NRA is for banning the sale of guns

[kochman]

Who is suggesting that, Seigismund?

Other than the flip side of that sentiment from Akka, who would clearly strip away my right if he were so empowered.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't know. Focussing on the right keys to press is a big achievement at the moment.

Just happy to live in the comfort that people agree with me that the dickswinging cars contest is still much more of a deal that the gun-toting side of the story.

And this is comng from a '98 Opel Corsa car owner.

That's right. 1998. I have to use muscle power to wind down the windows you pantsies.

 

[Akka]

Why are you so rabidly anti-gun?

'cause I don't like having things which can kill me at the light press of a finger in circulation ?
Weapons are made to kill people. They have no place in civilized society, especially weapons which make killing distant, impersonal and psychologically easier. I'd rather ask you : why are you so rabidly pro-gun ?

"Captain Obvious", it is regulated, and no one I know, even us "madmen" who consider our freedom worth more than others self-inflicted emotional instability over the topic, is saying it should be without limit. It would help if to stay within the parameters of the debate, rather than launching into fictitious areas.

Parameter of the debate : you said that whatever you do with your gun and whoever you gives it, are your own business (exact quote : " if I own something, and I want to let someone use it, that's my business."). I say not it isn't only your business, it's something that is regulated and should be.
Now you backflip and say it's regulated. I'm perhaps not the one losing sight of the parameter of the debate ?

 

[Farm Boy]

especially weapons which make killing distant, impersonal and psychologically easier.

Ever killed anything with a gun? If your answer is yes and you can still make this comment, I'm a little worried for you.

 

[bhsup]

especially weapons which make killing distant, impersonal and psychologically easier.

I applaud your embrace of the The Compact. Killing is always better when done up close and personal...

 

[Tarquelne]

Ever killed anything with a gun? If your answer is yes and you can still make this comment, I'm a little worried for you.

Having killed things with a gun and also beaten things to death with a stick or shovel, I'd say the only questionable bit is "impersonal." "Less personal" is still too strong ... "more easily impersonal," perhaps.

Imagine a soldier who, for his entire tour, only engages the enemy via pot-shot at faceless "targets" a few hundred meters away. (The lucky, lucky, bastard.) Sounds pretty distant, impersonal, and psychologically easier than going at the enemy with a mace and a shield.

it's possible with a gun. Something even more distant and impersonal is likely if your "trigger" is a button by a CRT.

I wonder if Tim has a comment to make on distant, impersonal destruction and how psychologically easy it is or isn't.

If the thrust of Akka's point is anywhere near "If we didn't have guns we wouldn't have so much fighting of violence."* I'd say it's pretty dubious. OTOH, if all he means is that guns make violence or killing somewhat easier in just about every way it might be easier, then I don't see a problem. That, after all, is what guns are for.

Gun ownership is a right, so lets abandon all rational though and hyperbole the hell out of any attempt to discuss any sort of restriction.

Very good. The NRA's mission statement, typo and all. When did you become their shill, Ziggy?

Here I want to try something...

The NRA used to have a good moral position, but they've squandered it.
They're like Israel.


*The crossbow didn't do it. The zeppelin didn't do it. The MG or 75mm howitzer didn't do it. Nukes ... the possibility of destroying human civilization in one incendiary orgy ... Ok. Nukes slowed things down.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, if by distant he actually means "at a greater number of meters," then sure. But that doesn't jive with psychologically easier and impersonal thrown in there. If you take "psychologically" off of "easier" then also sure. But that doesn't jive again. The soldier analogy probably has some use, in so far as that actually ever happens(I think that's questionable on its own), but that's not the gun violence that gets the play in the states. That simply isn't the gun violence that's happening. I think the button-pressing-killer analogy also fails to hold water at the end of the day despite being a reasonable thing to consider. There was a series of articles a few years back about the fellows that pilot the killer RC airplanes from air-conditioned trailers stateside. They were coming down with significant PTSD despite being halfway across the globe and safe. It's not that easy to kill humans on a monitor with a joystick it turns out.

