This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Guns, Guns, Guns

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages
Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 		Feb 28th 1:51 PM
Bill Hall made the very good point that the connection between Guns and Homosexuality in terms of them both being part of the same topic thread is pretty tenuous, so...

The arguments that have been presented for the current availability of Guns in the US are (correct me or add more if I'm wrong): a) Protection of family and property, b) Freedom to shoot pretty animals. Thankfully, people seem to have pretty much accepted that the good 'ol 'Guns don't kill people, people do.' is crap.

In response to a) I assume that the major thing we're talking here is aggravated burglary. The fact is that most burglary is opportunistic, and not by professional/hardened criminals, in fact a lot is by kids. The argument is that more gun laws won't stop the real criminals from getting guns, and I accept that you'd have a hard time keeping guns from the Mob or the PLO, but the guy who's most likely to be climbing in through your window has little more access to guns as you do. Which would you rather - you both have guns, or neither?

Also, even those who do would be less likely to if they weren't acutely aware that every Tom, Dick or Harry has his own personal arsenal (as well as every Harriet having a gun in their handbag). It's a vicious circle - one guy gets a gun. so the next gets a bigger one; we invent faster, meaner, more effective ways to kill each other.

b) Following the logic that humanity seems to in a), I think we should arm all deers with Uzi 9mm's, then see how many big tough hunters go after them.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Feb 28th 2:19 PM
Just to butt in... ;o)

About a);

Me and Jeff had a little debate over this once.

If we set up two different situations where people are likely to be threatened with guns - a hold-up on the streets, and a break-in at home, I'd like to make a certain division here.

At home, the minute someone breaks in, the criminal has already commited a crime, and you can now use your gun legally to stop him.

When a mugger follows you on the streets, you cannot brandish your gun at him (I assume) before he actually is pointing at you with _his_ gun. If you feel lucky, you can always try shoot him first, but it would seem like asking to get killed.

I proposed that it might be feasible to make gun laws so that rifles for hunting are allowed, while small concealable guns are not.

This would be a tentative policy for reducing the proliferation of guns, while still allowing people to hunt, and protect home against burglars and such.

Another result _might_ be that street robberies were made more difficult, considering how it's somewhat more difficult to haul around a big rifle in your pocket, instead of a pistol, or the like. It would be difficult for you, but it would be difficult for the would-be mugger as well.

One could say that it might not work - guns will only be smuggled in, or hidden, or whatever - , but I'd say that depending on your gun to protect you in this case would be somewhat foolhardy - you might well end up dead instead of only robbed.


As to b);

Man should not apologize for his existence. Death is a matter of course for any animal in nature - as long as hunting is sustainable, and done with a minimum of pain for the hunted animal (which is the rule), I don't see the problem.

Yeah, it might not be 'fair' to the animal, but in nature, things do not work that way. As long as we
do not allow ourselves to develop cruelty from the act of hunting, it is OK.
Rhoe
User ID: 2114994 		Feb 28th 6:06 PM
A lot of guns that are on the street come from law abiding citizens. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of all burglaries are done during the day while people are at work. The first place a theif goes is to the nightstand and dresser. That is where most people keep their guns in case thief comes in at night.

And I agree with Sphinx. Why the hell is it called hunting when you sit in a tree and wait for a deer to come strolling by or a duck to fly over head? Why is that a sport? The animals only chance is that the hunter is a lousy shot. I suggest that the weapon should be dictated by the deadliness of the animal. Deers should be hand to hand combat, maybe a stick to offset the antlers. With a lion, give a person a spear. As long as the numbers of animals killed and maimed equals that of the hunters, then it is a SPORT.
Relic
User ID: 9308123 		Feb 28th 6:16 PM
Hehe, she's a fiesty one aint she? I agree Rhoe, and then FOX could televise the sport. Who wouldnt tune in to see animals killing people and vise versa? It would be called.... Extreamly Dangerous Sports and be on every sunday night for families in the widwestern American states to watch, all gathered together under a common interest. It might even satisfy the most blood thirsty rifle wielding "hunter".
Bill Hall
User ID: 8562343 		Feb 28th 8:30 PM
"Mister, a cow was murdered to make that coat!"
"Damn! I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now I'll have to kill you, too."

