Is buying realistic shooters a moral choice?

[Ike_009]

Clint, I'm very sorry you think discussion is not encouraged here, but how do you think people are supposed to react to your posts? You essentially just called everyone who is pro-gun Rambo types and then insulted the lot of us.

You are one of the most hostile people I've had the displeasure of communicating with on this and the MyBB forums. You come in, insult people for not sharing your opinions, show no respect for anyone else's opinions, and then expect people not to react in kind? Maybe if you tried to tone down the naked hostility a bit, people would respond better to you?

Agreed and also after his post in the new subaru thread I wanted to slap him. You don't walk into a thread discussing a new car and then say cars are only a means of transportation and then try and close the thread.

Your coming off as someone with a chip on his shoulder screaming insult about yo mamma, of course people are gonna turn to take up the challenge. The end result is plenty of people are pulling in to see you fail and your campaign method leaves you no friends to help defend you. That's why you on your island getting attacked from all angles with no back-up.

Work on how you enter a conversation

 

[ingeon]

Work on how you enter a conversation

At least he gave a decent reply to my apparent sexism statement though

 

[Lycanthrope]

I agree with Clint's argument.

For me, no civilised society should have dangerous weapons. I had a chuckle a while ago reading a YouTube comment (says it all, doesn't it?) where someone had tried to insult the UK using some teenagers who had gotten into a "knife fight" in his argument. A UK resident lovingly retorted that if it were a gunfight (*cough* USA *cough*), none of those teenagers would still be alive and they would probably have taken a school down with them.

You can use the self-defence argument for gun-ownership all you like, the reality is that you don't need a gun to defend yourself in most situations; guns are often stolen from people who bought guns for "self-defence" and are then used in crimes--further fuelling the problem and, most importantly, the fact that guns don't serve any other purpose than to be a dangerous weapon.

And yet, so often, digging deeper into the minds of the pro-gun whackjobs, you'll find that they take pleasure in hunting (this already sends warning signals) and they believe quite firmly that their governments are trying to take their guns away so that they become slaves to the military or some such nonsense (again, hello, these are people you want owning dangerous weapons?)

There's also the liberal argument: in a liberal society we should be allowed to own whatever the hell we like. And yes, I'd agree with that, but not if it poses a risk to those around you. This is why we have so many fantastic laws that prohibit danger to others: you need a licence (proof that you are able) to drive a car, you can't be drunk when you drive, you can't kill each other, etc.

I like to think that (most) laws are there to protect us from the whackjobs out there and, when they fail at that, to bring justice to them.

Nobody has a good reason to own a gun.

And those who think that they do are usually knuckle-draggers with tiny dicks who think that when three guys with guns breaks into their house, they can act macho and manly and shoot the bastards dead and be a hero. It's just such a shame how infrequently that actually happens and how often situations like that escalate to the point where they and their families get slaughtered.

I'm reminded of Rowan Atkinson in The Thin Blue Line:

D.I. Grim: "You're supposed to ask questions to find out who's a suitable person to own a gun."

Inspector Fowler: "That's right. And surely the first question must be, 'does that person wish to own a gun?'."

D.I. Grim: "Well of course."

Inspector Fowler: "And if the answer to that is 'yes', then clearly that person is not a suitable person to have one."

The only members of a civilised society who should be permitted to wield firearms are military and police.

And even then, police is questionable, especially in South Africa where a fair number of firearms are stolen FROM the police. In which case I'd argue that only special task forces should be permitted to hold firearms kept for evidence (until they can be destroyed) and use firearms in the line of service.

All the same, it's sad that discussions like this even need to happen--shows how far we all still need to go before we can ever consider ourselves or where we live "civilised."

 

[Graal]

And those who think that they do are usually knuckle-draggers with tiny dicks who think that when three guys with guns breaks into their house, they can act macho and manly and shoot the bastards dead and be a hero.

See, this is why I think your entire argument is flawed from the core. You're prejudiced against anyone who would like to own a gun. Very few of the people I know who own guns have this mentality, yet this sad stereotype gets employed in every argument simply because it's easier to put people down then to really argue against their points.