If anything actually insulates us from the concept of violence it's probably sanitized depictions of it on television and in games. Killing something that clearly doesn't want to die doesn't often get an accurate feel in depictions. The raw filthiness and shallowness of it just doesn't come through.

 

[kochman]

'cause I don't like having things which can kill me at the light press of a finger in circulation ?

Sounds like a personal problem.

They have no place in civilized society

We don't base "civilized society" on your personal emotions.

I'd rather ask you : why are you so rabidly pro-gun ?

We do base civilized society on the concept of freedom and not punishing people that have done nothing to deserve it.

I will move away from the US BoR to defend this now, and it isn't a "rabid" belief, because it isn't based in emotion, it's based in intellect and judgment.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen:
1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. (free)
2. The purpose of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
4. Liberty consists in the ability to do whatever does not harm another (my ownership harms no one); hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no other limits than those which assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by the law.
5. The law only has the right to prohibit those actions which are injurious to society (ownership is not injurious, malicious use is). No hindrance should be put in the way of anything not prohibited by the law, nor may any one be forced to do what the law does not require.
8. Only strictly and obviously necessary punishments may be established by the law
17. Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one may be deprived of it except when public necessity, certified by law, obviously requires it (not when Akka doesn't like it), and on the condition of a just compensation in advance.

I find all of these to be true, you prefer to take away my rights based on your emotion...
The people can decide which is the better position... and thus far, the 2nd amendment stands, and is in no danger of being repealed.

Parameter of the debate : you said that whatever you do with your gun and whoever you gives it, are your own business (exact quote : " if I own something, and I want to let someone use it, that's my business.").

You can only set the parameter of your points, not the entire debate. There's something of a control issue emanating from your posts.

I say not it isn't only your business, it's something that is regulated and should be.

You would take my rights away. If I aid someone in doing something stupid, I'm liable. That's my business, my decision. I could let someone borrow my car, they get drunk and kill someone, their fault. If I let someone obviously drunk drive my car, I'm not also liable.

Also, ownership is regulated, and no one is saying it should be. I'm fairly aware of the rules I've had to follow to own.
You don't want regulation, it seems, you want them removed completely (which is impossible), or at least when you say they have "no place in civilized society" and that "I don't like having things which can kill me at the light press of a finger in circulation" it would seem that's what you desire.

Now you backflip and say it's regulated.

I have never said gun ownership should be unregulated. If you gleaned that from what I wrote, I can assure you that wasn't my intent.
Give me specifics, and then we can talk. Your point seems to be specifically that "I don't like having things which can kill me at the light press of a finger in circulation", which would obviously mean you'd prefer to remove them. That isn't regulation, that's banning.

 

[Tarquelne]

Ok, if by distant he actually means "at a greater number of meters," then sure. But that doesn't jive with psychologically easier and impersonal thrown in there.

Well, I'd say its either redundant, or trivially true. Either way, it doesn't seem to me like anything controversial.

If you take "psychologically" off of "easier" then also sure. But that doesn't jive again.

I don't understand your counter argument at all. I'm surprised that "psychologically easier" is even being contested. Note: easier. Not "easy." Easier. Based on my own experience using a shovel. vs. a gun, it seems trivially true. And that was just snakes and other varmints. I'd expect everything to be magnified if a person where the object of my attack.

The soldier analogy probably has some use, in so far as that actually ever happens(I think that's questionable on its own),

If it ever happens I'd be rather surprised. I thought that obvious. It's a hypothetical comparison to illustrate a point. Or, points, actually: Note that the more distant the target is, the more easily the act can become figuratively distant, and so less personal and, it would follow, less psychologically stressing.

Soldiers aren't likely to only engage enemies in that matter. But they're going to be doing it more often than the mace wielders. I wanted you to consider the rate of possibly-less engaged killing via guns vs. probably-more engaged killing with a mace. If the rate is less with the guns, then you've got a weapon that's less likely to be personal and less psychologically stressful. Not "not stressful." Just "less."

