Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Politics, news, current affairs and anything else that you think should be here goes here.
User avatar
2ndRateMind
Tom Good
Tom Good
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264535 2ndRateMind
Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:03 pm

oldjerry wrote:...d'you live in perpetual fear of a car accident?


Ha! Now don't get me started on cars!

Cheers, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Tom Good
Tom Good
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264537 2ndRateMind
Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:28 pm

Mustardseedmama wrote:So we take guns away from law-abiding citizens, people who'd never in a million years dream of hurting another human being with those guns. This leaves them vulnerable to all those "nasty boys" who can, do, and will, still get guns illegally.


Crickleymal wrote: I think this is one of the crucial points. It's an argument that is trotted out every time by the gun supporting lobby. What I would like to see is some proper data about how many times law abiding citizens have had to defend themselves. I personally don't believe it happens very often at all. But show me the data and convince me otherwise please.


It is, as you say, a crucial point. America has a problem; each individual perceives a need for guns because (s)he suspects each other individual has guns. Even if any one individual wants a gunless society, (s)he cannot make the first move towards disarmament because it leaves him or her vulnerable to everyone else. The best global outcome is total disarmament. That way, everyone is safe. However, given that gun ownership is legal, the rational choice for each individual is to tool up to the max, to enhance their own personal safety, seeing that this is how everyone else is going to be thinking. It's a prisoner's dilemma scenario that only a top down authority such as the state or a universal religion can resolve, and even then, only on a gradual basis.

Cheers, 2RM.

Mustardseedmama
Living the good life
Living the good life
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 11:40 am
Location: Central United States

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264538 Mustardseedmama
Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:47 pm

[quote="2ndRateMindIt is, as you say, a crucial point. America has a problem; each individual perceives a need for guns because (s)he suspects each other individual has guns. Even if any one individual wants a gunless society, (s)he cannot make the first move towards disarmament because it leaves him or her vulnerable to everyone else. The best global outcome is total disarmament. That way, everyone is safe. However, given that gun ownership is legal, the rational choice for each individual is to tool up to the max, to enhance their own personal safety, seeing that this is how everyone else is going to be thinking. It's a prisoner's dilemma scenario that only a top down authority such as the state or a universal religion can resolve, and even then, only on a gradual basis.

Cheers, 2RM.[/quote]


Out of curiosity, which state or "universal religion" would you propose?
What if you're wrong? What if there's more? What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
Nichole Nordeman----Brave

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Tom Good
Tom Good
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264539 2ndRateMind
Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:53 pm

Your own state, or your own religion. By 'state', I mean the nation, rather than it's subdivisions. As for religion - pretty much all of them call for peace and universal brother-/sisterhood. Take your pick.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Crickleymal
Living the good life
Living the good life
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:16 pm
Location: Gloucester

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264541 Crickleymal
Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:43 pm

You say that any one individual can't make the move. But you are assuming that everyone else is going to start killing the weak as soon as they show themselves to be unarmed. I would suggest that not even most criminals would go that far.
Malc

High in the sky, what do you see ?
Come down to Earth, a cup of tea
Flying saucer, flying teacup
From outer space, Flying Teapot

Mustardseedmama
Living the good life
Living the good life
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 11:40 am
Location: Central United States

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264542 Mustardseedmama
Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:06 pm

2ndRateMind wrote:Your own state, or your own religion. By 'state', I mean the nation, rather than it's subdivisions. As for religion - pretty much all of them call for peace and universal brother-/sisterhood. Take your pick.

Best wishes, 2RM.



Uh huh.



Well, I have a long day of work ahead of me...this discussion has been very interesting.

Have a lovely day!
What if you're wrong? What if there's more? What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
Nichole Nordeman----Brave

User avatar
MKG
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: North Notts.

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264544 MKG
Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:48 pm

2RM - You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that every adult US citizen owns and carries a gun. Not all own a gun. Not all who own guns carry them.

Mike
The secret of life is to aim below the head (With thanks to MMM)

Big Al
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 1640
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:28 am
Contact:

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264548 Big Al
Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:37 pm

I believe that all bears have the right to arms.
[size=150]Member of the Ishloss weight group 2013. starting weight 296.00 pounds on 01.01.2013. Now minus 0.20 pounds total THIS WEEK - 0.20 pounds Now over 320 pounds and couldn't give a fig...
Secret Asparagus binger

oldjerry
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264552 oldjerry
Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:32 pm

Well I don't.......Have you seen the size of those big hairy B------s.??

User avatar
MKG
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: North Notts.

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264553 MKG
Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:34 pm

Two right arms? Surely that can't be right.

Mike
The secret of life is to aim below the head (With thanks to MMM)

User avatar
trinder
Living the good life
Living the good life
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:12 am
Location: tewkesbury

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264557 trinder
Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:52 pm

Arms are for hugging :hugish:

( I read that somewhere)
On the issue of animals for research "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but rather, 'Can they suffer?'" Jeremy Bentham

grahamhobbs
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 1212
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:39 pm
Location: London

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264574 grahamhobbs
Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:30 am

As far as I am concerned no one in a civilised society needs a gun, even to shoot rabbits, however in Britain it was not illegal to own or carry a gun up until the First World War and thugs would openly flaunt them, tucked into their belts.
In France, probably most men in the country still appear to have guns, rifles for hunting. They have licences but I've known neighbours to take the guns away from people if they think the guy is depressed or unstable for some reason. Although clearly from recent events in France that is not sufficient state or communal control.

oldjerry
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264576 oldjerry
Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:08 pm

To be serious for a bit,how would you control foxes Graham? In an ideal world,nothing would be killed,but I'm not sure humans haven't always hunted for meat,and to be honest,a firearm is by far the LEAST cruel way of killing animals.

Even though I used to farm myself,I've always had this recurring thought that killing wild animals to eat is somehow morally superior to domesticating them,so I'm not sure that's an alternative.

I know you're a vegetarian,and I'm sure you have a completely different take on this,but coming back to the point,aren't all weapons different degrees of the same thing?

Mustardseedmama
Living the good life
Living the good life
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 11:40 am
Location: Central United States

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264579 Mustardseedmama
Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:11 pm

O.J. I love your new sig line!!!
What if you're wrong? What if there's more? What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
Nichole Nordeman----Brave

grahamhobbs
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 1212
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:39 pm
Location: London

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264580 grahamhobbs
Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:23 pm

Oldjerry, I'm not actually a vegetarian, although I do not eat a lot of meat, I do have a lot of sympathy with the view that you should kill and butcher it yourself. However I'm not sure that you need rifles to do that, in fact rifles have only been used since the times when this source of food has become an insignificant part of our diet.
As for foxes, I live in an area that probably has the highest density of foxes than anywhere else on the planet - London. Despite this people keep chickens and get on with them without much trouble.

France has a tradition of hunting with rifles, whereas in Britain, hunting in general is not so popular - why because for many years until relatively recently it was illegal for anyone (including tenant farmers on their own land), except landowners, to kill wild animals, on pain of hanging, expatriation to Australia or later just fines or imprisonment.

In France also it has only become a mass sport since the 2nd World war, talk to old people and they will tell you that the amount of wildlife has deteriorated massively since everyone took up hunting with rifles.

Sorry if I'm rambling a bit, I just think guns are unnecessary and that governments should ban or at least strictly control their use, for where they are strictly needed not just for sport or 'self-protection'.


Return to “I read the news today, oh boy.”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests