GameBanshee Forums

I didn't read the rest of the thread so maybe someone else already made this point, but we had this discussion a while back. Check it out, starting on page two of this thread. Jopp and I were pro-gun, while other people were in disagreement:

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/oh-canada-59426-p2.html"]Oh Canada[/url]

Actually it appears to me the only defense an unmechanized militia would have if we were taken over by a foreign power would lie in guerilla warfare. Explosives and suicide bombs.

Personally I'd rather just adapt to the conquerors way of life and live peacefully I think the constitution should guarantee my right to practice loving kindness for all people including terrorists.

explosives and small skirmishes would be the best path, look at what is happening in iraq, now that is a place that needs 100% gun control. And im not sure if you meant it this way, but you would practice loving kindness towards terrorists , id much rather blow them up

@TEMPLAR67:

@chanak, Im curious to know how your gun control policy would treat people already in possession of the weapons you believe should be restricted, would people be forced to turn them in, or would you include a measure to fully reimburse those people, or would you allow those who already lawfully own the firearms you would see restricted to keep them and just not allow them to be imported or made anymore.

I think a turn-in of restricted firearms would be best with some form of reimbursement given to owners who could furnish a receipt for the purchase of the weapon(s) in question.

Thats sounds ok, but what if a person cannot produce a receipt, cause i know i couldnt and i bought mine legally, would the govt have to furnish a non bias appraiser to determine what the firearm in question is worth, because that would cause a lot of problems and maybe even lawsuits.

Templar I would practice loving kindness towards terrorists. They need it too. Blowing them up will only disturb my mind due to the stain that killing leaves on the mental continuum.

Vicsun, sorry to leap to conclusion of anarchy. I guess I would like to change some things about the constitution too. But I like the fact that a judge or policeman has to follow some rules rather than just pull something out of their bum.

I kinda dont see the reason for the debate, granted I havent heard much of whats goin on, but gun control has been a debate for years, decades, and possibly centuries. Imho, Humanity, isnt gonna evolve out of this, no matter how many people want it to happen, violence is in our nature. Some can choose to fight it, but others dont have what it takes to fight instinct....

Demortis wrote:I kinda dont see the reason for the debate, granted I havent heard much of whats goin on, but gun control has been a debate for years, decades, and possibly centuries. Imho, Humanity, isnt gonna evolve out of this, no matter how many people want it to happen, violence is in our nature. Some can choose to fight it, but others dont have what it takes to fight instinct....

There's no scientific evidence that committing violence against other people is instinctual to human nature. If you follow the theory of evolution, studies have shown that our relatives, the other primates, display an instinct for cooperative activity in social communities. As a result, the only reason to fight against the violence in one's "nature" is because people have been taught that violence is a good answer to problems. In other words, this is a case of nurture, not nature.

This is entirely separate from the discussion of gun use and gun control, since guns can (and are) used for far more than violence against humans. Hunting is a sport that many millions enjoy, and have, for hundreds of years.

fable wrote:There's no scientific evidence that committing violence against other people is instinctual to human nature. If you follow the theory of evolution, studies have shown that our relatives, the other primates, display an instinct for cooperative activity in social communities. As a result, the only reason to fight against the violence in one's "nature" is because people have been taught that violence is a good answer to problems. In other words, this is a case of nurture, not nature.

Wait a minute fable... you're painting with a pretty broad brush here. I can't agree. I have heard that there are studies that show benefits from symbiotic and/or communal relationships. Ie: Clownfish and sea anemones, societal gatherings, etc. However there is also evidence that violence is natural, and that much of the natural world is violent. For example, grizzly bears eat fish from streams. The largest grizzly bears will bully other smaller bears to take their fish, rather than fish themselves. I just don't think you should say that universally violence is a result of nurture. Life is about competition over scarce resources, and the biggest, strongest, and/or best tend to survive, right?

Cuchulain82 wrote:Wait a minute fable... you're painting with a pretty broad brush here. I can't agree. I have heard that there are studies that show benefits from symbiotic and/or communal relationships. Ie: Clownfish and sea anemones, societal gatherings, etc. However there is also evidence that violence is natural, and that much of the natural world is violent. For example, grizzly bears eat fish from streams. The largest grizzly bears will bully other smaller bears to take their fish, rather than fish themselves. I just don't think you should say that universally violence is a result of nurture. Life is about competition over scarce resources, and the biggest, strongest, and/or best tend to survive, right?

Social Darwinism is unscientific, and I don't think you're reading for context, here. My comments weren't that violence isn't part of us, but that violence against other people isn't instinctual. How you got from natural activities designed for preservation such as bears killing fish, or for that matter, humans killing bacteria, to humans killiing humans because it's "supposedly instinctual" is not something I fully understand.

I would also point out that animals are pretty ignorant. I don't think I should be getting my cues from the cat and dog. I know violence is wrong and I see that because the mental obscurations and dissonant emotions were removed. By me. (with the help from all mother and father beings)

fable wrote:Social Darwinism is unscientific, and I don't think you're reading for context, here.

I'm not advocating social darwinism here- that went out with Oliver Wendell Holmes. But you did bring up actual Darwinism. Maybe I am out of context, but you were pretty broad.

fable]My comments weren't that violence isn't part of us wrote: I need some clarification about about what the difference is between those two points. I think we can agree that some humans are violent (duh). So do you just mean that they are raised to be violent, and that if you didn't let people ever be violent they'd never consider it?

fable]How you got from natural activities designed for preservation such as bears killing fish wrote: Instinct is a loaded word, and I don't think it should be used. Instinct brings with it the idea that there is no rationality or choice to an action- it is done because it is "instinctual". People want to be rational, so labeling something as an instinct opens the door for attacks like the one Claudius voiced.

claudius]I would also point out that animals are pretty ignorant. I don't think I should be getting my cues from the cat and dog. I know violence is wrong and I see that because the mental obscurations and dissonant emotions were removed. By me. (with the help from all mother and father beings)[/quote][/quote][/quote] You may not want to think you're getting your clues from cats and dogs wrote:Konrad Lorenz[/URL]. I know he was into this stuff. Anyway, I have to go to bed- where's CE when I really need a psychology diatribe?

Cuchulain82 wrote:I need some clarification about about what the difference is between those two points. I think we can agree that some humans are violent (duh). So do you just mean that they are raised to be violent, and that if you didn't let people ever be violent they'd never consider it?

You're focusing entirely on the word "violent." Again, please look at the context of my response to Demortis, where the word referred exclusively to humans using volence against others human by nature.

Instinct is a loaded word, and I don't think it should be used. Instinct brings with it the idea that there is no rationality or choice to an action- it is done because it is "instinctual". People want to be rational, so labeling something as an instinct opens the door for attacks like the one Claudius voiced.

I didn't bring it up. I was responding to its use in what I considered an inappropriate context.

fable wrote:You're focusing entirely on the word "violent." Again, please look at the context of my response to Demortis, where the word referred exclusively to humans using volence against others human by nature.

"Instinct", and "Nature" are used in ways I find problematic (no offense Demo ), I'll give you that fable. I don't want to belabor your point too much, but I do think the key to all of this is the word violence. That's what you're talking about, right? Gun control matters because of violence, so why is my focus on that word inappropriate?

Edit- With that, I'm off to bed. I don't want to hijack any true gun discussion, so if I have, I apologize preemptively.

There may be parallels but they are projected from your mind (and the psychologists). Actually the mind is luminous meaning that when you remove what is obscuring it it becomes knowing. Big mind that encompasses all phenomenon. Not limited little mind finding relative differences.

I think what I am getting at is that people can all attain a correct view. They just need the right moment. Some people think some people cannot overcome violence but this is not the case. Of course there are obstacles but people don't have an inherent and permanent nature - violent or otherwise.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:@mr spankyim not sure if you or fable edited that, but dont say that again

Sorry mate, the edit was mine. The original word was hillbilly, something I thought you were based on this...

TEMPLAR67 wrote:now thats true, but lets not bash hillbillies:laugh:

I come from the hills myself and frequently call myself a hillbilly too, but as Fable notes the term could be misinterpreted as perjorative, or even be just a joke I failed to recognise as such, hence the change.

