Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
So you didn't call him or me barbaric, just slightly barbaric. Thats like me not saying you're a dill weed just slighlty dill weed.

I'm not calling you a dill weed FYI.

I didn't call either of you barbaric.

I could just as easily have said, "I find punching gorillas barbaric".
No one would need to take issue unless they actually do punch gorillas, and even if they do, that doesn't mean they are a wholey barbaric person. It just means they are a person who does one thing that I find barbaric.

Since when has it not been okay to find killing people barbaric?

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So you didn't call him or me barbaric, just slightly barbaric. Thats like me not saying you're a dill weed just slighlty dill weed.

I'm not calling you a dill weed FYI.

I didn't call either of you barbaric.

I could just as easily have said, "I find punching gorillas barbaric".
No one would need to take issue unless they actually do punch gorillas, and even if they do, that doesn't mean they are a wholey barbaric person. It just means they are a person who does one thing that I find barbaric.

Since when has it not been okay to find killing people barbaric?

To add to this before you guys leap onto it, killing people -is- what guns are for. You can argue that it is justified since victims can use them to shoot criminals who otherwise would have harmed them, but killing is killing, and I remain unconvinced that more guns is the best solution. Either that there's a better solution, or that the US is not so far gone so more guns really is the only solution. But surely handing out more firearms and/or making them less controlled can't be the only way to solve rampant criminality. I am not American so no doubt we have different views on freedom and rights, but I do not consider the fact that guns currently is a right to be something that gives it any real merit for if it is a good idea to keep.

So, feel free to tear my throat out now, my cents are thrown.

No one has proposed they be less controlled. feth sake. This is why it's hard to have this conversation.

And the only thing I kill with my firearms are tasty animals. So no, their sole purpose is not "killing people".

 cincydooley wrote:
No one has proposed they be less controlled. feth sake. This is why it's hard to have this conversation.

I do, sometimes. It's outside of the scope of gun control, but we have many laws introduced in the last 10-15 years that are more harsh than the exact same laws, but with petty contingencies tacked on.

 cincydooley wrote:
No one has proposed they be less controlled. feth sake. This is why it's hard to have this conversation.

Well that's hardly fair. There are plenty of people who would like to see less restrictions on things like mag size and automatic weapons. We had a whole comic earlier about getting "The whole cake back"

And the only thing I kill with my firearms are tasty animals. So no, their sole purpose is not "killing people".

But often when people apply for a weapons permit, a reason they list is "self defense", and with regards to concealed carry that's pretty relevant. I doubt many people list 'hunting' as their reason for wanting a CC permit.

In the UK you can also acquire a gun permit for hunting. But "self defense" is not considered a valid reason, your application would be declined.

 Ashiraya wrote:

To add to this before you guys leap onto it, killing people -is- what guns are for.

As a point of fact, this is only true for some guns. Not all guns.

You can argue that it is justified since victims can use them to shoot criminals who otherwise would have harmed them, but killing is killing, and I remain unconvinced that more guns is the best solution. Either that there's a better solution, or that the US is not so far gone so more guns really is the only solution. But surely handing out more firearms and/or making them less controlled can't be the only way to solve rampant criminality. I am not American so no doubt we have different views on freedom and rights, but I do not consider the fact that guns currently is a right to be something that gives it any real merit for if it is a good idea to keep.

While I'm willing to concede the point "more guns equals less crime" does not necessarily hold true, there are also more than just personal self defense reasons for the right to bear arms, and that right is as entrenched in our nation's constitutional framework as free speech, prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

 Smacks wrote:

But often when people apply for a weapons permit, a reason they list is "self defense", and with regards to concealed carry that's pretty relevant. I doubt many people list 'hunting' as their reason for wanting a CC permit.

In the UK you can also acquire a gun permit for hunting. But "self defense" is not considered a valid reason, your application would be declined.

I think there's a disconnect here, a gun permit in the UK is different than a CC permit. A gun permit is something you need to have a firearm in general in the UK, no such thing exists in the US, I don't need a reason to buy a firearm in genearl. A CCW permit is different, that is for carrying a loaded weapon on your person in public and concealed, something you can't ordinarily do. A CCW permit is very much a self defense thing, while a weapon permit in the UK is far more general.

 Vaktathi wrote:
there are also more than just personal self defense reasons for the right to bear arms, and that right is as entrenched in our nation's constitutional framework as free speech, prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Are you alluding to the idea of protection against a hostile government?

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
there are also more than just personal self defense reasons for the right to bear arms, and that right is as entrenched in our nation's constitutional framework as free speech, prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Are you eluding to the idea of protection against a hostile government?

