Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:05 PM   #176
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Except that any proposal to improve safety gets rejected by gun owners.
Well, as long as the proposals don't involve further restricting owernship of items, such as supressors, 30 round magazines, or rifles, I'm probably on board.

See because banning those items does nothing for gun safety. It just, bans them.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:10 PM   #177
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Guns are made mostly for target shooting and storing
Even if most guns are only used for target shooting and storing that is not what their purpose is. And that is not why they were originally made.

You can't hide behind the 2nd Amendment and say that their main use is a non-violent one - you just can't have it both ways.

Unless, of course, all of those target shooting guns only use dummy, non-lethal, bounce off human, bullets.
Moyank24 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:13 PM   #178
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Even if most guns are only used for target shooting and storing that is not what their purpose is. And that is not why they were originally made.
Ok. All knives were made for killing


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
You can't hide behind the 2nd Amendment and say that their main use is a non-violent one - you just can't have it both ways.

Unless, of course, all of those target shooting guns only use dummy, non-lethal, bounce off human, bullets.
I don't typically use the 2nd Amendment as an arguing point. I enjoy the spirit of the Constitution, and I've appealed to that. But the amendment as the sole reason to have guns? Not from me. (Unless it was in a special context)
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:18 PM   #179
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Ok. All knives were made for killing




I don't typically use the 2nd Amendment as an arguing point. I enjoy the spirit of the Constitution, and I've appealed to that. But the amendment as the sole reason to have guns? Not from me. (Unless it was in a special context)
Were knives originally made for killing or as a utility to help our ancestors cut? One could argue (who has a greater knowledge of such things) that knives weren't even used to kill the animals but were used to cut them up for meat and other useful things.

That amendment is one of the major obstacles in banning and/or regulating guns. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with target shooting.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:21 PM   #180
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Were knives originally made for killing or as a utility to help our ancestors cut? One could argue (who has a greater knowledge of such things) that knives weren't even used to kill the animals but were used to cut them up for meat and other useful things.
who knows?

The point is that it doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
That amendment is one of the major obstacles in banning and/or regulating guns. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with target shooting.
That's the problem with using it as a talking point. It's completely subjective. That's why I don't like to use it or bring it up.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:27 PM   #181
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
who knows?

The point is that it doesn't matter.



That's the problem with using it as a talking point. It's completely subjective. That's why I don't like to use it or bring it up.
Of course it matters - when comparing things like stoves and cars to guns. And unless you have no idea what you are even arguing, it matters.

You said guns were made mostly for target shooting. That just isn't true. And then you said all knives were made for killing. Which isn't true either.

And again, if most guns are made for target shooting, why not use a non-lethal gun with bullets that just bounce off humans?
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:33 PM   #182
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Good assessment, and I agree.

The problem then, boils down to one of private property and individual rights. Should you, based on an opinion, because that's all this is, be able to tell me what I can and can't buy?

For myself, the answer is a resounding no. Never.
The precedent has already been set. Own land that the government wants to run a crude oil pipeline through, or build a Cowboys stadium on? Be prepared to give some/all of it up. Convicted felon? No guns for you. Want to own some opium? Not allowed. Want to do X, Y or Z that violates municipal code? Denied.

A Libertarian/libertarian we totally disagree with the above. I disagree with some, agree with others. For example, I will never EVER live in a place that subjects me to a HOA.

Quote:
I guess for others, there is a mindset where they believe that there is some sort of innate right for some people to tell others what they can and can't buy. As I mentioned, I disagree, but more so, I think it's an arbitrary, meaningless, inconsistent position.
But to the person who makes that decision, it's not arbitrary, etc., to them. I think people feel that membership to a society is what gives them that right. They probably aren't too concerned with gun ownership in, say, Somalia unless they live there.

Quote:
What if 40 people died every year from gun violence? Would you still want to ban them then?
Me personally? No, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think our normal laws against murder, manslaughter, and negligence would be plenty to cover it all.