It's also very strange just how naive your argument seems to be. Do you really think stopping people from legitimately getting guns is going to stop criminals getting guns? Ever heard of the black market? Do you know how ridiculously easy it is to get weapons off the black market? I had a nigerian neighbor living in the flat next to me a while back and I spoke to him on the odd occasion, once having helped him setup his adsl router. As he told me, if I want a gun it's a simple question of ringing him up, him speaking to his contacts and by tomorrow night you can all be reading about the Stellenbosch university massacre. Depending on the type of gun, it likely won't cost me more than R1000.

And please stop this 'all anti-gun people think they are macho hur durr' bullshit. I don't get a pistol because I want to be rambo when people break in. I get it so I at least have a slight chance and I'm not completely at their mercy. As much as you might think otherwise, I'd rather be dead than get raped.

Either way, my main motivation for wanting a gun is for the sports side of it. Not hunting animals (not that you can hunt with a pistol anyway), but taking it down to the shooting range every once in a while. I'm also currently shopping around for a good hunting bow I can take down to the archery range. I guess that makes me some kind of raging lunatic.

So, I guess the best question here is, is there a viable discussion to be had here, or are the anti-gun folks just going to continue insulting the pro-gun people?

 

[Lycanthrope]

See, this is why I think your entire argument is flawed from the core. You're prejudiced against anyone who would like to own a gun. Very few of the people I know who own guns have this mentality, yet this sad stereotype gets employed in every argument simply because it's easier to put people down then to really argue against their points.

By that logic, your argument is flawed "from the core" because you're prejudiced in favour of guns.

It's also very strange just how naive your argument seems to be. Do you really think stopping people from legitimately getting guns is going to stop criminals getting guns? Ever heard of the black market? Do you know how ridiculously easy it is to get weapons off the black market? I had a nigerian neighbor living in the flat next to me a while back and I spoke to him on the odd occasion, once having helped him setup his adsl router. As he told me, if I want a gun it's a simple question of ringing him up, him speaking to his contacts and by tomorrow night you can all be reading about the Stellenbosch university massacre. Depending on the type of gun, it likely won't cost me more than R1000.

Ah yes, the good ol', "If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns" argument. I think that goes hand-in-hand with the, "If you allow guns, criminals will just have bigger guns" escalation argument. The latter is true: when the majority have guns, access to guns is far simpler and gun-related violence is far higher.

Also, don't forget where most of those black market guns originated from: gun-toting whackjobs who couldn't hold onto them because they thought they were different.

And please stop this 'all anti-gun people think they are macho hur durr' bullshit. I don't get a pistol because I want to be rambo when people break in. I get it so I at least have a slight chance and I'm not completely at their mercy. As much as you might think otherwise, I'd rather be dead than get raped.

Yeah, unless you have your gun on you 24/7, chances are good that it'll be locked up in its safe (where it, by law, has to be) when they're already cleaning out your apartment while you're snuggled up in bed with one of them watching over you.

But that's okay, you keep believing you're different and that your gun will be the one that gives you "a slight chance."

There's no macho hur durr bullshit there at all. No siree.

Either way, my main motivation for wanting a gun is for the sports side of it. Not hunting animals (not that you can hunt with a pistol anyway), but taking it down to the shooting range every once in a while. I'm also currently shopping around for a good hunting bow I can take down to the archery range. I guess that makes me some kind of raging lunatic.

Ah, yes, recreational gun-ownership. That goes hand-in-hand with recreational cyanide, sarin and ricin production: it's fun to figure out how to make it, so why not argue in favour of that as well, as long as you don't intend to actually use it against people or animals. Just for SCIENCE, ya know.

But no, that correlation would be wasted, so let's argue in favour of recreational hand grenades instead. Or recreational explosives. All purely recreational, you understand. For fun. Nobody harmed, right? Everyone should be allowed to do it.

You don't seem to understand the concept of "dangerous weapon" very well. Anything can be used as a weapon and certain weapons are far less dangerous than others and capable of far less harm. Archery, by all means, have fun. Unless it's a heavily modified device capable of rapid firing and/or concealment, then I don't consider it anywhere near as dangerous as even an ordinary pistol.

