The war on terror is over officially \o/

[V7]

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Hunting and sport is one thing, but I have never felt a need to own a gun to protect myself in this country (where it is illegal to have one at home). Perhaps it says something about our 2 countries, though I'll admit yours is in something of a Catch 22 situation!!

its legal in Australia both for hunting and sport, you just need a licence and have to comply with some safty requirements - we're much stricter than the US but not impossible to get one if you have a clean record and a good reason.

And most of DTE's things are controled at some level or other - I'd have to look it up but i'm fairly sure its not possible to buy ninja stars.

 

[Rithrandil]

I agree, von Brunn should not have been allowed to own guns after what he did in the first time.

 

[Prime Junta]

And most of DTE's things are controled at some level or other - I'd have to look it up but i'm fairly sure its not possible to buy ninja stars.

I've seen shurikens for sale at a knife shop here.

I'm sure that if shuriken-related injuries and deaths become a major social problem, this could change. Thus far, though, it is possible to walk around town without being assaulted by shuriken-throwing ninjas. Most of the time, anyway.

(Can't say the same for football fans, though. There were pretty big street fights between Finnish and Russian ones here last night. Blood on the streets and all that commotion...)

 

[Rithrandil]

Some odd things are banned here. You can't own nunchuks in california, for example.

 

[Prime Junta]

Some odd things are banned here. You can't own nunchuks in california, for example.

That is odd. It's not like they're hard to make, or something.

 

[Rithrandil]

What can I say? California overlegislates. You can't walk a herd of cattle down Hollywood blvd., either.

 

[dteowner]

How many people get injured or killed by each of these every year? I'd be surprised if the numbers are anywhere near the numbers killed or injured by guns. (Also, some of the more dangerous stuff -- blasting caps, anhydrous ammonia, explosives etc. should be restricted IMO. Are, too, in most places.)

I've said it before: I'm not against gun ownership, but I am for reasonable restrictions to gun ownership. For example, someone with the history of Von Brunn should never have been allowed a legal gun.

We're struggling with similar issues in Finland, by the way -- there's been an alarming increase in shooting incidents lately. We used to be able to handle our guns, but that may no longer be the case.

Actually, I favor some restrictions on guns as well. I just don't buy into the logic that banning guns solves the problem of violence or that banning guns somehow eliminates the tools available for said violence. It's a horribly weak argument, and that's before we even touch the whole Constitutional aspect.

Acetylene is readily available at welding supply shops all over the country, and you'll never be able to differentiate between a legit user and Timothy McVeigh. Bottles of oxygen fall under the same umbrella, with additional availability via medical supply shops. Anhydrous is available at most farm supply shops. They're getting a little more careful with it because of the meth labs, but it's still a situation where you have tremendous legitimate demand that will hide anyone with foul intent.

Simply look at history. We always find new and exciting ways to kill each other. Do we really think magically removing guns from the equation will amount to more than a speedbump? Not to mention that the genie is already out of the bottle, so folks that have a plan will always be able to get a gun made--it's not like those folks are terribly worried about the law anyway.

 

[Prime Junta]

Simply look at history. We always find new and exciting ways to kill each other. Do we really think magically removing guns from the equation will amount to more than a speedbump? Not to mention that the genie is already out of the bottle, so folks that have a plan will always be able to get a gun made--it's not like those folks are terribly worried about the law anyway.

Yes, it would be a speedbump, but sometimes that's all it takes. Most of the people responsible for violent crime -- political or otherwise -- aren't all that bright. Most of the violence itself is perpetrated in the heat of the moment, often under the influence of alcohol or drugs. That's where gun control comes in -- in that kind of situation, the results will be very different if you have a .357 within arm's reach, or if you only have a bread knife, rolling pin, or your fists.

Security is an onion. There are multiple layers, none of which are watertight. Sensible restrictions to firearms ownership will tighten one of the layers. Alone, it won't do much, but combined with other measures, it will.

 

[V7]

There's also the question of lethality - sure you can stab people with a knife but its no where as easy to kill a dozen or more people as it is for someone with a gun, the same goes for pretty much anything else - guns are just far and away the most efficient way of killing lots of people quickly without needing any special skills or knowledge.

 

[Rithrandil]

I take PJ and dte's stance on this issue - or am somewhere in between. I think owning hand guns, hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, etc are fine. I don't think people should be allowed to walk around with AK's unless it's a collector's item and they undergo some EXTREME testing by the ATF and FBI or some such. I think felons who commit any sort of violent crime should be banned from owning guns for the rest of their lives.

And by the way, I'm arguing for a right that I don't even have in most states nowadays.

 

[Zaleukos]

Guns probably increase the lethality of crimes of passion due to being relatively user-friendly killing devices, but it would be impractical (and likely not worth the effort from a cost-benefit point of view) to ban them in a country where they are entrenched culturally. I also think people more or less should be able to keep whatever stuff they like on their private property. Instead it would make sense to require that owners uphold some sort of safety standards, like with cars... Require a gun safety class in order to obtain a license, make people responsible if something happens due to their guns not having been kept safely, that kind of regulation would let people to keep their guns but still raise the safety bar.

 

[dteowner]

There's also the question of lethality - sure you can stab people with a knife but its no where as easy to kill a dozen or more people as it is for someone with a gun, the same goes for pretty much anything else - guns are just far and away the most efficient way of killing lots of people quickly without needing any special skills or knowledge.