Quote:
If you're opinion the matter would waver from such a low number, than it's clear here that you're looking at the numbers, saying woah a lot of people die, let's ban that.
Yep, it's about the numbers. On one end of the scale, we have ourselves sinking every single last resouse in the entire universe available to us into an effort to eliminate every single deather ever, whatever the cause. On the other end, we have anarchy and every-person-for-themself. Somewhere in between, based on a judgement call of numbers (both lives and resources) is the most efficient, most moral action.

Quote:
But you are turning a blind eye to other methods of death because you happen to use them every day.
No, it's not because vehicular deaths happen every day. Gun deaths happen every day too. It's because of the tradeoff I mentioned earlier.

Quote:
Many people gain pleasure from owning guns. How do you measure the social utility of that? It's certainly valuable, we value all sorts of entertainment very highly (how much do super star atheletes get paid?).
Is the pleasure they gain due to it's lethality? If so, tough tooties. They'll just have to do without. Enjoyment in the deaths of others, even the potential for deaths of others, has no place in a healthy society. While I enjoy the spectacle of car races, I take no pleasure in watching drivers or spectators getting injured, so I'm all for safety measures like the HANS device, roll-cage standards, etc. etc.

Is the pleasure they gain due to the skill required to be an expert marksman? Perhaps we should then discuss limiting civilian firearms ownership to single-shot .22 bolt-action rifles that can only be stored at a licensed range? No handguns?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
We are?
Yep!
https://www.google.com/search?source...kitchen+knives

Although to be fair and more accurate, I should have said "some doctors in the UK are proposing banning..." rather than "The UK is moving towards..." My apologies for that mischaracterization, I didn't mean to imply everybody, or even the majority of people, in the UK thinks so.
elistan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:42 PM   #183
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Following that line of reasoning, people shouldn't be allowed to have stoves, since irresponsibility can lead to the neighborhood being burnt down.
The social utility of stoves greatly outweighs their dangers.

Now how about guns? What is the acceptable ratio of dead children from accidental shootings to incidents of someone protecting themselves with a firearm? Because you're going to get BOTH when guns are legal.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
The problem then, boils down to one of private property and individual rights. Should you, based on an opinion, because that's all this is, be able to tell me what I can and can't buy?

For myself, the answer is a resounding no. Never.
So where can I pick up my rocket launcher? Hell, where can I pick up a full-auto rifle? Oh wait...
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:50 PM   #184
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
The social utility of stoves greatly outweighs their dangers.

Now how about guns? What is the acceptable ratio of dead children from accidental shootings to incidents of someone protecting themselves with a firearm? Because you're going to get BOTH when guns are legal.

----------


So where can I pick up my rocket launcher? Hell, where can I pick up a full-auto rifle? Oh wait...
Gun owners are not asking for the right to buy a rocket launcher. A select-fire rifle can be purchased with fingerprinting a tax stamp, and a lot of money. Legally.

Grenade launchers, RPG's, grenades cannot be purchased by civilians under any circumstances. I guess I should give you a little credit for not mentioning nukes.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:58 PM   #185
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Gun owners are not asking for the right to buy a rocket launcher. A select-fire rifle can be purchased with fingerprinting a tax stamp, and a lot of money. Legally.

Grenade launchers, RPG's, grenades cannot be purchased by civilians under any circumstances. I guess I should give you a little credit for not mentioning nukes.
Maybe you missed the context of the statement he was responding to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post

The problem then, boils down to one of private property and individual rights. Should you, based on an opinion, because that's all this is, be able to tell me what I can and can't buy?

For myself, the answer is a resounding no. Never.
I belive eric would be in favor of being allowed to purchase a Rocket Launcher. Or nukes.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:00 PM   #186
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Maybe you missed the context of the statement he was responding to?



I belive eric would be in favor of being allowed to purchase a Rocket Launcher. Or nukes.
His response was nothing but snark.

After reading a lot of these threads, I have never seen Eric say he is in favor of purchasing either.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:00 PM   #187
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Gun owners are not asking for the right to buy a rocket launcher. A select-fire rifle can be purchased with fingerprinting a tax stamp, and a lot of money. Legally.