So, I guess the best question here is, is there a viable discussion to be had here, or are the anti-gun folks just going to continue insulting the pro-gun people?

/insert insult.

 

[Fivel]

Ah, yes, recreational gun-ownership. That goes hand-in-hand with recreational cyanide, sarin and ricin production: it's fun to figure out how to make it, so why not argue in favour of that as well, as long as you don't intend to actually use it against people or animals. Just for SCIENCE, ya know.

But no, that correlation would be wasted, so let's argue in favour of recreational hand grenades instead. Or recreational explosives. All purely recreational, you understand. For fun. Nobody harmed, right? Everyone should be allowed to do it.

Wow, quotes of the month, you had me in stitches with these two beautes! I know this is a serious topic, but you made me laugh.

 

[Ike_009]

Why is it that people against guns can't bring anything meaningful to the table, their standard response is to insult the opposition. Might as well join the ANC, your running the same campaign style after all, why not join forces and just annoy everyone.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Wow, quotes of the month, you had me in stitches with these two beautes! I know this is a serious topic, but you made me laugh.

I'm glad someone appreciated them

Why is it that people against guns can't bring anything meaningful to the table, their standard response is to insult the opposition. Might as well join the ANC, your running the same campaign style after all, why not join forces and just annoy everyone.

Because meaningful discourse has been brought to the table countless times before (in this discussion and others) and ignored in favour of the usual rhetoric: it's for self-defence, it's for fun, it's your Second Amendment (we don't want those darn monarchs coming back and telling us what's what), for hunting, etc.

I've already addressed all of that in my two previous posts. It gets a bit tiresome having the same discussions again and again, so you kind of start losing interest in it and in the end you're just in it for whatever entertainment value is left.

I wouldn't take it seriously, if I were you. It's not like anyone's opinion on a forum is going to turn the world into a better place. But, I suppose, a faint hope remains.

 

[Fivel]

Why is it that people against guns can't bring anything meaningful to the table, their standard response is to insult the opposition. Might as well join the ANC, your running the same campaign style after all, why not join forces and just annoy everyone.

I disagree Ike, but gun owners should also ante up with more than 'its my right to own a gun'. It also somehow diminishes legitimate concerns that folks have about guns.

 

[Graal]

Ah yes, the good ol', "If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns" argument. I think that goes hand-in-hand with the, "If you allow guns, criminals will just have bigger guns" escalation argument. The latter is true: when the majority have guns, access to guns is far simpler and gun-related violence is far higher.

Also, don't forget where most of those black market guns originated from: gun-toting whackjobs who couldn't hold onto them because they thought they were different.

And you think the black market is just going to die down if legal gun ownership is taken away? I didn't even say anything about criminals being the only people who carry any guns, so please don't presume to put words in my mouth. I was merely pointing out how ridiculously easy it is to get access to guns on the black market, and if you think taking away legal gun ownership is going to change that then you're pretty naive.

Yeah, unless you have your gun on you 24/7, chances are good that it'll be locked up in its safe (where it, by law, has to be) when they're already cleaning out your apartment while you're snuggled up in bed with one of them watching over you.

But that's okay, you keep believing you're different and that your gun will be the one that gives you "a slight chance."

There's no macho hur durr bullshit there at all. No siree.

You see, why do you need to be so condescending? Someone doesn't share your opinion and you have to be a cunt about it? There's nothing about being 'different' or any such bullshit. Maybe I get shot in my bed. Maybe I don't get a chance to get the gun out of the safe, which, ironically would be five feet from my bed in the cupboard. But maybe I do hear them as they force the lock on my door, or break a window and I do get a chance to at least defend myself if I feel my life is endangered. I've at least got a slim chance at escaping alive if their intention was to kill me.

Ah, yes, recreational gun-ownership. That goes hand-in-hand with recreational cyanide, sarin and ricin production: it's fun to figure out how to make it, so why not argue in favour of that as well, as long as you don't intend to actually use it against people or animals. Just for SCIENCE, ya know.

