| Blogs > theron[wdt] |
|
theron[wdt]
United States395 Posts
This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets. baby back bullshit.   | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
| ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5069 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote: And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets. No one's treating you like a criminal. Don't you think this is a fair compromise that will have its benefits in prevention that will ultimately save some lives? fwiw i have no real stance on gun control and isn't something I think/talk about often, but from what I've read this seems like a really good compromise. | ||
|
theron[wdt]
United States395 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:09 Nytefish wrote: I didn't think bullets was something you had to do weekly shopping for anyway as a "gun owner". they are if you shoot as much as i do On February 02 2010 23:10 jello_biafra wrote: Is it possible to order online from another state? no because as soon as i put down california on the shipping address, they back off saying they can't ship here On February 02 2010 23:13 PanoRaMa wrote: No one's treating you like a criminal. Don't you think this is a fair compromise that will have its benefits in prevention that will ultimately save some lives? no its not. In my opinion, there will always be a way for the common criminal to get his/her bullets, whether it be straw purchase or theft. There shouldn't be consequences for people who have a clean record for somebody who has a shitty one. | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6172 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
If you're not hunting with the gun, and you actually want it for self-defence, it's even more dangerous. It takes a situation where someone has a gun and they rob you, and turns it into a gunfight where someone gets murdered. Honestly I'd rather get robbed than have to defend myself in court against murder if I even won the gunfight (which is unlikely since the villain has the element of surprise on his side, and if he see's you with a gun he'll just shoot first). But then I live in a safe neighborhood, so it's pretty unlikely anyone is even going to have a gun to rob me with. | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
| ||
|
BanZu
United States3329 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:13 theron[wdt] wrote: they are if you shoot as much as i do no because as soon as i put down california on the shipping address, they back off saying they can't ship here no its not. In my opinion, there will always be a way for the common criminal to get his/her bullets, whether it be straw purchase or theft. There shouldn't be consequences for people who have a clean record for somebody who has a shitty one. That's too bad. | ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5069 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:13 theron[wdt] wrote: no its not. In my opinion, there will always be a way for the common criminal to get his/her bullets, whether it be straw purchase or theft. There shouldn't be consequences for people who have a clean record for somebody who has a shitty one. Fair enough. I am strongly opposed to prohibition of any sort. I don't really keep up with gun control legislation or anything, but if the choices were either to have it stay the same, introduce this, or something more drastic (i.e. banning guns or w/e it may be), I do think this kind of fair for you. If you hunt often, it makes your hobby more expensive I suppose, but somewhere down the line x amount of lives are potentially being saved is what I imagine the argument to be. I've been a professional poker player for some time now and in 2006 there was a law regulating gambling transactions within the US that basically hurt the poker economy by making it harder to deposit/withdraw, some sites pulled out of operation within the US, etc. etc. As a player, it meant that making money was harder and incited the myth that online gambling was illegal and as such I was engaging in illegal/criminal activities by playing poker from home, lol. However life goes on and it makes shit more difficult but at the same time I'm glad that the gov't didn't fuck up completely and outright ban online gambling, such that I'd have no job whatsoever. | ||
|
theron[wdt]
United States395 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:14 Chef wrote: I understand the sentiment about law-abiding citizens being treated like criminals, but really guns are ludicrously dangerous and if you want to play with them you should have to have your identity known and traceable from your bullets. i shoot competitively with my guns so i put a shit ton and a half through them just for practice. they are registered On February 02 2010 23:18 heyoka wrote: If you're shooting that much I'm more surprised you aren't just reloading yourself im too lazy | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote: This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. baby back bullshit. i guess the value of life went up a little today then. glad to hear it. | ||
|
DanceCommander
United States1808 Posts
However, California probably has ridiculous gang/crime problems and this really does seem like a promising method of reducing illegal shit. Think of it this way, you are paying more for your ammo and in return a couple lives might be saved. Its a stretch but one must see the best in a shitt situation. One group ruining it for the rest is usually how things work in this world, it seems. | ||