Partially yes. There's the part about ensuring the means of force are not monopolized by the state (whatever level, or other entities), but also needing an armed citizenry to defend the state. The US has not always had a powerful military, and twice in the past has had very mighty armies and drawn them down to very small armies, and we may not always have a powerful military (we may decide it's not worth it) and thus the citizenry must be capable of defending the state should the need arise. There are also issues of hunting (we haven't always had supermarkets, in some places in the US hunting is still a very common food obtainment method (Alaska, Wyoming, etc)

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
there are also more than just personal self defense reasons for the right to bear arms, and that right is as entrenched in our nation's constitutional framework as free speech, prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Are you alluding to the idea of protection against a hostile government?

He is indeed alluding to the idea of personal protection against oppression and tyranny... It's not necessarily defense of the US against itself mind you.

Ergh! that mistake was up for like 5 seconds before I fixed it, how are you guys so quick :(

 Vaktathi wrote:
As a point of fact, this is only true for some guns. Not all guns.

Entirely true. I am 100% for the right of a huntsman to use a rifle in his profession, or for the common man to own a rifle with the same intention. However, given the risks inherent with using tools that can so easily kill, I feel licenses are warranted to ensure only sufficiently responsible people are given rifles and that they are used only for this purpose.

The same goes for sports, etc.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Entirely true. I am 100% for the right of a huntsman to use a rifle in his profession, or for the common man to own a rifle with the same intention. However, given the risks inherent with using tools that can so easily kill, I feel licenses are warranted to ensure only sufficiently responsible people are given rifles and that they are used only for this purpose.

The same goes for sports, etc.

An additional point about weapons for hunting is they can be stored much more securely, or even kept together in a hunting club vault, with the ammo stored somewhere else etc... It can be made very secure. Weapons for defense need to be accessible in an unplanned emergency at home (possibly even in the middle of the night). That means the guns 'probably' won't be quite as secure. So are more prone to being found by children or opportunist thieves.

In trying to come up with a response to the previous two comments, but my incredulity is preventing me from it so far....

 Ashiraya wrote:

The same goes for sports, etc.

By your logic, rugby, the single greatest team sport in the fething world, would cease to exist overnight.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

But of you want to talk about impact on society please explain how removing rights is beneficial. To put it simply;
Don't like alcohol? Don't drink
Don't like tattoos? Don't get one
Don't like drugs? Don't use them
Don't like abortions? Don't get one
Don't like guns? Don't use them

What about those instances in which rights affect other people. Like, say, the use of alcohol, drugs, abortions, and firearms?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Because you do not like my right to do something does not mean you get to remove that right.

Actually, that's pretty much how the removal of rights works.

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

But of you want to talk about impact on society please explain how removing rights is beneficial. To put it simply;
Don't like alcohol? Don't drink
Don't like tattoos? Don't get one
Don't like drugs? Don't use them
Don't like abortions? Don't get one
Don't like guns? Don't use them

What about those instances in which rights affect other people. Like, say, the use of alcohol, drugs, abortions, and firearms?

I'm not certain my use of any of the above has ever affected another person.

 daedalus wrote:

I'm not certain my use of any of the above has ever affected another person.

Perhaps your's hasn't, but probability dictates that the use by some has.

 dogma wrote:


Perhaps your's hasn't, but probability dictates that the use by some has.

I have had more people consumed by road rage literally try to run me off the road that I have had any one affect me with any of the above, and people don't even have the right to drive. I still wonder at the violence they might have wished upon me should they have had their ideal outcome.

I'm not even sure that's pertinent in any way, but it's my immediate thought in reaction to your comment.

 daedalus wrote:

I have had more people consumed by road rage literally try to run me off the road that I have had any one affect me with any of the above, and people don't even have the right to drive.

Or drink. Or use drugs. Or have abortions.

They're just not things which are illegal, in some cases.

 dogma wrote:

Or drink. Or use drugs. Or have abortions.

Yeah. Okay. Touche.

Then we have this:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/08/27/jury-acquits-texas-father-killing-drunken-driver-who-crashed-into-his-kids/

So, an irresponsible jury.

 dogma wrote:
So, an irresponsible jury.

Brought together initially by an irresponsible drunk.

Relapse wrote:
Then we have this:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/08/27/jury-acquits-texas-father-killing-drunken-driver-who-crashed-into-his-kids/

Yeah, I was reading about that...

Why did they try him at all? The prosecutors knew the jury would be on his side and they knew, I assume, that there was no smoking gun.

Now... don't get me wrong... the father appears to be the only person with means, motive, and opportunity here, right? The idea of a stranger swinging by an accident to execute a victim in the small window of time between the crash and the moment police show up is beyond ridiculous.

But no gun residue, no witness, no nothing that pins that Father...

No jury would convict him.

Relapse wrote:

Brought together initially by an irresponsible drunk.

That is not in any way relevant.

Basically, the guy got away with murder as I have seen plenty of people convicted on less evidence.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Brought together initially by an irresponsible drunk.

That is not in any way relevant.

Basically, the guy got away with murder as I have seen plenty of people convicted on less evidence.

To tell the truth, I think the jury wanted to give him a medal.

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

But of you want to talk about impact on society please explain how removing rights is beneficial. To put it simply;
Don't like alcohol? Don't drink
Don't like tattoos? Don't get one
Don't like drugs? Don't use them
Don't like abortions? Don't get one
Don't like guns? Don't use them

What about those instances in which rights affect other people. Like, say, the use of alcohol, drugs, abortions, and firearms?

Thank you Dogma. I wasn't going to bring it up because I was trying to keep my responses short, and have already discussed bad analogies. The flaw becomes more obvious when you turn the phrases around and become the object of the actions. For example:

Don't like being drunk? Don't drink
Don't like being tattooed? Don't get one
Don't like being drugged? Don't use them
Don't like having an abortion? Don't get one
Don't like being shot? Err... Oh it doesn't work.

The problem is that for most of those things you have a fair amount of personal choice. Being drugged is a possible exception, but then the kind of drugs people would want to give someone against their will (such as date rape drugs) rightly should be illegal. Abortion could also become "don't like being aborted?" but that might be for another topic.

"Don't like being shot" is clearly different. While you might be doing something to deserve it, it also sometimes happens to people minding their own business out shopping or going to the cinema. And it can be quite senseless and unexpected, people just don't get a say in the matter when it comes to being shot, personal choice is gone. This is actually more extreme than things like car crashes, because on some level the risk of a crash is something people accept when they get in a car, or go near a busy road. The danger is not so hidden.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So you didn't call him or me barbaric, just slightly barbaric. Thats like me not saying you're a dill weed just slighlty dill weed.

I'm not calling you a dill weed FYI.

I didn't call either of you barbaric.

I could just as easily have said, "I find punching gorillas barbaric".
No one would need to take issue unless they actually do punch gorillas, and even if they do, that doesn't mean they are a wholey barbaric person. It just means they are a person who does one thing that I find barbaric.

Since when has it not been okay to find killing people barbaric?

yeah... saying you find animal cruelty barbaric is one thing,

saying that the IDEA of using a gun for defense is barbaric, does in fact, mean you are calling everyone who holds that idea to be a good one "barbaric".

If I say that red pants are barbaric, in a discussion between red pants wearers and blue pants wearers, you better believe I just called the red pants wearers barbaric.

as I said before, I dont expect you to be mature enough to look in the mirror, look at what you said and go "jeepers, I am prejudiced enough to not know what I just said is stereotyping" as opposed to own up to it.

its also ironic as I would assume being forced to defend ourselves with tooth, nail and fist is more barbaric then with guns.

 easysauce wrote:
as I said before, I dont expect you to be mature enough to look in the mirror, look at what you said and go "jeepers, I am prejudiced enough to not know what I just said is stereotyping" as opposed to own up to it.

Lets begin by un-poisoning the well shall we? I'll be more than happy to admit I am wrong, when I am actually wrong. Not because you try to squeeze me between saying what you want, or drinking from the poison well you just set up with "or else you're immature and prejudiced".

It is my contention that you just didn't understand. The mistake is yours.

yeah... saying you find animal cruelty barbaric is one thing,

saying that the IDEA of using a gun for defense is barbaric, does in fact, mean you are calling everyone who holds that idea to be a good one "barbaric".

Firstly lets get one thing straight. I didn't say "It is barbaric", that is completely subjective. I said "I feel it is barbaric" that is a fact about the way I subjectively feel about it. Some people feel eating meat is barbaric. I like meat myself, but I can understand why it makes some people squeamish. Am I supposed to be offended that they feel that way? Should I force them to eat meat on pain of being called immature?

Secondly 'it' is not a person that I called barbaric, it is a situation. I'm going to repeat that again so hopefully I won't have to later: It is not the person that I find barbaric, it is the situation the person is in. Thus it is not possible for me to have called anyone anything.

Barbaric could be defined as the opposite of civilized and sophisticated. If you can think of a decent example of a civilized sophisticated situation where one person is gunned down by another and killed, then I will happily apologize. However the closest situation I can think of is a modern execution (which is still barbaric IMO). Any other example such as fighting with burglars is a clear example of civilization not working at that moment (civilized people would surely talk it through, and not be burglarizing each other in the first place).

 Smacks wrote:


Firstly lets get one thing straight. I didn't say "It is barbaric", that is completely subjective. I said "I feel it is barbaric" that is a fact about the way I subjectively feel about it.

"you are a jerk" and "i feel you are a jerk" are both insults.

Ill stop trying to get my facts in the way of how you subjectively feel about things.


Either way, you should be more positive, how about saying things like "I think being unarmed and defenseless is good because ______!" instead of insulting the others side as barbaric for wanting to be armed should they feel the need.


either way, plenty of people see guns as one of, if not THE most civilized way to defend yourself.