But no, that correlation would be wasted, so let's argue in favour of recreational hand grenades instead. Or recreational explosives. All purely recreational, you understand. For fun. Nobody harmed, right? Everyone should be allowed to do it.

Lycanthrope, are you kidding me? You're likening a form of sport to lobbing hand-grenades or manufacturing poison?

The javelin/spear dates back all the way to the stone age. It was designed first and foremost as a weapon. I guess we need to abolish the javelin toss in the olympics then.

You don't seem to understand the concept of "dangerous weapon" very well.

No, Lycanthrope, you don't seem to understand the concept of a dangerous weapon very well. The number of knife-related crimes is a lot higher than the number of gun related crimes. Yet knives are not banned. If they break into my place now, they can leave with around 20 knives of assorted sizes. But who cares, right? At least they're not guns. With a knife you have to get close to a person to kill them. It takes longer to slit 20 throats than to shoot 20 people, so knives are totally not dangerous. And how bout dem bows? An experienced archer would be able to notch and fire an arrow once every 20 seconds, if not less. But hey, at least it's not a gun, right? Or the katanas available for sale pretty much anywhere. I can buy one for R300, go to a classroom and start slicing people up. But hey, at least it's not a gun, right?

I strongly suspect I'm wasting my time here, but I'll leave this 'debate' with the following; we don't need to have guns abolished. What we need is stricter regulation of who gets guns. At the moment, too many people who shouldn't have access to guns, are being granted firearm licenses. What we need is more regulation regarding this. As an example, mandatory psychological evaluations before application would be a good place to start, followed by evaluations annually or bi-annually. The barrier for entry to gun ownership needs to be a lot higher than it currently is.

And that's me out. I don't see anything of value being discussed further in this thread, so I don't see any reason to continue listening to what a nutter I am or little old gay me is trying to be macho. Have a nice day further.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I disagree Ike, but gun owners should also ante up with more than 'its my right to own a gun'. It also somehow diminishes legitimate concerns that folks have about guns.

I think it all boils down to a safety blanket/psychological reassurance/confidence. It's hard to see it as anything other than compensating for your own feelings of inadequacy and fear.

The feelings and fears are legitimate: we all want to feel in control, feel like we can do something to prevent harm from befalling us and our loved ones. But reality doesn't work like that. It's not the place of people to police themselves--that leads to the vigilantism and barbarity you see in the townships (granted, often because the police have failed them).

The reality is that owning a gun puts you at far greater risk. If you pull out a gun, then they will retaliate. I've heard the argument that it would be better to go out fighting than to let your wife/daughter be gang-raped but that's also just macho bravado. Many women describe those events saying that they just wanted it to be over, glad that it wasn't "worse" (read: being gang-raped while your husband lies dying next to you) and glad to just be alive.

This is not a simple or easy discussion because the reality isn't simple or easy. But I can't find one good argument for owning a gun that doesn't, except in exceedingly rare circumstances, change the course of events for the better. Because that's not how reality works. Reality is complacent: you get used to not being on high alert, you grow to feel safe and then, one day, you have a break-in while you're fast asleep, they are on top of you long before you even realise what's happening, they have you open your safe, take your gun and that's that. One more firearm and ammunition on the black market BECAUSE of you.

You've just played your part in perpetuating a cycle of events which was the reason you got a gun in the first place.

That's the reality.

My uncle was hijacked outside of his home by three armed thugs. He had his gun, in its holster, in the side compartment of the door. He didn't have time to take it out, and if he had, he'd be dead, I assure you of that. But what do you know, that's one more gun on the black market.

As I said: in a civilised society, nobody should have a firearm except law enforcement (and even then, in exceptional circumstances) and the army.

And while you might argue that South Africa is certainly not as civilised as we might like, it won't get there by perpetuating the same cycles that keep it where its at.

 

[Lycanthrope]

<snip>

Round and round we go... You've missed every point.

The javelin/spear dates back all the way to the stone age. It was designed first and foremost as a weapon. I guess we need to abolish the javelin toss in the olympics then.