As far as not saying 'that' again, I'm not sure which 'that' you mean. If it's the possible name-calling, then again my apologies.
If it's the questioning of your gender, I looked up your profile (you have an interesting choice of professed interests, by the way) and the anatomy thread but couldn't find any details. I assume you're a male but as noted previously my assumptions might not be true. Perhaps you'd like to tell us more about yourself here, that I might avoid making similar mistakes again.
If, on the other hand, you mean my response to this question...

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Our Soldiers kill ppl on purpose, are they murderers?

...then I stand by my statement, soldiers who kill people on purpose are murderers, by the very definition of murder. The question is whether the instances of murder are justifiable murder, not whether they're murder or not. But that's off-topic and, if anyone wants to argue the point, should be explored in a different thread.

Mr Spanky wrote: ...then I stand by my statement, soldiers who kill people on purpose are murderers, by the very definition of murder. The question is whether the instances of murder are justifiable murder, not whether they're murder or not. But that's off-topic and, if anyone wants to argue the point, should be explored in a different thread.

Sorry to play the semantics game, but technically murder is the unlawful killing of another person. If the killing is sanctioned by the state as it is in war, it's no longer murder and as such soldiers aren't murderers. They're still killers, though, if that makes you happier

Vicsun wrote:Chanak: so, you are opposed to owning a firearm for self-defense?

Yes. It's not a tool designed for self-defense. It's a tool designed for killing things.

Example of a tool designed for self-defense: pepper spray.

Furthermore, how does your system prevent a (legal) firearm holder from selling the firearm to criminals? Should he prove it's still in his posesion when the license is renewed, and if yes how would it treat lost firearms?

Each firearm, when its purchased, is recorded on a database and linked to the license holder. All transactions made by the license holder relating to firearms - ammunition purchases, for example - is also recorded on that database. That alone would provide an excellent investigational tool.

If someone wants to break the law, they will. No disputing that fact as it happens every day around the world. If a licensee's firearm shows up in the hands of a criminal in the commission of a crime, we would have to rely on police investigation to determine how it ended up in that criminal's hands.

Part of the beauty of merging the control and regulation of firearms with wildlife management is summed up this way: Game Wardens. Game Wardens are arguably the most powerful police officers in the country. They may conduct searches of property without warrants. What they find in those searches can be used in court as evidence. The FBI knows this very well, and will enlist the aid of Game Wardens when needed.

I'm also interested in knowing how laws currently prevent legally purchased guns being sold to criminals, if you know anything about that.

Sorry, not enough to comment at length.

You also said the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms. How do you interpret "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Claudius answered that for me earlier, and I think I touched on that in my last post in the thread.

I personally don't see the U.S. Constitution as "holy scripture" that must remain immutable for all time. Certain amendments remain relevant to this day, while others do not. Congress has the ability to amend the Constitution, which should tell you that it's not "supposed" to be some holy relic to be worshiped and never altered.

@TEMPLAR67: I think you can appreciate the requirement for a receipt of purchase. I shouldn't have to explain that one at length, so I won't.

Taken down by a technicality...Touche

Vicsun wrote:Sorry to play the semantics game, but technically murder is the unlawful killing of another person. If the killing is sanctioned by the state as it is in war, it's no longer murder and as such soldiers aren't murderers. They're still killers, though, if that makes you happier

Not really, you ruined an otherwise unassailable argument and I hate when people do that. D'oh.

Now all I can do is cite Iraq, which I believe was mentioned earlier as needing 100% gun control. What would you do if you made a law recalling all the guns, but if some of the Iraqis just lied and said they sold them to someone else and they couldn't remember who they sold them to? How could such a law be enforced anyway?

In a place like iraq you would have to go house to house and even if they claim they sold them search their entire house, if they claim that they didnt have any and you find one, then arrest them on terrorism charges and let the iraqi courts charge them.
oh yeah mr spanky, the reason i was offended about the hillbilly comment was because i live in texas, we dont have enough hills to meet the requirements, which would make me a redneck. get it right

I wish I hadn't found this thread. I don't have time to respond properly right now because I'm out of state and at a library. The only thing I will say is that the second amendment of the US Constitution has nothing to do with protection against criminals, hunting, or collecting antiques and heirlooms. It has everything to do with overthrowing tyrant governments.

