[Slade]

You only needed to respond once, and responding to an almost four year old topic as your first post is frowned upon.

Most of Freud's propositions are rather ridiculous at this point in psychology, as well.

This post has been edited by Slade: 23 February 2008 - 10:24 PM

[Slade]

I apologize for closing the topic. I was caught in a slightly cranky mood. It's reopened, everybody may go at it about assault weapons.

And to clarify some members of the forum such as myself frown upon necromancy like the ritual recently performed here. Others don't care. There's no rule against it; it can just be bad form. In retrospect, this was an informed post and I don't mean to shoot it down. Kudos to the thought put into it.

[Dr Lecter]

Psh, who doesn't need an assault rifle, that my opinion. An AK-47 fires 650 rounds per minute, 10 per second, and 10 bullets can easily cut two people in half. Meaning that you can cut 120 people in half per minute. Now, if you're trying to tell me that a private citizen doesn't need the firepower to cut someone into two in half a second, you must be out of you're mind, clearly that isn't fast enough.

[Simperin' Fool]

Back in my day, we had to use muzzle-loaders to cut people in half! And we enjoyed it, by gum!

I don't really see the point in banning automatic weapons. If they're illegal, only criminals will have them, and that makes it harder for everyone else to defend themselves.

This post has been edited by Simperin' Fool: 24 February 2008 - 02:14 PM

[civilian_number_two]

I say the same about heroin. Making it illegal means I have to buy mine from criminals. It sure is hard out there for a junkie, yo.

[J m HofMarN]

Its just like nuclear weapons. If you sign a treaty limiting them than only rogue states will develop them.

[Simperin' Fool]

"Great, now the Hendersons have The Bomb!"

[barend]

Americans have a God Given right to defend their home from mexicans and canadians with M-60s and other mounted support weapons.

[z e w b]

Take a look at pro-gun control people. Since they live in safe, middle-class neighborhoods with no crime whatsoever, they don't need guns, so they assume that no civilians need guns. Unfortunately, not everyone is fortunate enough to live in a gated community where they can take their recumbent bicycles and hybrid cars for a spin without the threat of being murdered/robbed. Some people actually live in dangerous areas crawling with crackheads and thugs and can't depend on the police to protect them.

A lot of people say that a lack of gun-control will lead to high crime rates. Let's take a look at the state of Vermont. Vermont has virtually no gun laws whatsoever. No waiting periods, no permits required to carry handguns, you don't even need to conceal your weapon. Despite this complete lack of restrictions on gun ownership, Vermont happens to have the second-lowest violent crime rate in the entire country.

Gun control in any form is just retarded. You can ban all the guns you want, all you are going to do is keep honest people from having guns, while the criminals can simply find their local illegal arms dealer and get hooked up with all the firepower they can handle. And yes, rich white people, there are arms dealers in most cities. Illegal guns are almost as easy to get as illegal drugs.

And don't forget, it's also possible for anyone to easily build their own guns:



This book has all the schematics and information you need to build your very own sub-machine gun, without even requiring expensive machining equipment.

The point I am trying to make here is this: even if assault weapons are banned, nothing is going to change - at all. People will continue to shoot and kill other people with assault weapons, whether they are legal or not. Our government is too weak to effectively put a stop to anything. They can't get rid of the drugs, no matter how many laws they pass, how can you expect them to get rid of all the guns? Like it or not, firearms are here to stay.

PS: Michael Moore is an idiot.

This post has been edited by z e w b: 14 April 2008 - 11:02 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Moore's film didn't actually advocate controlling guns; he started out espousing a lifetime association with the NRA, and questioned the roots of American gun violence, given the number of other countries with large per capita supplies of guns. He didn't come to a conclusion, which makes his film about 100% less polemical than people accused it of being. He merely left an open question for folks to look at.

Off topic, your whole Vermont analogy is awesome. You started out saying that gun control would only help rich white folks, then mentioned the counterexample of Vermont, with no gun control, and how it has so little violence. Vermont is a small state, with a population of about 650000, 96.7% of whom are white, and with a median household income of $44000 per year. Home opwnership is at 70%. So ... how are the crime stats for Maryland? And do you think they're related to income, household size, the drug trade, and race, or is it just gun control that raised the crime stats through the roof?

[J m HofMarN]

Take a look at pro-gun control people. Since they live in safe, middle-class neighborhoods with no crime whatsoever, they don't need guns, so they assume that no civilians need guns.

No, I dont think so. I think that people become in favor of gun control as a result of gun violence, not because they personally dont need one. I don't need cold cuts, but I'm not about to go and advocate salami control.

Unfortunately, not everyone is fortunate enough to live in a gated community where they can take their recumbent bicycles and hybrid cars for a spin without the threat of being murdered/robbed. Some people actually live in dangerous areas crawling with crackheads and thugs and can't depend on the police to protect them.

You're trying to frame a debate on assault rifles in the terms of bourgioisie vs proletariat? Silly thing to do. How many working class people can afford their own ak47? Yes, it might be a good idea for people in crime ridden areas to have a mode of defense, but that brings us to my next point.

Gun control in any form is just retarded.

I assume then that you seek the legalization of assault and automatic weapons. Ok, I get that those crackheads youre worried about might be dangerous. But unless they're on some serious shit they should go down with one bullet. And I don't know that crackheads form platoons or use human wave attacks, so what do people need assault weapons for except for the purpose of killing a whole bunch of innocent people?

The only thing I can think of is defense against the government, but there are enough guns that civilians could make a decent enough stand and then cease an arsenal of automatics and such.

[z e w b]

Race is definitely a factor; areas with high populations of blacks and hispanics seem to have a higher crime rate and gang activity. Instead of banning guns, we should try to teach minorities to stop acting like thugs and quit shooting each other every 5 seconds.

Oops, I'm a racist now.

[J m HofMarN]

Or we could eliminate the underlying socio economic and educational disparities that exist and drive minorities into crime. Either way really.

[z e w b]

We've already done that. In fact we've overdone it, with affirmative action and scholarship programs for minorities. But also, back to Vermont's low crime rates, maybe Vermont's complete lack of gun control is what prevents crime. When everyone has access to firearms and is capable of defending themselves, crimes such as mugging, burglary, etc. become a lot more dangerous for the criminal.

[J m HofMarN]

Or maybe its due to Governor Howard Dean's magical powers.

Or it could be that cheese prevents crime. Behold the power of cheese.

Any of those are surely more likely than all that nonsense Civ posted about a homogenous well to do society.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 15 April 2008 - 01:05 PM