Let's not get carried away by our own rhetoric.
LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 		Feb 28th 10:14 PM
Hey, you just need to eat what you kill, and its not wrong. If everyone had to eat what they kill....never mind.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Feb 29th 1:39 AM
I surmise that it might be amusing to watch someone trying to kill a deer with a frozen herring.

In any case, why stop there? Fishing is also a 'sport', so I suppose we should even out the odds there too. Let the fisher catch those barracudas barehanded! :o)
Swithin
User ID: 0289604 		Feb 29th 3:15 AM
I should have something to say. What the hell is wrong with me?

I guess my biggest problem with gun enthusiasts is that they can't just admit that they think it's fun to kill things. Why is it always about defending themselves from the pinko youth and the government cabals? I don't particularly have anything against guns, as Forrest Whitaker said about Ghost Dog using a gun, 'your sword is an extension of your arm, a gun just has a longer reach.' My problem is that I don't want the idiots of the world to be able to change it, but their tools are simply tools I suppose.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Feb 29th 6:48 AM
Apparently, folks who never have hunted think that you can just stroll into the woods and have Bambi conveniently strike a pose and wait for his brains to be blasted. It doesn't quite work that way. The real skill in (deer) hunting is not shooting. Deer can be very fast and have excellent hearing and olfactory senses. The "sport" end of hunting is the ability to read animal signs, selecting vantage points over areas where you believe animals will travel, knowing how to mask your scent, disguising your appearence, etc. More advanced skills include imitating animal noises, etc. For bird hunting, the same skills apply, and shooting skills are a bit more important.

As far as self-protection, Kay-Arne, I would submit that your street mugger will simply disregard your law banning handguns. There are over 100 million guns in the U.S., so I don't think he'll have a hard time finding one. The same with the guy climbing through the window -- he won't have a problem getting a gun.

Also, its interesting to note that every state in the U.S. that has enacted a "concealed carry" law has seen a _drop_ in armed robberies. The reason is simple. When every law abiding citizen is potentially armed, a criminal is going to thing twice before robbing someone. It certainly doesn't deter all robberies, but it does deter some. The fact is that the criminals are carrying guns anyway, so its not like the choice is between guns for everyone and no guns at all.

The point to remember is that the mere presence of even _possible_ presence of a gun acts as a deterrent.
Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 		Feb 29th 6:50 AM
Bill,

I am not a vegitarian and I am not an animals rights activist. DEATH TO ALL COWS!!

There are instances when it is acceptable like reducing the population because it is overrunning the area like they do with deer in Texas or killing an animal that has adopted the habit of entering human areas like bears do in Yosimite, but overall I think it is wrong.

My biggest problm is big game hunters, that really bothers me.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Feb 29th 7:10 AM
Jeff;

Well, I did not exactly expect every criminal throwing away his gun in panic, just because someone outlawed it. These things takes time to have any effect.

I believe you have a good point though, in that the proliferation of guns would be difficult to overcome. Things that is made illegal has a tendency to raise high prices...and as such attract criminal interest - like drugs, for instance. Considering how bad the war on drugs have fared, I suppose a war on guns will do little better.

These statistics you set forth, Jeff...are these official studies of the 'gun law - crime' correlation?
Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 		Feb 29th 7:33 AM
Jeff,

I have hunted deer, pheasant, etc... and I know what goes into to it, but the fact of it is you lure an animal to you using manufactured equipment or you stake out a place you know they frequent and wait. It really is that simple. Why is it that so often hunters come back empty handed after sitting in a stand for hours? You can claim that the animal became aware of them, but I would suggest it is because they do not have the skills you claim all hunters must have and that is the majority of yahoos out there.

I would be willing to bet money that most "hunters" do not read animal signs, select vantage points over areas where they believe animals will travel, know how to mask their scent, or disguise their appearence more than buying the camo gear and scent spray at their local store.

They go out with guides/friends that have done all the "sport" as you call it well before hand.They grab a beer or a flask and go sit in a stand until Bambi does walk out in front of them.
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Feb 29th 8:32 AM
Interesting topic. I had this discussion with a good friend once via email, and to make it easier for me, I'll just post down some of what I wrote there...

Of course guns do not kill people, to just quote this major NRA argument. But a gun does make it easier, and I can tell you exactly why, and why these kids in Colorade used guns, too (I am sure everyone recalls what I am talking off...).