Grenade launchers, RPG's, grenades cannot be purchased by civilians under any circumstances. I guess I should give you a little credit for not mentioning nukes.
So where's the distinction between handguns and semi-auto rifles, and RPGs and select-fire rifles? The arguments eric/ is presenting on why the first two should be allowed equally apply to the second two. (Ie, enjoyment of ownership/use, and property rights.)
elistan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:05 PM   #188
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
So where's the distinction between handguns and semi-auto rifles, and RPGs and select-fire rifles? The arguments eric/ is presenting on why the first two should be allowed equally apply to the second two. (Ie, enjoyment of ownership/use, and property rights.)
THIS. Clearly the line has been drawn. Why is the current status quo (nothing more "deadly" than a semi-auto rifle is legal, notwithstanding the select-fire thing mentioned above) acceptable? Why aren't gun-rights folks clamoring for the right to own an RPG? Serious question, not snark.

How dangerous is too dangerous?
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:06 PM   #189
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
So where's the distinction between handguns and semi-auto rifles, and RPGs and select-fire rifles? The arguments eric/ is presenting on why the first two should be allowed equally apply to the second two. (Ie, enjoyment of ownership/use, and property rights.)
Where has he mentioned select-fire or RPG's?
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:09 PM   #190
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Where has he mentioned select-fire or RPG's?
You have missed the point.

I suggest reading his statement again:

Quote:
The problem then, boils down to one of private property and individual rights. Should you, based on an opinion, because that's all this is, be able to tell me what I can and can't buy?

For myself, the answer is a resounding no. Never.
Eric doesn't believe we should be limited in what we can purchase and what we can't. Just because he hasn't mentioned that he wants to purchase one, doesn't mean he doesn't believe we shouldn't be allowed to.

But, maybe we should wait for eric to respond.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:11 PM   #191
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
The problem then, boils down to one of private property and individual rights. Should you, based on an opinion, because that's all this is, be able to tell me what I can and can't buy?

For myself, the answer is a resounding no. Never.
Very dramatic ... not just a "no," but a resounding one.

However, just within the past couple of days you posted that you agree with some existing restrictions on firearms and ammo.

So your, "... resounding no. Never." is simply not true.

You said so yourself.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:11 PM   #192
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
His response was nothing but snark.
Perhaps it was snark, but it's still a serious point - where should the line be drawn between which weapons are and are not allowed? eric/'s various posts imply that he believes there should not be any line - "Should you, based on an opinion, because that's all this is, be able to tell me what I can and can't buy? For myself, the answer is a resounding no. Never." It's all allowed.

What are your thoughts?

Currently we allow (not an exhaustive list) handguns, both revolver and semi-auto, and rifles, both bolt-action and semi-auto. Most other weapons are fobidden, or as you said, available only under certain expensive situations for units older than 1986(?).

Do you believe that is appropriate? Or - do you believe that select-fire, short-barrel, supressor equipped rifles with 30 round magazines should be available on the same basis as handguns? Or - do you believe that handguns, etc., should be available only according to the procedures applicable to select-fire weapons?
elistan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:12 PM   #193
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
You have missed the point.

I suggest reading his statement again:



Eric doesn't believe we should be limited in what we can purchase and what we can't. Just because he hasn't mentioned that he wants to purchase one, doesn't mean he doesn't believe we shouldn't be allowed to.

But, maybe we should wait for eric to respond.
I fully understand the point.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:16 PM   #194
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
Yep!
https://www.google.com/search?source...kitchen+knives

Although to be fair and more accurate, I should have said "some doctors in the UK are proposing banning..." rather than "The UK is moving towards..." My apologies for that mischaracterization, I didn't mean to imply everybody, or even the majority of people, in the UK thinks so.
Fair enough .
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:24 PM   #195
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Where has he mentioned select-fire or RPG's?
Right here:
"Should you, based on an opinion, because that's all this is, be able to tell me what I can and can't buy?

For myself, the answer is a resounding no. Never. "

"What I can and can't buy" encompases everything in the universe that exists. I can either buy something, or I can't. RPGs, the Moon, handguns, a pack of gum, sarin gas, a Porsche, a B2 bomber - all those things are contained in the set "things I can and can't buy." And according to eric/ nobody should be able to dictate to anybody else which of those two subsets each thing should be in.