Especially the point about what a dangerous weapon is.

No, Lycanthrope, you don't seem to understand the concept of a dangerous weapon very well.

Oh look, twice.

The number of knife-related crimes is a lot higher than the number of gun related crimes. Yet knives are not banned. If they break into my place now, they can leave with around 20 knives of assorted sizes. But who cares, right? At least they're not guns. With a knife you have to get close to a person to kill them. It takes longer to slit 20 throats than to shoot 20 people, so knives are totally not dangerous. And how bout dem bows? An experienced archer would be able to notch and fire an arrow once every 20 seconds, if not less. But hey, at least it's not a gun, right? Or the katanas available for sale pretty much anywhere. I can buy one for R300, go to a classroom and start slicing people up. But hey, at least it's not a gun, right?

Three times.

I strongly suspect I'm wasting my time here, but I'll leave this 'debate' with the following; we don't need to have guns abolished. What we need is stricter regulation of who gets guns. At the moment, too many people who shouldn't have access to guns, are being granted firearm licenses. What we need is more regulation regarding this. As an example, mandatory psychological evaluations before application would be a good place to start, followed by evaluations annually or bi-annually. The barrier for entry to gun ownership needs to be a lot higher than it currently is.

You're quite right: no civilians should have guns. That's the only regulation that would have any impact whatsoever on gun-related crimes.

 

[Graal]

I'm very glad you think that. Really, that childish naivity is admirable. Taking away legal gun ownership is going to make a difference. At least now instead of being held up with guns, we'll have knives pressed under our chins. I mean, it's not like the black market is flooded with guns being snuck across the borders or anything. They only come from civilians.

I'd also like to know what is inherently wrong with having a gun for the purpose of taking it down to the firing range, seeing as this is my main motivation for wanting a gun and this seems to mean I'm some kind of macho nutter.

 

[Ike_009]

I disagree Ike, but gun owners should also ante up with more than 'its my right to own a gun'. It also somehow diminishes legitimate concerns that folks have about guns.

I get that, we all have concerns but I still believe regulation, profiling and training should all be included in a system to I'd illegitimate users of firearms. However to ban guns will not solve anything, russia has no civilian firearms but also a murder rate 20 times that of the USA.

When I come to power gun ownership will include strict training in safe weapon control both physically and mentally (with regular check-ups) but that is my model.

Also it surprises me how little development has gone into ammunition tracing.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I'm very glad you think that. Really, that childish naivity is admirable. Taking away legal gun ownership is going to make a difference. At least now instead of being held up with guns, we'll have knives pressed under our chins. I mean, it's not like the black market is flooded with guns being snuck across the borders or anything. They only come from civilians.

http://sbcoalition.org/2011/04/gun-violence-and-the-census-sobering-statistics/

66% of all deaths by homicide (86,112) by guns between 2000-2008.

Oh look, and only 13% (16,547) by knives.

Unfortunately statistics don't do enough because far too much of it is open to interpretation, but let's just use common sense here: which has a greater chance of happening: you surviving a guy with a knife, or you surviving six rounds?

But yeah, you know, you just can't run away from a knife like you can a bullet.

I'd also like to know what is inherently wrong with having a gun for the purpose of taking it down to the firing range, seeing as this is my main motivation for wanting a gun and this seems to mean I'm some kind of macho nutter.

What's wrong with making explosives and owning some grenades and other military armaments for the purpose of just blowing my own personal shit up?

 

[Graal]

So, you're saying a sport which involves a lot of skill is worthless and nobody should practice it because what's the difference between carrying a gun and carrying military-grade explosives that can level an entire building if it gets dropped by accident?

Ignoring the fact that attempting to run away when being held up with a knife is a really stupid thing to do, basically your argument boils down to guns are more dangerous than other weapons, pliz ban?

 

[Ike_009]

Unfortunately statistics don't do enough because far too much of it is open to interpretation, but let's just use common sense here: which has a greater chance of happening: you surviving a guy with a knife, or you surviving six rounds?

