Forum:Irrational gun lolz

< Index | RW Article discussion

I hate to make an account just to complain about one thing, but it's something I feel is very important to a wiki that attempts to counsel the public on rational thinking, science, and to stop being so stupid in general.

It may be a poor assumption but, from what I gather, the general opinion of firearms appears to be that they are for fools who either bet on being the minority of survivors come the apocalypse, criminals, mentally unstable, people who hope to "water the tree of liberty", and (to be thorough if redundant) Republicans.

The very clear and undeniable truth is in the absence of perceived authority or cultural stability, might makes right. Firearms have historically enabled armed groups to completely overwhelm groups who are unarmed.

European interlopers annihilated most resistance across many regions with the advantage of firearms. After the Meiji coup d'etat, the blind pride of the Samurai was insignificant to the lesser experienced soldiers with primative machine guns.

Years after Germany enacted gun control, the Nazi government siezed control and while their army was allowed to create weapons and arm themselves citizens were still limited in that power. Soon after the armed were able to commit genocide against the unarmed with near-impunity. I will admit this is not the best example because those who were murdered may have never chose to own a gun or could afford it anyhow, but being armed and experienced would probably have been to their benefit.

Now I am not arguing that anyone in the US need be concerned about being wiped out by their own government in the forseeable future or that an invasion by another nation is likely. I am, however, trying to suggest that firearms are more effective than wit alone and rational people equip themselves with wit while fundamentalists loonies equip themselves with high-caliber rifles, reliable automatics and enough ammunition to take down a mountain. In the face of that responsible ownership of a quality tool of death might seem a little less drastic for the sensible-minded.

I am very fond of the mission for RW and highly regard the points laid across. I am comforted to see people think. I am thrilled to see rational arguments in the face of thieves, liars, lunatics and those many people that haven't quite picked up the whole "God probably doesn't exist" thing. The one concern I do have is that the little conversation about gun ownership is mockery and poorly substantiated "arguments" (see the article on Second_Amendment). Then something about liberals conservatives blah blah blah.

So I hope this is the perfect place to have a rational discussion about firearms. It's clear we can't get rid of them, so might we just as well make a habit of safely handling them and educate ourselves on something better than scaremongering statistics?

Again, I do hate to be presumptuous and dive head first into the shallow end of the pool, but this really is something I think needs a little attention in the context of thinking clearly.

Aphoxema (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think of myself as owning a gun to protect myself from groups so much as I own a gun to protect myself from individuals. While there may well be fundamentalist mobs roaming the streets in a decade out for blood that I will need to defend myself against, I find it far more likely that my house will be burglarized, and I may need to defend it. I really picked up the whole "gun ownership" thing when I lived in a somewhat shady neighborhood when I was younger and actually needed the thing, but now that I'm old and rich and live in a quiet suburban town, I seriously doubt I'll ever have to use it, although I'll hardly get rid of my gun just because some people do find it distastful. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a massive contingent of editors who are hot on the subject. I know that in my situation right now I would probably feel less safe with a gun in the house than without. But there is a difference, at least in rational thinking, between your real paranoid nutters who collect automatic high caliber rifles and cite the second amendment as an excuse (I see these guys as just collecting penis extensions, frankly) and someone who keeps a small, unloaded pistol in a locked box (one of my US contacts on Facebook once said it's pointless to keep it loaded, because if you don't have time to load it, you don't have time to get it, so you may as well keep it safe) or people who use rifles in a sporting/marksmanship sense. ^gnostic 00:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh

In addition I'd like to point out I have no idea what I'm doing with this Wiki stuff.

Aphoxema (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I like guns

I like them a lot. If you are a responsible person with no propensity towards violence then a gun you shall have. Ace^X-102 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of what "gun control" means, really. Keeping them out of the hands of retards and lunatics. But I can imagine a Catch 22 sort of situation where only people who don't want a gun could be considered responsible enough to own one, and people who demand them really aren't. ^gnostic 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't demand them but here in NZ we don't have control so much as a national gun license scheme, no automatic weapons (unless you have an extremely specified license - but you can't buy them in shops and full automatic are illegal) and no hand guns (same restrictions apply). Ace^X-102 00:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I dislike guns

Guns don't kill people, people do. Usually with guns. I long for the good ol days when folk did their murders with knives and pointy sticks. Its so much more civilised to deal with your grievances with a broken bottle to the face.--AMassiveGay (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor comment

"It may be a poor assumption but, from what I gather, the general opinion of firearms appears to be that they are for fools who either bet on being the minority of survivors come the apocalypse, criminals, mentally unstable, people who hope to "water the tree of liberty", and (to be thorough if redundant) Republicans."

I don't think we so much say "everyone who owns a gun is x", as "many x's are gun-toting idiots, beware!" I know of many sane liberal/leftists etc. who are gun owners. And there are almost certainly many many sane conservatives etc. who own guns. But it usually seems that the "crazy" gun owners fall into the groups you list.

None of this has to do with the intrinsic goodness or evilness of the tool itself. ħuman 19:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Guns don't kill people

Rappers do! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh

I'm a liberal on most issues, but this has never been something I've cared about at all. In the US specifically, guns are so common that I don't think gun control laws have much chance of reducing supply, which makes gun control a fairly pointless strategy. Additionally, I know a few of people who own hunting rifles (that they actually use regularly for actual hunting), and one who owns a handgun for no particular clear reason; none of them strike me as likely to endanger anyone, so I don't have either anecdotes or hard data that would dispose me to worry about guns.

I would like to learn more personally about operating the largely defensive weapon of gun, really just out of curiosity.

I'm not particularly convinced that civvy guns would be useful against teh Nazis or anything though. If there's a big well-armed group roaming through suburbia that wants to abduct and kill people, and if they have the support of the local population, the armaments that people like me might own are going to mean fuck all. I don't really think that's likely anyway. --Quantheory (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

On the point of learning, surely there is a firing range or rod and gun club near you (if you are in the US, this is a given). I wonder if firing ranges offer rental guns? Anyway, go to one (better the club I think), make a few friends and find out what sort of ammo to bring to use in a borrowed weapon, and bring extra to "pay" for the favor. When you know your way around a bit you can decide whether to buy one or more of your own. I suspect skeet shooting is a lot of fun, by the way.

Every American should own a minimum of three firearms - a handgun for defense of home and family, a shotgun for defense of the dinner table, and a high-powered rifle with a good sight for defense of country. ħuman 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see there aren't really that many Gun clubs in the UK, and you are very limited in what you can actually shoot there. No one in the UK owns gun for protection purposes (not counting the Police) and those that do are generally gang members with illegally obtained firearms. There is just no demand here it would seem. As has been mentioned before, gun control seems to be solely an american debate. But I could be wrong. On a related pointed, there has been discussion in the Uk on limits to people getting hold of knives and other bladed weapons.--AMassiveGay (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually know exactly where I would go and who I would ask in order to learn: it's mostly procrastination/laziness/priorities that have prevented me so far. Thanks for the advice though! --Quantheory (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If guns are such a good idea ...

So if guns are such a good idea would the world be a better place if everybody in it had a gun?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Except for liberals. And gays. And non christians. And poor folk. And non Americans. And Democrats. And etc.--AMassiveGay (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Such a question about such a complex issue needs to be better constructed if it's going to be worth answering. To amuse myself, I'm going to take the piss and answer it, taking it as literally as possible.

So if

Oooh, a conditional statement. The question refers to a hypothetical. Let's see what that turns out to be.

guns are such a good idea

The hypothetical is that "guns are a good idea" (the inclusion of the word "such" here implies that some previous conversation has taken place, in which the hypothetical has been proposed and the degree to which guns are a good idea has been quantified or otherwise detailed. However I cannot see any such conversation and the question fails to include a quote, so for the sake of answering the question I'll ignore it, and assume the hypothetical proposition belongs only to the question).

This hypothetical makes the implicit assumption that guns can be an idea, which I would not dispute in the context of mechanical invention (the "idea" that certain components, forged and assembled in a certain way, can produce a device capable of propelling small projectiles at high speeds with the use of a hand-operated trigger). However, the "idea" here, as is the case with any "invention" idea, is that such a device is possible, not that it's actual manufacture is of a positive or negative consequence. The idea is nothing more than an observation of mechanical possibility, not so different from the observation that the moon is dusty. The idea that the moon is dusty cannot be said to be either good or bad, and neither can the idea of a gun.

However, I'm going to give the question the benefit of the doubt and assume that the question is referring to the idea of the manufacture or otherwise existence of guns. In this hypothetical, therefore, the existence of guns is a good idea, and by implication, the non-existence of guns is a bad idea.

would the world be a better place

I'm going to go out on a limb and translate "the world" as "human society" and "a better place" as "more conducive to attaining and maintaining the general societal ideals of the human population". If I didn't, the sentence would be pretty meaningless, especialling concerning that word "better". There are too many metrics for measuring the "betterness" of something, and sometimes they're mutually exclusive.

if

Oooooh a nested hypothetical!

everybody

Every single living person on earth. Gotcha.

had a gun?

The "had" here could mean either on their person at a given time or in general possession of. I'm going to assume the latter since no actual reference to time (or a time) is given. In this case "possession" is not so much a legal term as a description of a person's immediate ability to control and manipulate whatever is being possessed.

Okay, so let's see what we've got:

IF ((existence of guns = good idea) AND (everyone possessed a gun)) would human society be more conducive to attaining and maintaining the general societal ideals of the human population?

I'm going to say "no", because allowing children to be in possession of guns would likely result in a high degree of accidental suicide and the unwarranted injuring/killing of many other individuals, as children would not be properly trained in the appropriate use of guns and are liable to misjudge situations. Also, allowing prisoners to possess guns would present a serious risk to prison staff, other prisoners, and would require a costly redesign of prison facilities to cope the unrestricted discharge of firearms. I am sure there are many more reasons, but these two alone are enough. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. So if we exclude guns from prisoners and children below the age of say .. 16 .. the world would be a better place then?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because hospitalised people who are in a state of impaired mental health would pose a serious risk to other patients and hospital staff. Also, anyone in an MRI machine might damage themselves or the machine if they are brandishing a gun. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So society if obviously better off without unrestricted gun ownership. I had thought you were going to argue a different point.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My only point was that your question was a bit wishy-washy (also I was bored). But yes, I do believe unrestricted gun ownership is a bad idea. I'm not sure anyone would argue for unrestricted gun ownership; even libertarians admit there should be a minimum age, for example. ^{ONE / TALK} 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On the plus side it would sort out problems with over population.--AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was an attempt to internationalise the issue. The vast majority of the gun control debate is about the right of Americans to own and bear arms. Those who maintain it's a good idea for Americans would presumably maintain that everybody would have the same right as US citizens. I can think of nothing more horrific than an internationalisation of this idea.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Would there be this debate if the US had no right bear arms?--AMassiveGay (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No. People would just think the idea was nutty.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you've been either reading far too much LessWrong and Lojban forums considering the above...

I think

Ah! I conditional statement that it is your own thought!

You

Now which person are you referring to, as there are several people here and the posting structure doesn't give an unambiguous response!

ve

Beware contractions...

been either

I can't continue. This doesn't really have a serious point, just slight mocking imitation because I found the style above quite bemusing! ^gnostic 12:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Gun Study Derailed by NRA

Not long ago, I saw an article which showed the NRA lobbied to republican politicians over a decade ago when word got out that scientists were going over the facts and figures regarding gun violence in the United States to have said research shut down.

LaPierre: (sweats profusely as he sweeps papers under a rug) W-Where's the evidence?

Due to how irrational the current head of the NRA is, I'm not suprised about this, especially since this is typical of many conservative groups; whenever someone presents evidence to the contrary in regards to your findings, instead of accepting a debate you crush and bury it so it never sees the light of day. NUTCASE71733 (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)