Forums | MacLife

Pariah wrote:

There are plenty of things that are legal that aren't rights.

The sword, and every terrible implement of the soldier, is the birthright of every American.

I would never want the law so restrictive that Honest Joe finds it difficult to acquire a weapon that would be suitable for personal defense and I tend to agree that complete bans (like DC's) are a very bad idea for a few reasons, none of which have anything to do with the 2nd.
but....
I would accept as reasonable something like a community banning such powerful weapons that might have the punch to go thru two or three houses before expending their velocity. That sort of power is a real danger to innocents in the area even if used to protect a house.
No good preventing a break in if the bullet that kills the intruder keeps going and kills some poor sap next door.

We agree with one exception - the ban should be on the use, not the ownership.

A 30-06 can go through your wall, the neighbor's wall, and kill their fridge. That doesn't mean we need to ban them. The firer is liable for whatever that round does. I honestly find it quite reasonable for the city to say "no, you can't shoot your gun in the house unless you have a special built range with (boring list) of safety specifications or in an urgent circumstance." Hell, it seems reasonable to me that we prohibit the shooting of my grenade gun except at properly designed and safe ranges or private property with a safe distance around it. The damn thing isn't for hunting deer, after all. The most I would ever do is remove stumps or make loud noise on isolated farms or invading armies, and if we hit that scenario I'll be using Uncle Sam's toys anyways.

And there is no way in hell I'd let a grenade loose in the house. That is a good way to solve all of the wrong problems.

But they are really really fun.

Last edited by Jdude (2009-04-18 11:34 am)

daemon wrote:

I bet they are a whole lot of fun. Really.

However, I'd prefer those not be in private hands. Have the NatGuard (near citizen X) bring 'em out to some forsaken range and for $25 buck let you fire a few. Safely.

There are already quite a few in private hands. I think your concern is misplaced. Earlier, I linked the fbi crime data statistics that show handguns are the most likely firearm to be used in a crime. Anything can be misused, form guns to cars to frying pans. When those people hurt someone else or act in a unsafe manner that can hurt someone else, then we put them in jail. Don't fight the object, fight the person.

daemon wrote:

Of course some are out there.

Still, having the NG offer a service like that is better.

Not sure whether I'd confiscate the others or not. But, NO MORE, and let the Guard do the honors.

Why? What benefit to society does your proposed plan offer? If your position is that less grenade launchers mean less crime, I REALLY want to see the numbers on that.
And confiscation? Seriously? From people who have committed no crime? How about we take away all Ferraris because some people speed, or all Hummer trucks because some people ruin nature.

Or a Type 1 Phaser

Jdude wrote:

We agree with one exception - the ban should be on the use, not the ownership.

But if things like grenade launchers were somewhat readily available for ownership, but not use, that means they'd also be easier for criminals to own them too.

You can argue that criminals who want to get them will even if you can't own them, but the common criminal who is not willing to work that hard would be effectively prevented from getting them.

radarman wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

Jdude wrote:

We agree with one exception - the ban should be on the use, not the ownership.

But if things like grenade launchers were somewhat readily available for ownership, but not use, that means they'd also be easier for criminals to own them too.

You can argue that criminals who want to get them will even if you can't own them, but the common criminal who is not willing to work that hard would be effectively prevented from getting them.

This is the kind of thinking that got us where we are now. Last time I checked, criminals didn't seem to have any trouble obtaining firepower. Keep in mind, if a criminal is already planning on committing one crime, committing another that increases the odds of overall success is a no-brainer. Which is fortunate, because most criminals have no brains...

How exactly to you "check" to see how much trouble criminals have obtaining fire power?

I'm sure it's a bit geographical, but we don't have a problem here in NC with criminals running around with automatic rifles and other banned weapons. Criminals see to use what guns are easily available, and "assault weapons" aren't easily available.

We have to separate owning such a powerful gun from knowing how and when to use it. If a doofus gun owner expended a round in such a way to endanger the neighbors or other innocent bystanders he is fully responsible for what that round does. Even in a clean shooting you have to know where you might reasonably expect that round to go. The shooter is responsible for what happens as a result of his decision to shoot. There is a very thin set of circumstances when a citizen should use a gun. Despite that I still use my right to carry. I've saif it a hundred times. I hope I will never even point a gun at a human being let alone shoot anybody.

I spent the entire day today competing in a center fire pistol match with about 50 other shooters. It was a fun and safe day where shooters of all skill levels got to enjoy their guns and compete for a trophy. This is 99.9% of what my guns are for. I'll bet if some anti-gun people went to such a match they would find that shooters are just regular folks who mean no harm to anyone. There are strict safety protocols and after many hundrede of rounds no one was any worse for the experience. Take a look at the other side of guns. (BTW I won a trophy!)

sturner wrote:

::: Wildly waves around several loaded pistols and assault rifles :::

::: Shoots up the countryside just for the fun of it. :::

Folks, how can such a manly man keep wussing out on a friendly little Halo multiplayer challenge? I ask you...

Pariah wrote:

The difference between a gun enthusiast and a gun fetishist is that an enthusiast can understand reasonable limits on firepower while a fetishist thinks he has a right to own a howitzer.

Who gets to define reasonable?

Pariah wrote:

There are plenty of things that are legal that aren't rights.
I would never want the law so restrictive that Honest Joe finds it difficult to acquire a weapon that would be suitable for personal defense and I tend to agree that complete bans (like DC's) are a very bad idea for a few reasons, none of which have anything to do with the 2nd.
but....
I would accept as reasonable something like a community banning such powerful weapons that might have the punch to go thru two or three houses before expending their velocity. That sort of power is a real danger to innocents in the area even if used to protect a house.
No good preventing a break in if the bullet that kills the intruder keeps going and kills some poor sap next door.

Just about any rifle round will go through walls.  And bolt actions, used for competitive target shooting, will send that round through more walls than a semi-auto AK or AR will.

Daniel wrote:

Pariah wrote:

The difference between a gun enthusiast and a gun fetishist is that an enthusiast can understand reasonable limits on firepower while a fetishist thinks he has a right to own a howitzer.

Who gets to define reasonable?

Yeah- if I ever go postal, I'll be wanting, say, a Calico M-950. Who wants to reload in the middle of their killing spree? With 100 9mm rounds in the mag, I'd only need maybe one spare. And it's my Constitutional right to haz one. (I don't, btw).

Video.

===

sturner wrote:

Me don't haz the latest Halo.

Not an obstacle. To the surprise of many including me, MacSoft actually released an updated 1.5.2 (UB) demo a coupla years back, and so Blood Gulch is yours for free. (I figured you didn't have a 360). If needed I'll have Levi fire up MA3 (and don't cry unfair advantage 'cuz I was the first [MA]Halo Mod and still a clan offizier. I haven't PC gamed in 3+ years, so...)

You run Boot Camp anyway, so either way/OS, the demo with its iconic MP map are available.

But I'll smoke your ass on Left 4 Dead or Red Orchestra or Darkest Hour.

I only haz the last free RO and the 360 L4D demo, and haven't played either yet.

...but come completion of the next gameworthy machine in 2-3 weeks, flame- er, game on!



ed sp

Last edited by Bat (2009-04-19 12:04 am)

The trick for home defense is to use Steady Aim, not Deep Impact.