(I'm ignoring for the moment the distiction betweeing "buying" something and "owning" something.)

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Fair enough .
How is that playing out there, by the way? Is the proposal getting much attention or being seriously considered?
elistan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:31 PM   #196
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
How is that playing out there, by the way? Is the proposal getting much attention or being seriously considered?
I've not heard anything about it.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:41 PM   #197
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
...Guns are made mostly for target shooting and storing
For most of the day, a car is parked in a lot or garage, but we would never argue that a car is made mostly for parking.

A car, regardless of actual use, is designed to carry people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Ok. All knives were made for killing...
The butter knife. The cheese knife. The paring knife.

This is a ridiculous argument.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:43 PM   #198
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
Perhaps it was snark, but it's still a serious point - where should the line be drawn between which weapons are and are not allowed? eric/'s various posts imply that he believes there should not be any line - "Should you, based on an opinion, because that's all this is, be able to tell me what I can and can't buy? For myself, the answer is a resounding no. Never." It's all allowed.

What are your thoughts?

Currently we allow (not an exhaustive list) handguns, both revolver and semi-auto, and rifles, both bolt-action and semi-auto. Most other weapons are fobidden, or as you said, available only under certain expensive situations for units older than 1986(?).

Do you believe that is appropriate? Or - do you believe that select-fire, short-barrel, supressor equipped rifles with 30 round magazines should be available on the same basis as handguns?
I have no problem with current NFA laws and restrictions. It would be nice if the BATFE would hire more examiners to speed up the process of NFA applications.

Quote:
Or - do you believe that handguns, etc., should be available only according to the procedures applicable to select-fire weapons?
No I do not. Current laws need to be enforced.

There is already a rigorous check for concealed carry holders and firearms permits. The process, depending on state involved County Police/Sheriff, State Police, and NICS (depending on state) and fingerprinting.

For instance, when I lived in Georgia, the GWCL application requires fingerprinting, GBI check, and an NICS check. The difference between the GWCL process and me applying for an SBR or suppressor tax stamp, is the $200 fee and three to twelve month wait for an examiner to approve the application. The reason for the wait is lack of examiners and number of requests.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:48 PM   #199
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I've not heard anything about it.
Good to know.

----------

Given these two statements...

Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
I have no problem with current NFA laws and restrictions.
Quote:
Current laws need to be enforced.
would you mind expanding on which laws you believe aren't being encforced?
elistan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:57 PM   #200
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Very dramatic ... not just a "no," but a resounding one.

However, just within the past couple of days you posted that you agree with some existing restrictions on firearms and ammo.

So your, "... resounding no. Never." is simply not true.

You said so yourself.
And.... if you go look at that post, I said in practice in regard to that.

Also, it's a resounding no, because I deeply believe that, and I've yet to see any argument which has swayed my thoughts.

----------

[/COLOR]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
For most of the day, a car is parked in a lot or garage, but we would never argue that a car is made mostly for parking.

A car, regardless of actual use, is designed to carry people.

The butter knife. The cheese knife. The paring knife.

This is a ridiculous argument.
I agree, idk why people are making it.

The target rifle. the collectors edition handgun. The ancient canon for display.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Of course it matters - when comparing things like stoves and cars to guns. And unless you have no idea what you are even arguing, it matters.
Ok what metric are you using to determine social utility, and how is that derived?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
You said guns were made mostly for target shooting. That just isn't true. And then you said all knives were made for killing. Which isn't true either.
Right, I'm pointing out that the notion that "guns are made for killing" is just as ridiculous as all knives are made for killing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
And again, if most guns are made for target shooting, why not use a non-lethal gun with bullets that just bounce off humans?
No idea. I don't really see how it makes a difference.

Last edited by eric/; Feb 4, 2013 at 05:09 PM.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Message not found" text from unknown (with screen shot) rrandyy iPhone 17 May 4, 2013 01:55 AM
"American Wallpaper USA Themes...50% Launch Sale!" iglobal123 iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Jul 1, 2012 01:35 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC