[Gust Hubb]

So are you now the RepFairy Illy? I thought having another alt was against forum policy.

[Gust Hubb]

Held, on 15 December 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Let's not forget to ban knives too. In China today, 22 children were injured and some may yet die from a man wielding a knife. The lives of these Chinese children are just a relevant as the American children. When someone seeks to commit murder, a gun or knife ban will not dissuade them. The Connecticut shooter is a young man with mental health issues. This seems to be fairly common. We should consider locking up all of these people who have been diagnosed with mental illness as they could be potential killers too. The shooter allegedly is autistic. Maybe we should lock up everyone with Autism.

When are we going to stop ignoring the real issue which is why people will kill others? Maybe we could induct them into the armed forces where this is a valued skill.

Held, on 15 December 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

I posted with tongue in cheek. I do not support gun control, knife control, or institutionalizing the mentally ill, and I get bored when people trivialize horrendous acts by focusing on a tool instead of the proclivity of humans to kill each other. Knife wounding and killing is common in China and children are the favorite target. What about the drones that are killing innocent children in Pakistan and elsewhere? Are we mourning these children and asking what can be done to hinder this kind of murder? We glorify killing in our societies with movies and books so why are we surprised when people kill others?

You mean these two quotes I assume Illy? Again, I think there is a good point that we are a society that appropriately responds to killings on our own soil (demonstrating shock and condemnation), but we neglect to show similar reactions to killing elsewhere (including movies and foreign conflicts).

This thread has a lot of condemnation of guns, which I agree are abhorrent in the sense that the sole purpose in a gun is killing (in self defense, as an offense, or in hunting). But truly, the point that guns are tools is accurate. The real problem lies in the people using the guns and the culture that glorifies the use of such weapons. I think this is what Held was getting at.

So yes Illy, I find your bullying annoying and inappropriate. This is a discussion forum donchaknow?

[HoosierDaddy]

First, I'd state that someone might just disagree with you and accusing a member of breaking the CoC just because someone else neg repped you is a little over the top.

Secondly, to pretend that the people in this thread do not equally pity those innocents who are subject to drone strikes or any other act of indiscriminate slaughter is just that: an assumption. You don't know how I feel about those things, and to try to sit on a moral high horse and call down to those that there is no solution because people are bad is ridiculous and doesn't even ADD to the discussion. What's the solution offered there?

Held doesn't need you to stand up for him. He wants to give his opinion then he offers it up for ridicule or praise just like anybody else.

[Gust Hubb]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 December 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

First, I'd state that someone might just disagree with you and accusing a member of breaking the CoC just because someone else neg repped you is a little over the top.


You are right, publicly accusing someone of such a crime is in poor taste and for that I apologize. I should have asked over PM or just left it in the Admin's hands, which is what I have done at this juncture.

Secondly, to pretend that the people in this thread do not equally pity those innocents who are subject to drone strikes or any other act of indiscriminate slaughter is just that: an assumption. You don't know how I feel about those things, and to try to sit on a moral high horse and call down to those that there is no solution because people are bad is ridiculous and doesn't even ADD to the discussion. What's the solution offered there?


Where did I pretend that HD? Can you provide a quote for me? My quarrel is with those negative repping and mistreating someone with a valid opinion. I don't know how you feel about these things, and iirc, my response was not to your post but Illy's. As for sitting on a moral high horse, that accusation stinks of the pot calling the kettle black. If I have said somewhere I'm better than you all, let me know. As far as I know, I have not done so.


I am just standing up for points that I find very pertinent (mental health issues and the role of violence in human culture) and arguing that guns are not the core problem (while agreeing that guns are a problem). If there is something wrong in those two prongs of discussion, please, tell me where I am at fault.

Held doesn't need you to stand up for him. He wants to give his opinion then he offers it up for ridicule or praise just like anybody else.
Maybe he doesn't need me standing up for him, but when it comes to bullying I tend to get a little bit hot under the collar. There is a difference between heated arguments and telling someone to fuck off.

[King Lear]

Gust I don't know why you're getting wound up about someone who was negrepped for making a really snide and inappropriate post. It wasn't funny, it wasn't clever, and it was completely pointless. It doesn't belong in this discussion. Calling someone out on their shit is not bullying, it's calling someone out on their shit.

[Silencer]

Alright, alright, let's all get back on topic a bit here.

I ask that everyone bears in mind that neg rep in the discussion forum is not to be used to express disagreement with someone; only to express objection to distasteful or inappropriate behaviour such as trolling, flaming, flamebaiting, etc.
Similarly, the discussion board is for just that; discussion. Keep it on-topic and make your posts meaningful or don't post at all; if you want to be cute take it to the Inn.

Generally speaking; just tone back the one-on-one fighting a bit, guys.

Much appreciated, I know this is a sensitive and wide-ranging topic.

[Gust Hubb]

Ornery Owl, on 17 December 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Gust I don't know why you're getting wound up about someone who was negrepped for making a really snide and inappropriate post. It wasn't funny, it wasn't clever, and it was completely pointless. It doesn't belong in this discussion. Calling someone out on their shit is not bullying, it's calling someone out on their shit.

KL, I was taking the comments at face value and thought they were valid comments. The snarky, sarcastic flavor behind them seemed on par to my eyes with a lot of the other posts on this thread and thus I did not see why people were getting upset about the comments put forth (you note that I defended the comments and the ideas I thought Held put forth).

I perceive neg repping as a serious statement of dislike akin to telling people to get the fuck off the thread or as the rattle from a snake about to strike (in other words, clean up your act and be glad you got away with a neg rep, as happens on the picture thread).

I even double checked what I was seeing with these posts with my wife, who didn't see what the hullaballoo was about.

I'm sorry I mistook a troll for a real poster. If you look at my posts in the context of protecting a real poster, I think my actions will make more sense.

[worry]

These are just some thoughts I've had about the 2nd Amendment that aren't particularly focused on anyone else's arguments so far. I guess Shin's "individual rights" perspective got the ball rolling, but this isn't in particularly direct response to his point either.

There's something about the 2nd that doesn't sit right with me, not because I have any generic distate for gun ownership, but because out of all the Bill of Rights amendments, it seems to have flipped the principle with the interpretation. It seems to me the best principles behind it -- and maybe what it should have read like instead, not to say I'm trying to trump the founding fathers -- include the right to self defense, the right to defend one's loved ones, and even a sort of communal right to defend nearly anyone else from harm (I say nearly anyone else, because clearly you can't use force to "defend" someone being given the death penalty or something). But that's what seems fundamental to me, while the matters of what constitutes reasonable self defense -- including which arms are reasonable to bear -- should have been detailed out through the usual combo of legislation and judicial review.

Another thought that occurred to me, and it's more of a question, is do you think if we had never had the 2nd Amendment, that people would have called for it anyway? Is it as fundamental as the 1st Amendment, or the 14th, or universal suffrage, or eliminating slavery? Such that it would have been inevitable anyway?

[Obdigore]

worrywort, on 17 December 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

These are just some thoughts I've had about the 2nd Amendment that aren't particularly focused on anyone else's arguments so far. I guess Shin's "individual rights" perspective got the ball rolling, but this isn't in particularly direct response to his point either.

There's something about the 2nd that doesn't sit right with me, not because I have any generic distate for gun ownership, but because out of all the Bill of Rights amendments, it seems to have flipped the principle with the interpretation. It seems to me the best principles behind it -- and maybe what it should have read like instead, not to say I'm trying to trump the founding fathers -- include the right to self defense, the right to defend one's loved ones, and even a sort of communal right to defend nearly anyone else from harm (I say nearly anyone else, because clearly you can't use force to "defend" someone being given the death penalty or something). But that's what seems fundamental to me, while the matters of what constitutes reasonable self defense -- including which arms are reasonable to bear -- should have been detailed out through the usual combo of legislation and judicial review.

Another thought that occurred to me, and it's more of a question, is do you think if we had never had the 2nd Amendment, that people would have called for it anyway? Is it as fundamental as the 1st Amendment, or the 14th, or universal suffrage, or eliminating slavery? Such that it would have been inevitable anyway?

The second amendment was added because a majority of the founding fathers were against a federal standing military, and quite a few were against any kind of standing military, however they understood that those eeeeeeevil brits might want to come make us pay taxes on tea again (which no one drinks anyway), so they argued about, and then added, the second amendment. This amendment reads a tiny bit differently if you read the entire thing instead of leaving out parts you don't like (kind of like buffet religion, tbh).

[Overactive Imagination]

Does negative or positive rep actually mean anything? Like why do people care?

I'm thinking that even after the shooting this week, there are probably still thousands of gun owners in the U.S. who haven't even bothered to try and secure their guns from their kids or other people.

I remember when I was a kid living in Florida, my friends (5-10 years old at the time) had access to their Dad's hunting rifles and bows and big ass machetes and everything else he owned. Kind of crazy imo.

This post has been edited by Overactive Imagination: 17 December 2012 - 06:41 AM

[worry]

Obdigore, on 17 December 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

This amendment reads a tiny bit differently if you read the entire thing instead of leaving out parts you don't like (kind of like buffet religion, tbh).

What are you talking about? It's one sentence long.

[Obdigore]

worrywort, on 17 December 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 17 December 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

This amendment reads a tiny bit differently if you read the entire thing instead of leaving out parts you don't like (kind of like buffet religion, tbh).

What are you talking about? It's one sentence long.

That whole first part that is often left off of it when people argue that they have god given rights to own a howitzer.

Quote

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

That part. That part that is about defense and security of the state by a militia instead of by a standing military that did not exist at the time? The reason the amendment was added is no longer valid as the US does have a standing military.

[worry]

I see what you're saying, interesting point. You might be right that people ignore the one part, but I've usually experienced it merely as folks reading those as two separate elements...the right to form a well-regulated militia, and the right to bear arms...and it's so awkwardly, even poorly worded compared to the rest of the document too, and that exacerbates the matter of incomprehensibility of modern technology to that age.

[Sindriss]

What boggles my mind is how some people equal the right to defend himself with the right to own military grade assault guns and similar grade weapons. You could own a very small gun and it would still be enough to stop a person entering your house. Its like fallout 2 weaponry - except you do not live in a nuclear holacaust and there are not bands of roaming slavers to defend yourself against.

I think the issue of range is a very critical one, unlike what Held believes. Even if a weapon is only a tool for the person who wants to commit a crime, it severely complicates matters if you cannot go to a supermarket with guns and buy endless ammo.

[Morgoth]

When did rep become something to talk about outside of the Inn?

Is it really that important to people? I mean, I'm pleased when I get positive rep for posts I've made, yet It's not like I get worked up about it. It's a little sad if the size of ones e-penis is considered important enough to whine about.

[nacht]

Morgoth, on 17 December 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

When did rep become something to talk about outside of the Inn?

Is it really that important to people? I mean, I'm pleased when I get positive rep for posts I've made, yet It's not like I get worked up about it. It's a little sad if the size of ones e-penis is considered important enough to whine about.

This is how "you" feel. Maybe others feel differently (especially about negative repping when you merely disagree with an opinion)

Forums have a tendency to degenerate into abuse slinging and this discourages a lot of polite/non-confrontational people from presenting their viewpoints.
I myself cancelled my posts thrice before posting anyway (and a lot of people probably wish I hadn't :-). It appears that words/opinions do have the potential to make people sick. Perhaps time to rethink the first amendment...

Gust Hubb's point is that this is a form of bullying.
Held's point was a sarcastic riposte to an argument. It did not demean the victims nor was it abusive. Sarcasm is a bit of a grey area but has a long history of being a valid technique to make a point.

[Obdigore]

And so we continue arguing and whining about rep instead of actually discussing the topic, even after a mod warning? Hooray!

[Morgoth]

Obdigore, on 17 December 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

And so we continue arguing and whining about rep instead of actually discussing the topic, even after a mod warning? Hooray!

You're right. My appologies.

[nacht]

So is this a good summary of the available options.

1. Ban Guns
2. Ban Assault weapons
3. Change Society to become nicer and more caring
4. Detect and treat potential perpetrators early
5. Take some defensive measures
6. Do Nothing

[Tapper]

My 2 cents on the discussion: nothing will happen.

Even if Obama (after all, he has been re-elected, so has his hands free) gets something done, the program will take years and years to have a noticable effect, simply because of the NRA slowing things, and the amount of weaponry stashed in private armories. I don't think that weapon related incidents like this one, or the Dark Knight Rises shooting, will lower in frequency for a long, long time.

That will be exploited by politicians who want to play to the gun lobby/ gun owners. "we cannot carry (an assault rifle) anymore, but the incidents haven't gone down. I see no point in continuing this socialist, federal experiment that runs against what the Founding Fathers intended, and if you vote me, on my first day in office, I will undo this Obamanation (harr harr how clever)."

As anti-gun as I am (and I'd love if the police in the Netherlands would not carry at all, unless part of a specially trained unit - too many accidents where the aim of policemen proves to be off, leading to killing/maiming shots, often in panic, where a warning shot or disabling shot would do), I can't see the european/Japanese gun crime casualty ratings ever becoming an US reality.
The system is too advanced and even with all the measures Amph (as an example) suggests, you're not getting there due to the stockpile already in place. That being said, the government buying up guns, and installing a system of permits, tests, checks, enforced training, and a limit of 1 hand-gun per person for defense and 1 long-barrelled for sport (hunting only) would be a sane alternative that allows civilians firepower, recreation and a sane limit.