A gun is impersonal. Killing with a gun is impersonal. With any other weapon than those that shoot, you have to approach your victim. Come close to it. See straight into his eyes. Feel the radiating of his body warmth, of his fear, feel the spray of his blood when you put a knife into him, put your foot on the slick traces of blood on the floor, see it _closely_ how the blood pulses out of his stomach or skull or mouth. Disgusting? It is true.

Most people like to push this away, even killers. If you have a gun, you need not approaching. You stay far from the victim, you see the impact of the bullet, and the you can turn away. You need not, but you can. You have the choice to ignore what you did. All professional killers use fire weapons. Because it is easier. Because it can be done at great distance. And because the distance can be kept in your head, too.

If a man decides to kill the wife that has deceived him, he will use a gun. He will enter the room, shoot a bullet into her head, and then turn away. He will not need to approach her, to smell her perfume, to see the shading of
her hair where the sun touches it, he will not need to live through these final seconds he needs to cross the room, when he sees the questioning and then the terror in her eyes, he will not need to hear her scream and he will not need to touch her through a knife or a club, to feel her kicking and fighting. He can just walk in, shoot that bullet, and turn away.

For those kids in Colorade, it was the same. For them, killing was an abtract thing. An abstract pleasure, sadly, but abstract still. Would they have needed to use knifes, I am pretty sure they might have stopped after their first kill.
With your hands, even if you have them holding a knife or a club or cane, you kill more consciously. You feel the death fight. You don't with a gun.
And even if you realize it: It takes you a while. If you go nuts and just shoot around like these kids, you can kill - let's say... 13 kids before
thinking even slows you down. Bullets are shot much more quickly. Bullets fly quicker than thoughts do. And, btw: Would they had knifes, it would have been far more easy to approach them and stop them.

This is my argument, and I know that I am right. But, you know: This is all about money. The NRA in the US is a lobby with money at their backs, and there it is again: All about money. Politics, power, money. And the kids are the victims. Thirteen of them in Colorado. And two victims with a destroyed personallity, too. I do not excuse them. I just accuse others more. Thirteen
in Colorade, and so much more throughout the world.

Well, I am trailing off. Back to guns themselves.

Some of you know I am shooting in a club. I am the best proof that weapons can be used reasonably. And that I am a great defender of restricted weapon use, _because_ I know how to handle a weapon. I know shooting. And yet, I am not sure if I want to have a weapon at home. It could come into the wrong hands, and it could be misused. And I, for one, am sure that I can defend myself better without a weapon. For real offenders probably know how to use a weapon even better than I do, and if they get the gun out of my hand, I will be in an even worse position. No. No weapon at home. Our restrictions allow
people to _own_ a weapon after two years in a shooting club such as mine. And even if I own one, I will never be allowed to carry it with me. When I bring it to the club, I even have to have the ammonition in a separate case than the gun.

All that assures that no one who cannot handle a weapon has one. Point.

Another argument? The crime statistics. If it comes to murder with a fire weapon, Germany is far, far, far behind America. Why? Because Germans
do not have weapons. Murder in general is much fewer here than in America.
No weapons, no murder. Statistics.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Feb 29th 9:16 AM
Rhoe, if so many hunters come back empty-handed, then obviously its not that easy. And if they're willing to sit in a tree for hours or days without even getting a shot, I would submit that its maybe not just the kill that interests them. I've had days where I haven't even gotten a shot at anything and I've still had a lot of fun.

Min, its unfair to say the NRA is all about money because that ignores where the money comes from. The NRA gets its money from nearly 3 million members -- individuals who care deeply about their rights. If gun rights weren't valued by most American citizens, no amount of NRA ads condemning a candidate for supporting gun restrictions would make a difference.

I can't dispute your point that the prevalence of guns probably leads to more deaths than would otherwise occur. To me, though, that is not a sufficient reason to eliminate the right of law abiding citizens to carry guns. We probably disagree on that, I expect.

Interestingly, there was a recent incident in Pennsylvania where students who brought guns to school threatening violence were apprehended by a teacher who had his own gun. If the teacher had no gun, there may have been another tragedy.

Even if I did agree conceptually with removing guns from society, there is still the problem of the over 100 million guns already in the country. There is a saying that if you make carrying a gun a crime, only criminals will have guns. It's trite, but that doesn't make it any less true.



Ser Gary
User ID: 1523284 		Feb 29th 9:49 AM
I don't like the idea of students carrying guns and I certainly don't like the idea of teachers carrying guns. Jeff, the incident in Pennsylvania of which you speak is unique. If neither group had guns there would have been no threat.

I understand that in countries like Germany, where they have strict gun restrictions, that gun-related deaths are virtually non-existent. One child, one innocent person, killed by a gun-toter is too many for me. I may well be in a small minority in the U.S., but the "freedom" to bear arms (and potentially threaten other people with dangerous weapons)is one "freedom" I could live without.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Feb 29th 10:20 AM
Jeff;

I suppose one could question the direct causality between prevalence of guns and killings resulting of guns.

If we stipulate one gun for every two and a half American, I think this is not all that much greater than here in Norway - where I believe we have one gun for every fourth Norwegian, or thereabouts. I suppose smaller, concealable guns might be less prevalent than in the US - mostly hunting weapons, and military guns for the Home Guard, I think.

Of course, this leaves the question open why gun-related crime would be so much more prevalent in the US than in Norway...
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Feb 29th 11:13 AM
Because Americans are jerks. ;-)
Hey, just kidding.
Jeff, one paragraph of yours really hit my eyes:

"I can't dispute your point that the prevalence of guns probably leads to more deaths than would otherwise occur. To me, though, that is not a sufficient reason to eliminate the right of law abiding citizens to carry guns".

Do I understand this correctly? If I do, you are saying: Yes, because people are allowed to carry guns here, more people indeed _are_ killed. To me, though, some deaths are not a sufficient reason to take the guns away. Was that it, more or less?

Give me a break, Jeff. _You_ tell me that some deaths are not a sufficient reason to eliminate the right to carry guns? Well, that somehow takes any word of my mouth. If you agree that the gun laws leads to more deaths, but that doesn't make any difference for you, well... there's nothing else I can think of that I could add here.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Feb 29th 12:23 PM
Give me a break, Min. There are a _ton_ of issues over here where the argument goes "if it would save the life of just one child (or person), it is worth it." That sounds so very appealing and makes the utterer feel so superior morally.

Many communities over here have passed laws saying that you (children and adults) must wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. To me, a law like that is ridiculous. Riding a bike without a helmet is one of the great pleasures of being a kid. But the argument was "if it saves the life of just one child...", and people were too afraid to challenge that "reasoning". How about outlawing cigarettes? Alcohol? Wouldn't that save the life of "just one child"? Why not ban skydiving? Scuba diving? Mountain climbing? Boating? Wouldn't that save lives as well?

I did not say that deaths from guns do not matter. I said that the fact that the presence of guns may lead to some additional fatalities is not a sufficient reason to take them from all citizens.

Let's take your country, Min. I would imagine that there has been at least _one_ accidental shooting death in Germany. So shouldn't we ban all firearms, including those at your club?

Min
User ID: 0074284 		Feb 29th 12:35 PM
Jeff, banning scuba diving does not even come close a good comparison. Of course people are killed doing dangerous sports. But scuba driving does not support people killing others. A scuba dive is not primarily used to kill someone. Guns are. The reason to have or use a scuba diver is not killing. The reason to have a gun is. You do not climb or boat or even ride a bicycle with the intention to kill. You use a gun with exactly this intention. Of course I know you use it for sports, too. As I do. But, you see, I do not have or _need_ a gun at home for this. Let alone carrying one.
Yes, there have been accidental shooting deaths in Germany. The guns used in my club stay in the club, even if I own it, I am not allowed to carry it home. I am not allowed to own ammonition for it.

People are killed by cars, too, and we do not ban cars. But the main reason that cars exist is to transport a person from one place to another. The main reason guns exist is to kill.

I love guns. I love shooting. And I love the restricting laws here in Germany. You can be arrested to carry a loaded gun here. And this makes high sense to me. For the only ones who _need_ loaded guns are policemen. Any civil persons do not need a loaded gun carried with them.

I understand the need in America to own a gun in order to protect yourself from all the weirdos who own guns, of course. Just, without these laws, you'd perhaps not be in such a need, did you think of that?
Ser Gary
User ID: 1523284 		Feb 29th 12:36 PM
Jeff, I was the one who uttered that statement and didn't for a minute feel morally superior. What I did feel was the need to express my outrage at a situation that has spiralled totally out of control. There are far too many guns in the civilian population right now. People send their kids to school nowadays and have to concern themselves with the real possibility that they may be shot dead by a classmate. That's scary to me.
Next 20 Messages Newest Messages