Hopefully, I'll remember to come back and comment more when I'm beachside again.

No worries mate

Feel free to call me a hillbilly if you want.

Our system is, as I’ve previously stated, the best I’ve ever encountered. Roughly it goes something like this:

Firearms are put in 2 different categories

Category 1 is long guns used for hunting and sporting. This includes most rifles and shotguns with a magazine capacity of 3 or less shots, and a barrel length over 55 centimetres. Every citizen over 18 years of age can apply for one of these under the following conditions:

1. No criminal record. This does not include a speeding ticket, but if you’re convicted for DUI you will lose your
right to buy and own guns. Usually this is not permanent, but you will have to prove yourself.

2. Clean bill of mental health. If you are undergoing psychiatric treatment or you are taking prescription
drugs, you will most likely not get a firearm license until you’re “cured.”

3. Licensed hunter or sports shooter. If you apply for a gun for hunting purposes you must pass a
mandatory course and exam in advance to get a hunting license before you can buy a gun. If you apply for
sporting purposes you must prove that you’re an ACTIVE member of a legit shooting club, and remain active
after the gun is purchased, or you will be told to get rid of it.

Category 2 includes handguns and “firearms of a military character.” These are generally VERY hard to get, and of limited use. Handguns are not allowed to use for hunting in Norway, and neither is weapons of more than a 3 shot magazine capacity. You can also not buy a handgun for “Self Defence” unless you’re a trained and licensed bodyguard. The only way you’re going to get a permit to buy a handgun or a semi-automatic assault rifle is if you’re actively competing for at least a year in a gun club running an international (IPSC) approved sporting program. You may also apply to become a licensed gun collector (like myself) but that is so difficult it’s almost unheard of nowadays. Oh, and every person buying a Category 2 firearm must also purchase a metal safe for storage. Having firearms floating around the house is not an option up here.

So, after you fulfil one or more of the prerequisites, you pay a visit to your local police station and apply for a gun permit. On the application you state what type of gun it is, what the gun will be used for, and deliver copies of all necessary documentation (hunting license, club membership with attendance record, etc) and then you just have to wait. The normal waiting period is 2-3 weeks, during which time the police will check your background, including your criminal and medical records, and validate the info you’ve given on your application. You then get your approved application stamped and signed back in the mail, and can now head down to the local gun shop with it. There you pick your firearm, and the seller fills out part of the approved application with type, model and serial number, which he will then return to the police to be put in the national firearm database. If you want to sell your gun as a private person you’re obliged to do the same thing.

There is no downside to this system, and as I’ve said previously, guns are everywhere up here. Our right to own guns is protected by law, and if you own one there is no way anyone can take it away from you unless you misbehave or break one of the conditions of ownership. If you can provide a valid reason for getting a gun, you’ll get one. Every non-licensed gun confiscated is evaluated and either destroyed immediately or registered and auctioned off by the police. This has the preventive effect of making illegal firearms incredibly expensive and hard to come by. Sure, you can get them, but then you’ll have to consciously seek out a criminal and commit a crime to do so.

Another very nice part of our Gun Control system is controlled access to ammunition. I personally think that’s one of the best bits. If you want to purchase ammo of any given calibre, you have to prove that you actually own a licensed gun in the relevant calibre. You can’t just waltz into a sporting goods store and buy 500 rounds of 9mm or .223 ammo without being able to prove that you legally own a gun of that type. Hence the person who’s purchased an illegal firearm, usually with criminal intent, is stuck with a second problem and has to commit another crime to get ammo.

IMHO implementing a national system like this in the US would, over time, solve a lot of problems. The complete banning of firearms is a ludicrous notion, and hasn’t helped in any country where it’s been tried. Stopping virtually unlimited/uncontrolled access to said firearms can not be a bad thing in any way. There just isn’t any valid argument against it that can’t be (pardon the pun) shot down in flames.