|
Neivler
Norway911 Posts
 It is a mad world :O + Show Spoiler + And I find it kinda funny I find it kinda sad The dreams in which I'm dying Are the best I've ever had I find it hard to tell you I find it hard to take When people run in circles It's a very, very mad world mad world | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
| ||
|
DanceCommander
United States1808 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:33 ggrrg wrote: That's a first step. But there are a few more to go until the US gets rid of that obsolete relic in their Constitution. just because you guys have viktor krum doesn't mean you can criticize our constitution | ||
|
Rho_
United States971 Posts
im too lazy Less QQ, more pew pew. | ||
|
exeexe
Denmark937 Posts
| ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:13 theron[wdt] wrote: no its not. In my opinion, there will always be a way for the common criminal to get his/her bullets, whether it be straw purchase or theft. There shouldn't be consequences for people who have a clean record for somebody who has a shitty one. This is the common fail/misconception for people who is for weapons. | ||
|
theron[wdt]
United States395 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:38 exeexe wrote: Dont u think when more ppl come to the local ammoshop that the price for ammo at the local shop will drop to the level of online shops because you know the supply/demand model, demand lower price when the demand for ammo increase? not if the people online are from out of state and sell it for cheaper price when purchased in bulk. | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:34 DanceCommander wrote: just because you guys have viktor krum doesn't mean you can criticize our constitution no, actually, anyone can criticize our constitution. that's the point of the constitution. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:41 Zoler wrote: This is the common fail/misconception for people who is for weapons. So true. I recall that situation in Germany when two students decided to do the same that happened at Columbine. Well, the only difference was that wanted to go for a massacre with two crossbows and two soft air pistols... | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:38 exeexe wrote: Dont u think when more ppl come to the local ammoshop that the price for ammo at the local shop will drop to the level of online shops because you know the supply/demand model, demand lower price when the demand for ammo increase? Probably the opposite will happen. The demand is gonna go up because people can't get it online any more, so the price will go. I feel this is a step in the right direction anyway, gun laws in America are ridiculous. They should ban them altogether. The whole 'I need to defend my family' is a bullshit argument as well. Other countries are fine without guns, what makes you so special. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:47 ggrrg wrote: So true. I recall that situation in Germany when two students decided to do the same that happened at Columbine. Well, the only difference was that wanted to go for a massacre with two crossbows and two soft air pistols... Examples like that, yep! There are studies and it's a fact that laws against guns makes the killing rates go down. How can you argue against SCIENCE!? | ||
|
DanceCommander
United States1808 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:44 choboPEon wrote: no, actually, anyone can criticize our constitution. that's the point of the constitution. Krum caught the snitch, but Ireland still won.. Hows that for a mindfuck | ||
|
theron[wdt]
United States395 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:47 deconduo wrote: I feel this is a step in the right direction anyway, gun laws in America are ridiculous. They should ban them altogether. The whole 'I need to defend my family' is a bullshit argument as well. Other countries are fine without guns, what makes you so special. as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:49 Zoler wrote: Examples like that, yep! There are studies and it's a fact that laws against guns makes the killing rates go down. How can you argue against SCIENCE!? conservatives vs science, the way it has always been. | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:49 Zoler wrote: Examples like that, yep! There are studies and it's a fact that laws against guns makes the killing rates go down. How can you argue against SCIENCE!? There's correlation, but no direct causality between the two. Removing weapons reduces killings, but it doesn't stop them. ergo; it's only a contributing factor. It's possible to argue that there are other/better methods than those that conflict with a free market. | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:51 theron[wdt] wrote: as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. So the only reason you don't like it is because you can't order online. I mean, tough luck, it sucks for you but thats the way it should be. I want beer to be free, but its not. Who cares, move on. | ||
|
exeexe