I think the button-pressing-killer analogy also breaks down. ... pilot the killer RC airplanes from air-conditioned trailers stateside.... significant PTSD ... It's not that easy to kill humans on a monitor with a joystick it turns out.

Remember: "Easier," not "easy." If you demonstrated that those guys had more or the same rate or severity of PTSD compared to guys facing enemies face to face (or physically in a plane) then I think you might really have something.

Also - and this is important - did they start coming down with PTSD before or after they started killing via joystick? I'm pretty sure Akko was focusing on the "before" part: That happy time between the pulling of the trigger and what you've done really sinking in. You can do a whole lota' trigger pulling without being confronted with the consequences ... at least compared to something inherently face-to-face. And, face to face, the consequences are always going to be immediate. You'll feel the blade go in. When it notches a bone and you have to tug it out - the resulting scream will be right in your face.

Of course the results of gunshots are often horrific. But you don't have to be all that lucky to have those results occurring quite a bit further away. Probably at least partially out of sight.

So, sure, some, after killing X # of people via some remote means, start to get PTSD over it. In a way that's good, in that it should help discourage people from doing it too often. But that gap between action and regret can be much larger with guns compared to many other weapons. The action needed ... so small. And perhaps directed at someone you can't even see easily, let alone hear or smell. It's much easier for the shooter to be less engaged, viscerally.

I'm not sold on there being much practical difference in psychological ease-of-use between a gun and, for example, a knife. But, based on personal experience, reading, and simple psychology, I think there's definitely some difference in the degree of psychological ease, or the rate-of-increase of psychological trauma.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not sure all the trivial adds up to anything significant. Hence the original point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wonder if Tim has a comment to make on distant, impersonal destruction and how psychologically easy it is or isn't.

Yeah I do in fact.

Having not had to kill anyone in my entire military career, I do in fact recognize that having worked my head around the possibility of not just killing enemy soldiers, but razing an entire civilization to the ground, while most likely unleashing the extinction of my species, has left distinct marks that I will bear to the grave. This is the price of holding a road that leads to nothing but death.

There is no impersonal way to kill people. Period. There isn't even an impersonal way to be ready to kill people.

That said, the danger of guns, or missiles fired over the horizon, is their instantaneous result. It takes more than one punch to kill a man with your bare hands. There are many opportunities to stop, even once the blood is flowing you can turn away. I've never killed with a knife, but it would offer the same opportunities to reconsider when you see blood as to whether you need to continue or turn back. With a gun there is a moment where the opponent is standing, appearing at his most dangerous and demanding action, not consideration. The next instant there is death, and on that road there is no going back.

 

[Tarquelne]

There is no impersonal way to kill people. Period. There isn't even an impersonal way to be ready to kill people.

Well, in the sense that you developed some personal feelings or attitudes, true.
OTOH, in the same sense that a president signing a law inconveniencing millions of people is impersonal, or a bureaucrat changing a rationing scheme making a town 1000 miles away hungry is impersonal ... then carpet-bombing, firing a tank's main gun into a building, or firing a nuke at a city is impersonal.

Maybe you know someone from the city, maybe you've got real concerns about what'll happen as a consequence for your near and dear ... but not necessarily. For the vast majority of the people effected, the act was an "impersonal" one. That's just how the word is used, and is what I meant.

The second meaning implies the first ... but, at least if you're not a sociopath, people do develop personal reactions.

Too bad psychopathy is really more of a continuum than a discrete condition. With support and medication - say a political party and alcohol - you can be something of a sociopath and still be a respected member of society.

Anyway, the ambiguity is much of why I wanted to fiddle with wording "less likely to be impersonal", or whatever it was I proposed. Not only that, like psychopathy, "impersonal" isn't strictly "on" or "off" either.

FB:

I'm not sure all the trivial adds up to anything significant. Hence the original point.

Trivial? Not sure? Allright.

