JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 26th December 2012, 08:27 PM   #201
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,695
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Regardless, they believe they are learning how to fight.



Ask a soldier if target practice isn't the major focus of learning how to kill.
The basic job qualification requires one to know how to move, shoot and communicate.

Unless you're in a high-speed, low drag unit you spend the majority of training in physical conditioning, not marksmanship.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:29 PM   #202
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You mean you don't tell them that "my kung fu is the strongest!" and go down the street to the nearest dojo to kick some unworthy student booty?

A stereotype based on fictional depictions written by individuals completely ignorant of reality isn't true?

I might need to reassess my opinions.
Correct, I don't depict martial arts as being peaceful and spiritual. It's about fighting.
I don't think people should depict firearm target shooting as being as less about killing the same way.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:39 PM   #203
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,695
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Correct, I don't depict martial arts as being peaceful and spiritual. It's about fighting.
I don't think people should depict firearm target shooting as being as less about killing the same way.
An individual aligning the sights on a 1" x ring at 25 yards with a handgun isn't any closer to training to kill than you are in the dojo.

I'm a almost life long kendōka, and my time in the dojo is much closer to training for killing than any simple bullseye based target shooting.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:46 PM   #204
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,124
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I take it you're against laws prohibiting children from doing other adult activities?
Why would you say that?
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:48 PM   #205
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
The basic job qualification requires one to know how to move, shoot and communicate.

Unless you're in a high-speed, low drag unit you spend the majority of training in physical conditioning, not marksmanship.
Shooting is marksmanship.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 08:49 PM   #206
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
An individual aligning the sights on a 1" x ring at 25 yards with a handgun isn't any closer to training to kill than you are in the dojo.

I'm a almost life long kendōka, and my time in the dojo is much closer to training for killing than any simple bullseye based target shooting.
Correct, but wielding a gun at any range is.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2012, 09:04 PM   #207
sol
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19
great thread. i think im going to buy an akarate47 tomorrow. you know, for duck hunting.
sol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 02:16 AM   #208
Carnivore
Salad Dodger
 
Carnivore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,434
My mother was just about the nicest person I've ever met. She was also very liberal and pacifistic, with some anti-military bias due to her anti-war feelings. (Ironically she ended up marrying a former soldier.)

It was she who introduced me to her hobby of target shooting when I was a boy. She had gotten into it as a youngster herself. She came from a small town background with many farming relatives locally, and firearms were part of the scenery. She enjoyed gaining a recreational skill where progress could be measured exactly and that could be shared by people of different genders, ages and levels of fitness.

She and my Dad taught me firearms safety at a young age and those lessons will stick with me for life. Once you absorb the rules you can safely and responsibly handle, use, store and transport firearms forever.

Now guns were never a big part of my life. The time I was most into target shooting was in high school, and that was mostly with air guns. I have never owned a firearm and probably never will.

The thing is, my parents did not abuse me by sharing their hobby with me. They were not "sick" for teaching me to thoroughly understand and respect the potential dangers of firearms. They did not warp my fragile little mind into fetishising guns or brainwash me into becoming a killer. I'm glad that I was exposed to firearms safety at a young age in the same way I'm glad I was taught road traffic safety.

Precision paper punching is not murder practice and being a recreational shooter is not a symptom of contempt for human life. Involving your family in a responsible way is no different in principle than teaching your kids how to safely participate in any other potentially dangerous activity. We don't insist you have to be over 21 before learning how to sail, ride horses, practice a martial art, ride quad bikes on the family farm or a thousand other things.

When feelings run high perspective can be hard to hold on to but being a firearm owner is not the same thing as being a "gun nut". It just isn't.
__________________
"It's backwards thinking like this that made me leave Manchester. You Guinness swilling, Marmite blaspheming animal." - Malfie Henpox
Carnivore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 05:03 AM   #209
Captain_Swoop
Illuminator
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 4,921
Target shooting is a proxy for shooting at animals or people.
What do you think a gun is for? It's for killing at a distance.
What purpose does target shooting either at paper targets, bottles or clay pigeons fulfill other than getting better at shooting?

I know there are a lot of shooters who try to dress it up as something else.

I am a proficient archer, I shoot at aper targets but I don't delude myself that my bow isn'y primarily a weapon for hunting or war.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 27th December 2012 at 05:04 AM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 05:09 AM   #210
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Target shooting is a proxy for shooting at animals or people.
What do you think a gun is for? It's for killing at a distance.
What purpose does target shooting either at paper targets, bottles or clay pigeons fulfill other than getting better at shooting?

I know there are a lot of shooters who try to dress it up as something else.

I am a proficient archer, I shoot at aper targets but I don't delude myself that my bow isn'y primarily a weapon for hunting or war.

The fact that you're practicing killing stuff and can't imagine other reasons for target shooting does not make those other reasons go away. You're practicing killing things. Interesting.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 05:28 AM   #211
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 32,116
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
I am a proficient archer, I shoot at aper targets but I don't delude myself that my bow isn'y primarily a weapon for hunting or war.
Unless you're hunting or fighting with it, your bow isn't primarily a weapon for hunting or war. My dad has his ceremonial Navy officer's sword hanging on the wall. Is it primarily a weapon? Because the only thing he's ever cut with it was the cake at my parents' wedding. He's actually been in wars, but not with his sword. Its primary function is decoration, regardless of the historical use made of other swords.

Just as your bow's primary use is recreational paper target shooting.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 05:31 AM   #212
Noztradamus
Master Poster
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,105
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Learning how to shoot a gun = killing.
Sex education for under 18 year olds = stautory rape
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 05:35 AM   #213
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,695
I guess the old "we of the white hats" premise is alive and well in this debate.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 06:15 AM   #214
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Spanaway WA
Posts: 18,873
We are, in part, shaped by the principles of Anglo-Saxon common law, under which every able-bodied man had a duty to muster to defend his community or to apprehend criminals. Thus our concept of a citizen's militia. The militia has, of course, fallen in and out of favor over time. Certainly, under the more despotic governments around the world. the militia was less important than standing armies. Standing armies are, in fact, essential to the maintenance of despotism. There is a force at the disposal of the despot to crush any resistance to the most absurd edicts and to crush any attempt at government reform from the grass roots.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to make the use of military force against the citizens more difficult, because it was intended that there would be no standing army, and that government would have to rally the citizens to fight.

Rather hard to muster all the able-bodied men to disarm and imprison their neighbors.

We have, however, drifted away from that ideal, partly because too many people were just too lazy to muster for training. In some cases, they drifted off into anti-social gangs, resulting in events like the range wars of the American Southwest.

The militia, theoreticly, exists to repel invasion and to suppress insurrection, to fight against all enemies both foreign and domestic, just as are members of the standing armed forces. We do have foreign enemies and, regrettably, a large number of domestic enemies all scheming to bring chaos and terror to play to overthrow our existing system of government. The only thing that could weaken those domestic enemies would be for all citizens to stand ready to put them down if they rise. Right now, they would have a hard time turning the majority of citizens to the purpose of rebellion. Just as a foreign invader would be faced with a nightmare behind every rock and tree, so would a rogue militia.

At least, that is the situation now. Take away the privately owned weapons, and the outlaw militias will still keep their arms. You will also have a few million people thinking that "Hey, maybe Alex Jones is not the nutjob we thought he was." They might even welcome the rise of the nutjob militias who offer to restore the rights that we have lost. Of course, most of the outlaw militias are, like most of them world-wide, just thugs plotting the installation of their own brand of tyranny. Ask any Tuareg who has witnessed or taken part in the creation of Azawaad.

As I have said before, it is time that we actually revive the concept of the militia as first envisioned, requiring every gun owner to train and muster under an elected chain of command.

The very existance of a trained and equipped citizenry may be enough to keep the real nightmare of an uprising of the outlaw militias from happening, just as it has, historicly, deterred any invasion of the American homeland.

Encouraging every citizen to be prepared to defend his or her community with firearms is, really, a very sensible defense of our liberty.

An organized Civil Guard would also be of immense help in restoring order and basic amenities and supply lines after a major disaster of any kind. Imagine how much looting would occur if, when the winds die down, you have armed neighbors who know each other standing guard until the police can resume patrols of their neighborhoods.

The earliest age at which a child can understand and follow directions is not too young to start teaching any physical skill, including the safe and accurate use of a firearm.

The biggest safety concern I would have is for neighbors who do not take the lives and safety of others seriously, or who have some anger control issues, or are just plain guanophrenic, like Lansa and his mother. Mandatory training in the presence of other gun owners could easily have identified both of them as a potential problem and provisions could have been made to keep those weapons out of the shooter's hands. Perhaps a system of commun ity armories could be established for the safe storagfe of both emergency supplies and to secure the weapons of those who, for any given time, are deemed likely to use them unlawfully.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 07:43 AM   #215
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Sex education for under 18 year olds = stautory rape
False equivalency. Learning about guns would be like sex education.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 07:46 AM   #216
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Learning about guns would be like sex education.

Are you suggesting that everyone should learn about guns, then? Do you favor learning about guns at school, or is it something that should be done at home by the parents?
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 07:53 AM   #217
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Are you suggesting that everyone should learn about guns, then? Do you favor learning about guns at school, or is it something that should be done at home by the parents?
Not at all, I was just correcting a false equivalency. I don't think kids should handle guns at all. Killing is something only adults should do.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 07:59 AM   #218
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Not at all, I was just correcting a false equivalency. I don't think kids should handle guns at all. Killing is something only adults should do.

Oh, I see. You're making the example that handling guns and killing is a false equivalence. I appreciate the subtlety. Well done, sir.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:17 AM   #219
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,299
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Encouraging every citizen to be prepared to defend his or her community with firearms is, really, a very sensible defense of our liberty.

An organized Civil Guard would also be of immense help in restoring order and basic amenities and supply lines after a major disaster of any kind.
We have that capability, in the form of the National Guard.

The 2d Amendment is an anachronism. The people who wrote it were living under the long shadow of the 30 Years War. They were the descendants of people who fled that catastrophe.

A village in the days of Tilly and Wallenstein might have benefited from an armed militia. Nowadays a military unit could crush any number of civilians with small arms. But one fruitcake with a combat rifle can take out a class of first-graders.

No other civilized, politically stable country allows this kind of insanity as a fundamental right. We should repeal the 2d Amendment, and start pulling all these useless guns out of circulation.

People who really want guns can still have them, but only after meeting stringent requirements.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:17 AM   #220
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,360
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Not at all, I was just correcting a false equivalency. I don't think kids should handle guns at all. Killing is something only adults should do.
Are you aware that guns are only chosen by 2/3 of American murderers? And of those murders, more than 19 in 20 were stolen guns?

If you wish to be intellectually honest in this exercise, you could include knives, blunt objects and matches. You could also note the lack of honor among thieves.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:20 AM   #221
Carnivore
Salad Dodger
 
Carnivore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,434
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Target shooting is a proxy for shooting at animals or people.
What do you think a gun is for? It's for killing at a distance.
What purpose does target shooting either at paper targets, bottles or clay pigeons fulfill other than getting better at shooting?

I know there are a lot of shooters who try to dress it up as something else.

I am a proficient archer, I shoot at aper targets but I don't delude myself that my bow isn'y primarily a weapon for hunting or war.

Well, my Mum's target rifle was for target shooting. If you had asked her to visualise a living target (human or animal) while she was shooting she would probably have become physically ill. She didn't "dress anything up", she was against hunting, against war and she enjoyed target shooting largely for the sake of gaining and improving an arbitrary skill. This attitude is not unique.



Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Not at all, I was just correcting a false equivalency. I don't think kids should handle guns at all. Killing is something only adults should do.
As has been pointed out, recreational target shooting is not killing. It is not even practice for killing. There is a degree of skill overlap, but only a degree. The tool may be similar, the action and intent is different. Carving a Christmas turkey isn't treated as practice for stabbing a human.
__________________
"It's backwards thinking like this that made me leave Manchester. You Guinness swilling, Marmite blaspheming animal." - Malfie Henpox
Carnivore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:20 AM   #222
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,360
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
We have that capability, in the form of the National Guard.