Denmark937 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:47 deconduo wrote: Probably the opposite will happen. The demand is gonna go up because people can't get it online any more, so the price will go. yes you are right, i screwed it up, thx for the correction. I always screw it up when there are 2 options T.T | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:51 theron[wdt] wrote: as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. As it turns out, you picked the hobby that's for killing people. That you're not using it to kill people is a good thing, but it doesn't render government interest somehow unreasonable. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:13 Severedevil wrote: As it turns out, you picked the hobby that's for killing people. That you're not using it to kill people is a good thing, but it doesn't render government interest somehow unreasonable. you know that shooting competitions isnt a hobby that kills people. its fucking ridculous just because california cant get its gangproblem under control that they must punish legitimate gun owners. | ||
|
Rho_
United States971 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:51 theron[wdt] wrote: as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. So reload. This comes down to the fact that you're lazy, not that the law is stupid. You have a low cost alternative, but you're too lazy to do it. You should pay more. | ||
|
2on2
United States142 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:13 Severedevil wrote: As it turns out, you picked the hobby that's for killing people. That you're not using it to kill people is a good thing, but it doesn't render government interest somehow unreasonable. Archery? Fencing? Martial arts? What do you think these were inspired by? I think there should be restrictions on specific types of weapons, likely not what the OP is using for sport, but I do think this law is unfair and will be quite ineffectual. If someone wants to buy bullets without being tracked, they can just have someone else do it for them. If the prices go up, it'll boost the secondary market that already contains less reliable/safe products. | ||
|
Intr3pid
Switzerland336 Posts
| ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:01 Unstable wrote: There's correlation, but no direct causality between the two. Removing weapons reduces killings, but it doesn't stop them. ergo; it's only a contributing factor. It's possible to argue that there are other/better methods than those that conflict with a free market. good post. thats what people should be thinking about. i somehow find myself liking both sides of this. the one says: the value of life can only be as high as the lowest price for 1 bullet. so why are people complaining at all? shouldnt they be celebrating? the other one says: maybe id be a good thing to have guns available for free to anyone, to have more murders and massacres occur until people realize that it is them who are screwed up, not the law. they dont seem to have noticed it yet at all, despite all the things that have happened. "guns dont kill people. people do." actually isnt that far from the truth. the problem for the legislature is to find an affordable (cheap) way to improve the situation, in this case reduce the number of shootings and armed robberies. less people will get hurt less, but the root problem, namely the impulse and willingness to harm or threaten others for your own benefit isnt touched by that at all. but you cant have people monitoring and counseling everyone to get rid of that (for practical reasons. i do think we should have something like that.) On February 03 2010 00:01 Unstable wrote: It's possible to argue that there are other/better methods than those that conflict with a free market. here is your chance. | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
The fact is that most Americans don't own guns, have never fired a gun, and will never be threatened by a gun, but it seems like every European and Canadian on the Internet thinks the US is the wild west with shoot-outs on the streets every day. Obviously there are Americans who dislike guns as well, but they never seem so vehemently against them. | ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
I sure as hell know that if professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons I wouldn't plan on shooting up a school and the school shootings that do and will continue to occur will be a lot less successful. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
| ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:40 statix wrote: Gun laws do nothing but take protection away from those who don't intend to or have the capacity to harm someone. Those who wish to commit crimes and take lives with firearms will always find a means of doing so. I sure as hell know that if professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons I wouldn't plan on shooting up a school and the school shootings that do and will continue to occur will be a lot less successful. On February 02 2010 23:52 nttea wrote: conservatives vs science, the way it has always been. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:40 ShadowDrgn wrote: Honest question: why does everyone from outside the US hate guns so much? Do schools in your country drill into your heads that guns are bad? Do your parents sit you down and scare you straight about guns when you're kids? Do you think that Hollywood movies accurately portray America's gun culture? The fact is that most Americans don't own guns, have never fired a gun, and will never be threatened by a gun, but it seems like every European and Canadian on the Internet thinks the US is the wild west with shoot-outs on the streets every day. Obviously there are Americans who dislike guns as well, but they never seem so vehemently against them. The general conception at least in Sweden is that guns are generally bad. On the other hand this opinion is backed up by lot's of studies done on the matter while no reasonable study has ever came to the conclusion that guns decreases murder rates. Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD. I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
| ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
And it's not just criminals that make gun regulations like this a good idea…do you know how high the cost of accidental shootings (by innocent people) is? You should feel fortunate that the cost (to you) of owning and operating a gun is still as low as it is. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:40 statix wrote: Gun laws do nothing but take protection away from those who don't intend to or have the capacity to harm someone. Those who wish to commit crimes and take lives with firearms will always find a means of doing so. I sure as hell know that if professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons I wouldn't plan on shooting up a school and the school shootings that do and will continue to occur will be a lot less successful. If professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons then that wouldn't stop people shooting up schools, it just means they'd always kill the professors first, no one who shoots up a school intends to walk out of there alive. | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote: AB 962 went effective today, meaning that purchasing ammunition for any firearm in the state of California has been restricted. The purchase must be made face to face with a store owner, shitcanning all internet purchases. In addition, the customer must submit his thumbprint and state ID, which the owner must hold onto for five years. During this time, any state or federal agency has access to that file with no repercussions. This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets. baby back bullshit. I don't understand you you didn't just stock up before the law went into effect. I bought 3 cases of 1000rnd .223mm ammo for my beloved HK-SL8, only cost me around $110 USD Edit: Kind of off topic, but does anyone know where i could get a stock for this baby? I've had it for about 3 years now, and my uncle owns a private shooting range. I only keep it for self defense/range shooting, so i'm looking to get something both to stop my shoulder from being pulverized and to increase my accuracy. Yes i realize this is probably illegal, but honestly i don't care at all. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:45 JWD wrote: And it's not just criminals that make gun regulations like this a good idea…do you know how high the cost of accidental shootings (by innocent people) is? Word. Can't stress this enough! | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6172 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:46 ghermination wrote: I don't understand you you didn't just stock up before the law went into effect. I bought 3 cases of 1000rnd .223mm ammo for my beloved HK-SL8, only cost me around $110 USD WTF you do with a thousand round of ammo O.o | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:43 Zoler wrote: Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD. I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this. What about driving? | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:48 FaCE_1 wrote: WTF you do with a thousand round of ammo O.o An avid range shooter or hunter can probably go through 1,000 rounds in a couple months, however i'm not that frequent of a shooter. I just like to keep myself prepared for the worst. I mean, what's wrong with keeping a bug-out-bag and gun in the house? How can that harm me? On February 03 2010 00:43 Zoler wrote: The general conception at least in Sweden is that guns are generally bad. On the other hand this opinion is backed up by lot's of studies done on the matter while no reasonable study has ever came to the conclusion that guns decreases murder rates. Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD. I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this. While i'm extremely liberal to the point where i would probably be investigated in Mccarthyist America, My only strong conservative belief is that firearms are a very important item that nearly everyone can own. While obviously they are lethal and anybody with criminal intent can kill you with one, that doesn't mean that they don't server a purpose. If they're (sanely) limited and people are (adequately) screened before recieving them, i think they are of great aid both as a means of self defense (Do people in London ask thieves to kindly go away or something?) and also as use in defense of both their rights and their way of life. (For example, if some time in the future the Galactic Robot Party (GRP) finally succeeds in getting a president elected with it's "Kill all Humans" platform, i will be the only one prepared.) | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:26 Jibba wrote: Archery? Fencing? Martial arts? What do you think these were inspired by? Bow and sword violence are very minor. Fist violence is a pretty big deal but the weapon is the martial artist's own body. Guns are bad for that. | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:43 Zoler wrote: Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD. I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this. Your argument is solely based on guns (s) being a cause to people dying (p). -- your argument is s causes p (which you value as BAD). Since we know that there are contexts where guns don't get people killed, we also know that your argument is flawed (there is no direct causality between s and p). There are additional factors that should be taken into account. If you want to stop violence completely, you have to outlaw every factor in the equation and you'd end up with a pretty dull society. What you refer to as logic is really just presumption. | ||
|
nepeta
1872 Posts
| ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
Thats what I thought too | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it. 2. Accidents DO happen. 3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you. Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with. | ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:41 Zoler wrote: So just because some crimes is bound to happen it means you shouldn't try at all? Yes, you should try by making it easier for people to defend themselves. On February 03 2010 00:42 Zoler wrote: conservatives vs science, the way it has always been. What is this science you keep on chiming in about? Provide me with some credible sources instead of just saying BUT SCEINCE SAYS SO in every other post. How does not defending gun laws make me a conservative? That's like me saying if you like frolicking in fields of flowers and hugging trees you're a liberal. On February 03 2010 00:46 jello_biafra wrote: If professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons then that wouldn't stop people shooting up schools, it just means they'd always kill the professors first, no one who shoots up a school intends to walk out of there alive. I don't think there's ever been a school shooting where a kid just jumps up in the middle of class and starts gunning people down. Usually they run around campus shooting everyone who comes across their path. Are you really arguing that allowing professors to be professionally trained in carrying and firing a weapon would not be beneficial in a school shooting scenario? I'd pick a trained adult over an enraged loon any day in a shooting contest. | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:23 statix wrote: Yes, you should try by making it easier for people to defend themselves. What is this science you keep on chiming in about? Provide me with some credible sources instead of just saying BUT SCEINCE SAYS SO in every other post. How does not defending gun laws make me a conservative? That's like me saying if you like frolicking in fields of flowers and hugging trees you're a liberal. I don't think there's ever been a school shooting where a kid just jumps up in the middle of class and starts gunning people down. Usually they run around campus shooting everyone who comes across their path. Are you really arguing that allowing professors to be professionally trained in carrying and firing a weapon would not be beneficial in a school shooting scenario? I'd pick a trained adult over an enraged loon any day in a shooting contest. What if the professor is a trained enraged loon? What if someone steals his weapon? | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
| ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:22 TS-Rupbar wrote: I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one. 1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it. 2. Accidents DO happen. 3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you. Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with. I can see how the idea of owning a gun would seem preposterous to people who lives in areas where crime is low and there's no real threat to your family or property.However, 1. Any competent gun owner places locks on his triggers and places his firearms in safes; children present or not. This also addresses 2. 3.I happen to live in an area where crime is really high. Home invasions and violent assaults are a common occurrence. You're point in this line is just wrong; in my area anyway. People break into houses, kill everyone, rape the women, and steal your tv. That;s just the kind of shit you hear every other day. Poverty and drugs make people do crazy things and we have both. It's not all nice grassy parks and shopping centers everywhere in the United States. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:29 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Hopefully all the criminals dont move to Oregon now. LOL <3 you are teh best. | ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:24 TS-Rupbar wrote: What if the professor is a trained enraged loon? What if someone steals his weapon? Good point but I'm not so sure it's all hat valid. How many professors have ever gone on shooting sprees compared to teenagers? My guess is 0 professors and dozens of students. | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
If you want to defend yourself with guns you should buy those rubber bullets they have on sale now | ||
|
h3r1n6
Iceland2039 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:52 ghermination wrote: While i'm extremely liberal to the point where i would probably be investigated in Mccarthyist America, My only strong conservative belief is that firearms are a very important item that nearly everyone can own. While obviously they are lethal and anybody with criminal intent can kill you with one, that doesn't mean that they don't server a purpose. If they're (sanely) limited and people are (adequately) screened before recieving them, i think they are of great aid both as a means of self defense (Do people in London ask thieves to kindly go away or something?) and also as use in defense of both their rights and their way of life. (For example, if some time in the future the Galactic Robot Party (GRP) finally succeeds in getting a president elected with it's "Kill all Humans" platform, i will be the only one prepared.) Self defense with a semi-automatic rifle? Those are designed to kill other humans, not do defend yourself. A taser would be more fit for the task, or a baseball bat. Raw strength might suffice too. Or is your biggest concern the Galactic Robot Party? In that case, a psychiatrist would be in order. In any way, if that's your point for guns, I'm glad Germany has strict gun laws, because I wouldn't really feel safe with people like you having guns. I might need a gun then. Oh snap. | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