I could kill an entire roomfull of people with a relatively small amount of anhydrous if I contain it (and them) properly. No more real planning needed than buying a gun and going on a spree. All you're doing is requiring a little bit of innovation, and humans are really good at innovation when killin's involved.

Lethality is a bogus scale because dead is dead. You're no more likely to survive a gut wound from a knife than a gut wound from a bullet (probably worse, since there's no such thing as a "clean thru and thru" with a knife). You're less likely to survive a room of toxic vapor than a gunshot.

 

[Prime Junta]

I could kill an entire roomfull of people with a relatively small amount of anhydrous if I contain it (and them) properly. No more real planning needed than buying a gun and going on a spree. All you're doing is requiring a little bit of innovation, and humans are really good at innovation when killin's involved.

Yet terrorist attacks with poison gas are very very rare, and when they happen, they're remarkably ineffective. Shootings and bombings, OTOH, happen every day.

Why do you reckon that is?

 

[dteowner]

Instead it would make sense to require that owners uphold some sort of safety standards, like with cars... Require a gun safety class in order to obtain a license, make people responsible if something happens due to their guns not having been kept safely, that kind of regulation would let people to keep their guns but still raise the safety bar.

This is pretty much my stance as well. My heartburn is that the popular arguments for gun control, even for measures as unintrusive as these, are utter crap. It's typical lefty-think where you build elaborate castles on foundations of sand and expect them to hold up.
Step 1: Enact plan
Step 2: Completely change human behavior, 100% and overnight
Step 3: Utopia!

 

[Prime Junta]

This is pretty much my stance as well. My heartburn is that the popular arguments for gun control, even for measures as unintrusive as these, are utter crap. It's typical lefty-think where you build elaborate castles on foundations of sand and expect them to hold up.
Step 1: Enact plan
Step 2: Completely change human behavior, 100% and overnight
Step 3: Utopia!

Could you cite an actual example of a prominent lefty making that argument?

Just curious...

 

[Zaleukos]

True, lethality doesnt make much difference to planned and premeditated crime.

Not all crime is premeditated though. Making it harder to escalate by requiring on the fly innovation in the heat of the moment would probably slow things down enough for sentiments to cool down in some of those other cases. Crimes of passion are also less likely to be deterred by harsh sentences and efficient police work, as drunken wifebeaters & co dont really think for long before they act.

Interestingly enough the US has a high murder rate (often a crime of passion) and relatively low property crime rates (crimes that often require some planning) by international standards.

This is pretty much my stance as well. My heartburn is that the popular arguments for gun control, even for measures as unintrusive as these, are utter crap. It's typical lefty-think where you build elaborate castles on foundations of sand and expect them to hold up.

My argument would simply be that it is a tool that can be dangerous if used irresponsibly, so let us help people do that. You could even let the NRA give safety classes to placate them... Simply making something a little harder to use can have drastic effects on misuse.

 

[magerette]

I honestly think gun control or the lack of it has very little to do with this incident. I'm more concerned about the solidifying and proliferation of individual crazies into loose coalitions that support each other's violent, hateful fantasies than in worrying how they're going to arm themselves physically. It's the mental arming and encouragement that they receive on the web and in the media that is far more likely to make these kind of things go from amorphous hate spewing to planned murder.

 

[Rithrandil]

Thanks you, magerette. Like I said, this isn't about gun control, and anyone who tries to make it about gun control is trying to push a stupid social agenda. I can say this is a bible control issue. The guy's a white supremacist, most (all) of when are protestant Christians. Let's ban the Christian god! If he didn't exist, none of this would have happened!

See how that would annoy people?

No, it's about violence and violent acts and hate groups and xenophobic reactionaries running around willing to shoot and kill others to enforce their racial/religious utopia upon the masses.

 

[Zaleukos]

I honestly think gun control or the lack of it has very little to do with this incident. I'm more concerned about the solidifying and proliferation of individual crazies into loose coalitions that support each other's violent, hateful fantasies than in worrying how they're going to arm themselves physically. It's the mental arming and encouragement that they receive on the web and in the media that is far more likely to make these kind of things go from amorphous hate spewing to planned murder.

Yep, gun control wouldnt have prevented that incident (or the school shootings that tend to reopen the debate) unless taken to the unpractical extreme of removing most guns. If you are set on doing an evil deed you will find a way.

Sensible control would be more about reducing accidents and preventing relatively regular guys from doing something stupid in a fit of anger.

EDIT: Yeah, 89-yearold Nazi activists dont really fall under "regular guys" in my book...

 

[magerette]

Yep, gun control wouldnt have prevented that incident (or the school shootings that tend to reopen the debate) unless taken to the unpractical extreme of removing most guns. If you are set on doing an evil deed you will find a way.

Sensible control would be more about reducing accidents and preventing relatively regular guys from doing something stupid in a fit of anger.

I'm sureyou're not saying this fruit loop was a regular guy. I'm all for reasonable control of firearms, keeping assault weapons off the streets and handguns away from fourteen year old gang members, but all that has nothing to do with this incident.

In fact, playing the devil's advocate here, gun control of the strictest sort might actually have made this incident worse. The Holocaust museum, because of the level of insane threats it receives, appears to be set up in a very preventive way; without the awareness and the high security, this man, who undoubtedly could have obtained a gun illegally no matter what the level of legislated control, would have walked into a facility not designed to stop him in his tracks, and who knows how many innocent people he would have killed.