How about we just flip and say it's psychologically harder to slowly beat someone to death with a rubber hose than it is to kill them with a gun? As long as we phrase it as a failing in the rubber hose, is it NRA-acceptable?

Whoa. I don't know if that was sarcastic or not.

Time to stop with this thread. I'll just go look up my posts in one of the bazillion earlier gun threads if I really must do something futility-related.

 

[kochman]

That said, the danger of guns, or missiles fired over the horizon, is their instantaneous result. It takes more than one punch to kill a man with your bare hands. There are many opportunities to stop, even once the blood is flowing you can turn away. I've never killed with a knife, but it would offer the same opportunities to reconsider when you see blood as to whether you need to continue or turn back. With a gun there is a moment where the opponent is standing, appearing at his most dangerous and demanding action, not consideration. The next instant there is death, and on that road there is no going back.

A lot of people survive gunshot wounds... it isn't insta-death.
There's also the likelihood of missing altogether.

You can kill with a knife in one stab/slash as well.

And ninjas can kill with a punch, so we'd better take away everyone's ninjas.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A lot of people survive gunshot wounds... it isn't insta-death.
There's also the likelihood of missing altogether.

You can kill with a knife in one stab/slash as well.

And ninjas can kill with a punch, so we'd better take away everyone's ninjas.

Exceptions don't disprove rules. You think when the guy opened his door with the hole in it from the shotgun blast and saw the teenaged girl on his porch he didn't regret it? When people see blood it can bring about the moment of introspection where they realize "I don't really want to be a killer". It's a lot easier to stop in that moment if you aren't using a gun. The blood is usually closer and more apparent for one thing.

Society recognizes the fact. Two killers of similar circumstances, get in disputes with two victims also of similar circumstances. One pulls out a gun and shoots his victim. The other after beating his down with fists picks up a nearby brick and crushes his skull. Who do we punish more severely? Why?

 

[kochman]

To use the word exception in this case is a gross misuse.

 

[Farm Boy]

Gee thanks Tarq. The exchange as always remains, erm, insightful. Yea, insightful works. All that for me not really feeling it's any easier on my mental status to shotgun something to death than it is to pitchfork it or sledgehammer it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

To use the word exception in this case is a gross misuse.

Nice continuation of dodging the issue. Guns provide far less opportunity to turn back, and far less incentive to do so as well. When a fight starts and no guns are involved the chances of anyone dying are pretty low. If there is a gun involved the chances of someone being dead when the fight stops are comparatively very high. You can't deny it with any credibility, and the more you dodge it the more I'll repeat it.

 

[kochman]

I didn't dodge it, I pointed out your incorrect verbiage.

I get your point, guns are more efficient. You were asked your thoughts about killing, and that's your philosophy. I'm not contesting your philosophy,

 

[Tarquelne]

All that for me not really feeling it's any easier on my mental status to shotgun something to death than it is to pitchfork it or sledgehammer it.

Whoa there, buddy. I really do want to stop, and happily - because I'm out the door - this will be the last post. But I'm not going to let that go.

So:
No. All that for implying there was something wrong with Akko, and for apparently needing it all spelled out so verbosely.

But I thought the rubber hose thing quite a good way to clarify Akko's point.

It's nice that you're sensitive enough to not perceive a difference between shotgunning something and hammering it. You can have your feelings. I don't dispute your feelings. If all you want to talk about is your feelings, then stick to claims about your feelings.

You know ... "worrying" about Akko, not seeing how things "jive," the hurt fee-fees here ... it's pretty easy to interpret all this as a rather desperate rhetorical defense because there's the desire to

hyperbole the hell out of any attempt to discuss any sort of restriction.

Just frikin accept there was some truth to what he said and move on to spinning it to insignificance. I actually gave you a boost there! But the attempt to deny everything - not to mention the passive-aggressive personal attack - is a significant part of what makes pro-gun people look like gun nuts.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think maybe I should worry about you too, perhaps. Buddy.

For the record, "insignificant" does not mean non-existent. The difference matters. Check your hyperbole and ideologue credits yourself while I rummage around through mine.