The 2d Amendment is an anachronism. The people who wrote it were living under the long shadow of the 30 Years War. They were the descendants of people who fled that catastrophe.
A 130 year shadow from across the ocean? That's like saying I'm living under the shadow of France's invasion of Mexico.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:39 AM   #223
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: White Mountains
Posts: 6,686
Going all the way back to the image displayed in the OP, I'm not sure I would call it "disgusting." I will say that I personally find it depressing for a couple of reasons.

First, I think it's unfortunate that the guns shown in the picture are available to the public. I have no problems with guns used for hunting and self-defense. But the average person cannot use these weapons for either purpose. These devices are designed to allow a single person to kill a lot of people very quickly, and as such really have no practical application outside the military and possibly certain law enforcement situations. Therefore I find it difficult to understand why anyone else would even want these guns. If you're a rational law-abiding person, you will never have occasion to use them the way they were intended, as lethally efficient machines for ripping human flesh (and let's not mince words; this is precisely what they are designed to do). And if you're not law-abiding, you shouldn't have access to these guns in the first place. Those last two sentences seem so self-evident to me, I must confess to having something of a difficult time understanding how others can think very differently.

The second aspect of the photograph I find depressing is the inclusion of the child holding the weapon, because I can't help but think of my own son. As I stated above, such a gun may have utility in the military or law enforcement, and if upon reaching adulthood my son is interested in persuing those disciplines he can learn about such weapons as he chooses. But until that happens, a device designed to kill humans on that order of magnitude simply has no relevance to his life -- or at least I fervently hope it does not.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:43 AM   #224
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Are you aware that guns are only chosen by 2/3 of American murderers? And of those murders, more than 19 in 20 were stolen guns?

If you wish to be intellectually honest in this exercise, you could include knives, blunt objects and matches. You could also note the lack of honor among thieves.

Well that's the problem, right there.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:50 AM   #225
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,299
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
A 130 year shadow from across the ocean? That's like saying I'm living under the shadow of France's invasion of Mexico.
The 30 Years War made a more lasting impression.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:55 AM   #226
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,311
Originally Posted by Carnivore View Post
As has been pointed out, recreational target shooting is not killing. It is not even practice for killing.
Then what is it practice for? And why does it require lethal rounds?

Quote:
There is a degree of skill overlap, but only a degree. The tool may be similar, the action and intent is different. Carving a Christmas turkey isn't treated as practice for stabbing a human.
Carving a Christmas turkey has its own clearly-defined purpose independent of stabbing a human. And it really can't be done with something other than a sharp implement.

Target shooting can be done with something other than lethal rounds. So how is target shooting an inherent use of a gun?
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 08:57 AM   #227
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,901
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Going all the way back to the image displayed in the OP, I'm not sure I would call it "disgusting." I will say that I personally find it depressing for a couple of reasons.

First, I think it's unfortunate that the guns shown in the picture are available to the public. I have no problems with guns used for hunting and self-defense. But the average person cannot use these weapons for either purpose. These devices are designed to allow a single person to kill a lot of people very quickly, and as such really have no practical application outside the military and possibly certain law enforcement situations. Therefore I find it difficult to understand why anyone else would even want these guns. If you're a rational law-abiding person, you will never have occasion to use them the way they were intended, as lethally efficient machines for ripping human flesh (and let's not mince words; this is precisely what they are designed to do). And if you're not law-abiding, you shouldn't have access to these guns in the first place. Those last two sentences seem so self-evident to me, I must confess to having something of a difficult time understanding how others can think very differently.

The second aspect of the photograph I find depressing is the inclusion of the child holding the weapon, because I can't help but think of my own son. As I stated above, such a gun may have utility in the military or law enforcement, and if upon reaching adulthood my son is interested in persuing those disciplines he can learn about such weapons as he chooses. But until that happens, a device designed to kill humans on that order of magnitude simply has no relevance to his life -- or at least I fervently hope it does not.
There's the heart of the disconnect, I think - that statement is linked to every time someone asks "why do you need that?" The simple fact is many people do*, and when they purchase them they never use them to commit a crime.

*Want, that is, not need.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:01 AM   #228
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,360
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
The 30 Years War made a more lasting impression.
Evidence?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:11 AM   #229
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: White Mountains
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
There's the heart of the disconnect, I think - that statement is linked to every time someone asks "why do you need that?" The simple fact is many people do*, and when they purchase them they never use them to commit a crime.

*Want, that is, not need.
I think you're correct. I can certainly understand wanting something I do not need. And I'm sure there are things I want that other people would find utterly useless -- one man's trash and all that.

But the question for me is still relevant, because I don't understand how someone would want something whose sole practical use is to end lots of human lives very quickly. Personally, I can't even imagine wanting something that I plan to use strictly for recreational use, but which can and has been used for mass murder. Is shooting a lot of bullets quickly at some inanimate objects really such a thrill that it justifies the significant additional risk to the public? To me, it just seems so selfish.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:15 AM   #230
DavidJames
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 7,898
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
I think you're correct. I can certainly understand wanting something I do not need. And I'm sure there are things I want that other people would find utterly useless -- one man's trash and all that.

But the question for me is still relevant, because I don't understand how someone would want something whose sole practical use is to end lots of human lives very quickly. Personally, I can't even imagine wanting something that I plan to use strictly for recreational use, but which can and has been used for mass murder. Is shooting a lot of bullets quickly at some inanimate objects really such a thrill that it justifies the significant additional risk to the public? To me, it just seems so selfish.
I agree with you. I expect the response will be a request for you to defend your use of cars and swimming pools.
__________________
I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars.
Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe
Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:21 AM   #231
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,901
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
I think you're correct. I can certainly understand wanting something I do not need. And I'm sure there are things I want that other people would find utterly useless -- one man's trash and all that.

But the question for me is still relevant, because I don't understand how someone would want something whose sole practical use is to end lots of human lives very quickly. Personally, I can't even imagine wanting something that I plan to use strictly for recreational use, but which can and has been used for mass murder. Is shooting a lot of bullets quickly at some inanimate objects really such a thrill that it justifies the significant additional risk to the public? To me, it just seems so selfish.
Statistically, there isn't that much risk to the public. Certainly not when compared to, say, ordinary handguns (the kind which were used in the deadliest shooting rampage in the US). This wouldn't be any consolation to the families unlucky enough to be those statistics, granted. It still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who own and use that kind of weapon (I would include myself in that were it not prohibitively expensive for me) in a responsible and law-abiding manner.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:25 AM   #232
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: White Mountains
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
I agree with you. I expect the response will be a request for you to defend your use of cars and swimming pools.
But that doesn't even make any sense! Both have practical utility outside of killing people, and neither is specifically designed for that purpose. Certainly lots of people die in auto accidents, but cars provide so many other benefits to society. Swimming pools may be harder to justify since their primary purpose is recreational, although they also provide some health benefits as well. But is someone going to walk into a school with a swimming pool concealed under their coat and drown a bunch of kids in it? Is a bad guy going to steal your swimming pool and use it for nefarious purposes? Really, the comparison isn't even apples/oranges, it's more like apples/punctuation.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:25 AM   #233
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,299
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
I think you're correct. I can certainly understand wanting something I do not need. And I'm sure there are things I want that other people would find utterly useless -- one man's trash and all that.

But the question for me is still relevant, because I don't understand how someone would want something whose sole practical use is to end lots of human lives very quickly. Personally, I can't even imagine wanting something that I plan to use strictly for recreational use, but which can and has been used for mass murder. Is shooting a lot of bullets quickly at some inanimate objects really such a thrill that it justifies the significant additional risk to the public? To me, it just seems so selfish.
I agree. I have a .38 revolver because I live in a rural area in a country with lots of armed criminals. I actually did use it once, to put down a badly injured cat. It meets the test of being something I need or have a good reason to own.

