view from a country with next to no gun-related issues, so feel free to call me ignorant if that's how you feel  :binkybaby:

 

[RLW]

For our international brothers, when discussing guns with us Americans, you have to remember one thing...

Most Americans honestly believe that having a woman expose one of her boobs on television can cause more damage than any person with a gun.

Most of the world is afraid of guns, we are afraid of boobies. Our Puritan roots are hard to shake sometimes.

 

[UTSC]

For our international brothers, when discussing guns with us Americans, you have to remember one thing...

Most Americans honestly believe that having a woman expose one of her boobs on television can cause more damage than any person with a gun.

Most of the world is afraid of guns, we are afraid of boobies. Our Puritan roots are hard to shake sometimes.

I love boobies... but I'm Canadian eh!  :laughing7:

P.S. Wasn't this thread supposed to be about taxes?

 

[Superlizard]

but maybe, just maybe.. if there weren't any guns at all, then there would be a lot less opportunities for psychos to hurt people with them. and then maybe, good people like yourselves, would not have to feel the need to buy a gun to PROTECT themselves from the above-mentioned psycho's.

Well, that'd be great - however, reality states that guns do indeed exist, and getting rid of all guns, or even a good amount, is impossible.

That will never happen.  In fact, weaponry will only get more sophisticated and potentially more lethal; such is human nature and life on earth.

And history teaches us that those with outmoded weaponry or no weaponry at all usually wind up on the losing side.

So, as long as guns are physically present, and as long as creeps, criminals and whackjobs can get their hands on one (legally or illegally - doesn't matter), we all have to deal with the fact that we may at some point in time have to handle the possibility of an uncomfortable situation whereupon said miscreants are pointing said gun at us.

And again, if we pass laws banning the ownership/use of guns, that's not going to stop said miscreants either.

 

[tfarny]

Well actually superL, it is the reality in most other industrialized countries that there are extremely few guns, and people truly don't need one to defend themselves. That's what "reality states." You're saying that America isn't capable of doing something that lots of other countries have definitely done -  sounds pretty defeatist if you ask me. Maybe you should join the gun ban lobby and work to make this country a safer place!  :icon_jokercolor:

Those boobies do scare me though! Ain't they sposed to cover them things up? 

 

[mayfly]

Just some tidbits from Ontario:

1 - it's not illegal to own a handgun here, but it's pretty difficult.
2 - it IS legal for a woman to expose her breasts in public here.  :icon_biggrin:

and finally (this will make the "war on drugs" folks heads spin)

3 - it IS legal to be caught holding a small amount of marijuana here.  "Ontario - a place to grow"

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OEdBsRYD8I[/youtube]

I like Ontario!

 

[NeilStryker]

hey I live in MA and we just decriminalized possession for up to an ounce...  if you're so inclined to that sort o' thing.    Now if only we can pass the "free the boobies" law...

 

[dbw]

I live in Madison, Wisconsin... marijuana was decriminalized 30 years ago here.   :guitarplayer2:

Edit: boobies are still illegal as far as I know. 

 

[guitlouie]

As a firm believer in civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws, I try to free as many boobies as possible.

 

[dbw]

And as a firm believer in... the face of... um...

Whatever.  Yay weed, boobs, beer, and guitars.