That's not really a fair comparison, let's play odds of single stab vs a bullet and if the guy is gonna empty the mag in you then why won't he stab you until his arm gets tired since the variable here is limitation of use here.

Anyone care to venture a guess for survival rates for the victims of murderer A emptying his mag and murderer B emptying his knife?

Btw what makes you sure the removing the guns from 87% of murders will lead to a 87% drop in murder.

And lastly let's try running from murderer A and his gun and Murderer B and his knife, for consistency sake both murderers really want to kill you and let's assume both are fit active murderers vs me a student who doesn't get much exercise thanks to a full day of studying.

Shall we play a game?

 

[Lycanthrope]

So, you're saying a sport which involves a lot of skill is worthless and nobody should practice it because what's the difference between carrying a gun and carrying military-grade explosives that can level an entire building if it gets dropped by accident?

Kind of like being accused of manslaughter for accidentally killing someone a few kilometres away with a stray bullet after you fired blindly into the air to scare off some would-be no-goodnicks, you mean? Just one of many problems even something like that can cause. Like, oh, I dunno, for example someone firing his gun at a burglar who had tried to break into his house, missing the burglar, a bullet going through one of those concrete separators and straight into a curious little girl playing opposite?

Tell me more about the good that guns do.

Either way, so basically your argument boils down to guns are more dangerous than other weapons, pliz ban?

Uh, yeah? Earth to Graal, duh. Did it really take you five posts to twig on?

Let me spell it out for you slowly then: guns are more dangerous than knives or forks, more dangerous than katanas or chopsticks, more dangerous than a fist or a salami.

It's about survival and purpose. Knives serve purposes other than to be weapons. You can also fend off a knife attacker or just run. You can't run away from a gun or fend off a gun. A gun serves no other purpose than to kill.

And as for your sportsmanship, you are more than welcome to figure that one out for yourself.

I, however, am bored with this conversation. And unlike you:

And that's me out. I don't see anything of value being discussed further in this thread, so I don't see any reason to continue listening to what a nutter I am or little old gay me is trying to be macho. Have a nice day further.

I have the will power to say "I'm out" and mean it.

Have fun playing merry-go-round with whatever poor sod takes the bait next.

 

[Graal]

Okay Lycanthrope. Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy then. And your ignorance, which I'll get to in a second. So guns are the most efficient killing instrument, therefore ban them but not any other dangerous implements. The only purpose for a katana is to kill someone, but let's not ban it because you actually have to be close to kill someone with it. Nevermind that I can just hide behind a wall and slice your head off when you round the corner, then run away cackling like a wildling.

Now on to the ignorance bit; who the fuck shoots into the air in the middle of a residential area? Also, a bullet from a handgun that is shot straight up into the air flying kilometres far? Lolwtf.

 

[Lyt]

Just to add one more thing: The way I see it, and always did, is people who are against civilian gun use have never really experienced real violence, or have never had their lives really endangered. As Ike pointed out, Russia has little to no civilians with firearms ( although there is a sh**load of police there ) , but still their crime rate is really really high. I spent the big majority of my childhood there, I can give you first-hand accounts of what I saw. Hell, most of the time me and my friends would walk around with small hunting knives on us, because you never know when you will meet a guy who wants to rape you or a bunch of angry drunk teenagers want to take out their frustrations on you.

Talk to any security specialist or a soldier who visited war zones, tell them how safe you feel in your house, with an alarm system, surrounded by a steel electric fence, they will laugh at you. IF I wanted to I could ram your fence with my bakkie, break your trellidoor , and kill you and everybody else in the house. That's how secure you are without a gun. And let's see how long it takes for the security company car to arrive.

This is the problem with all you anti-gun monkeys. You try to hide away from the problem in your little fort, thinking you won't need a weapon to defend yourself, coz hey, I have a impenetrable steel fence. The day somebody breaks your fort down and your life will be in real danger, only then will you understand that you have to protect yourself and your family AT ANY COSTS!

Also @ Graal,

There is a guy selling a Hoyt Rampage 2012 Compound Bow for R6000, I'm not sure if he sold it yet, but I can find out.