I don't need or have a good reason to own a combat rifle with a banana clip. Nor does any other civilian. This is an item that fetishists purchase and use at a target range because they are fascinated. That is not a good enough reason, given that such weapons can and do end up in the hands of homicidal fruitcakes like Adam Lanza and the guy in upstate NY who killed two firemen.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:30 AM   #234
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,360
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Evidence?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:31 AM   #235
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: White Mountains
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I agree. I have a .38 revolver because I live in a rural area in a country with lots of armed criminals. I actually did use it once, to put down a badly injured cat. It meets the test of being something I need or have a good reason to own.
I totally agree -- indeed, I've considered purchasing a firearm for self-defense myself, and have always opposed the more extreme gun control advocates who would entirely do away with them. Self-defense is a legitimate application for a handgun (unfortunately), and until society changes I will support the right to own a gun designed for that purpose.


Quote:
I don't need or have a good reason to own a combat rifle with a banana clip. Nor does any other civilian. This is an item that fetishists purchase and use at a target range because they are fascinated. That is not a good enough reason, given that such weapons can and do end up in the hands of homicidal fruitcakes like Adam Lanza and the guy in upstate NY who killed two firemen.
Precisely my point.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:32 AM   #236
DavidJames
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 7,898
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
But that doesn't even make any sense!
Of course it doesn't make sense, but that hasn't stopped at least 5 people here trying to equate how we should react to guns with cars and swimming pools.
__________________
I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars.
Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe
Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:43 AM   #237
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: White Mountains
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Statistically, there isn't that much risk to the public. Certainly not when compared to, say, ordinary handguns (the kind which were used in the deadliest shooting rampage in the US). This wouldn't be any consolation to the families unlucky enough to be those statistics, granted. It still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who own and use that kind of weapon (I would include myself in that were it not prohibitively expensive for me) in a responsible and law-abiding manner.

I believe the size of the risk is immaterial. My point is, the risk is totally unjustified in any way, given that the weapons shown in the OP have no practical application to the public. Handguns at least have a practical self-defense utility. Assault rifles of the sort displayed in the OP have none beyond the apparent thrill one gets from firing lots of bullets quickly. Admittedly, I don't personally share that thrill, so the following may be easy for me to say: I would never engage in a hobby that required the use of devices whose sole intended purpose is to kill people, whose continued existence makes possible tragedies such as Sandy Hook. Modern life is risky enough, why add a totally unjustifiable one?
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com

Last edited by Stellafane; 27th December 2012 at 09:46 AM.
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:56 AM   #238
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,901
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
I believe the size of the risk is immaterial. My point is, the risk is totally unjustified in any way, given that the weapons shown in the OP have no practical application to the public. Handguns at least have a practical self-defense utility. Assault rifles of the sort displayed in the OP have none beyond the apparent thrill one gets from firing lots of bullets quickly. Admittedly, I don't personally share that thrill, so the following may be easy for me to say: I would never engage in a hobby that required the use of devices whose sole intended purpose is to kill people, whose continued existence makes possible tragedies such as Sandy Hook. Modern life is risky enough, why add a totally unjustifiable one?
And I don't feel that a justification is necessary. I'd also like to add that anybody who takes a Henry repeater to the range is also using a weapon whose sold intended purpose is killing people. Just because you don't like something or would never share in it does not give you the right to remove it from other people who do lawfully in a way that harms no one.

Regulate? Sure. I've already gone on record as saying that I'd have no problem if military-style (no actual assault rifles, since that's not what we're discussing here) weapons were required to be locked at the range.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 09:56 AM   #239
Captain_Swoop
Illuminator
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 4,921
If all that target shooters wanted to do is improve their skill at target shooting and maybe enter competitions to do the same then why not use an air weapon with a low power?

They are just as accurate and none lethal in most cases (caveat to say that yes, I know that it is possible to make an air weapon with a very high power and in freak circumstances people have been killed with low power weapons.)
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2012, 10:06 AM   #240
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 11,417
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
If all that target shooters wanted to do is improve their skill at target shooting and maybe enter competitions to do the same then why not use an air weapon with a low power?

They are just as accurate and none lethal in most cases (caveat to say that yes, I know that it is possible to make an air weapon with a very high power and in freak circumstances people have been killed with low power weapons.)
Are you comparing the accuracy of air rifles with their traditional counterparts? There's no way they're as accurate. I'm sure velocity has a lot to do with accuracy - so the slower the projectile the less accurate.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty off, calling it as accurate as a regular gun
__________________
Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake.

-Henry David Thoreau
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.