| ||
|
Keniji
Netherlands2569 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:23 statix wrote: Yes, you should try by making it easier for people to defend themselves. What is this science you keep on chiming in about? Provide me with some credible sources instead of just saying BUT SCEINCE SAYS SO in every other post. How does not defending gun laws make me a conservative? That's like me saying if you like frolicking in fields of flowers and hugging trees you're a liberal. I don't think there's ever been a school shooting where a kid just jumps up in the middle of class and starts gunning people down. Usually they run around campus shooting everyone who comes across their path. Are you really arguing that allowing professors to be professionally trained in carrying and firing a weapon would not be beneficial in a school shooting scenario? I'd pick a trained adult over an enraged loon any day in a shooting contest. In the most cases, having a gun to defend yourself causes more trouble than it solves. You know, when you get robbed usually the thief don't want to use his gun. Yea it sucks being robbed, and it's scary, but it's still way better than putting yourself in a gun fight risking your life. Here in Germany we usually have a "household insurance", so it's not even that big of a financial deal. It's just a guess, i don't have data, but I'm pretty sure more house-owners lost their life while trying to protect it than actually saving their life with the gun. That's just for the self-protection part. I'm not even speaking about the other consequences when it's easier to get weapons/bullets for everyone. And about the school thing: Maybe not jumping up in the middle of the class, but there are several situations where the kid went into his class room and shot everyone, so there's basically no different if he goes into the class room (when nobody is expecting it) or jumping up in the class room. Yea, it might have helped when teachers had weapons when an actual rampage happened. But it may also be outweigh by accidents where someone get the weapon from the teacher? Or the teacher doing a rampage? Or the teacher shooting someone else while trying to hit the amok-kid? Usually it's the best idea to try to hide/barricade as long as the police arrives which should be within a few minutes nowadays. The most important part in my opinion is tho that the kids who do a rampage aren't usually those gangsters who have access to weapons from the black market, but stealing it from their parents (or even being able to getting it by oneself legal). Even tho we have pretty strict rules against guns here in Germany and owners even have to make sure the guns are always locked, the last rampage happened was because the father of the kid didn't locked his weapon. (He got convicted for it, too). If the father wouldn't have the weapon in the first place the kid never would have been able to pull it off. That's for the if you want to you always have a way to get it. Gun-crimes are not always committed by gangsters. This meaning it's way easier to have access to weapons on a legal way in america than in mostly all other western countries, and as far as I'm informed rampage happens more often in america, too. Edit: I have to admit I have no idea how it is when you live in a neighborhood where it's daily routine that someone breaks into a house, raping the women, and killing everyone. I guess a weapon would be a good idea in that place. But honestly, that place would be fucked up anyway. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:23 statix wrote: I don't think there's ever been a school shooting where a kid just jumps up in the middle of class and starts gunning people down. Usually they run around campus shooting everyone who comes across their path. Are you really arguing that allowing professors to be professionally trained in carrying and firing a weapon would not be beneficial in a school shooting scenario? I'd pick a trained adult over an enraged loon any day in a shooting contest. No I'm saying that it probably wouldn't help that much, could potentially cause problems and that if your aim is to reduce school shootings then making sure kids don't have access to guns is a far more effective method than arming the teachers | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:41 h3r1n6 wrote: Self defense with a semi-automatic rifle? Those are designed to kill other humans, not do defend yourself. A taser would be more fit for the task, or a baseball bat. Raw strength might suffice too. Or is your biggest concern the Galactic Robot Party? In that case, a psychiatrist would be in order. In any way, if that's your point for guns, I'm glad Germany has strict gun laws, because I wouldn't really feel safe with people like you having guns. I might need a gun then. Oh snap. Semi automatic rifles arent designed just to kill humans, friends of mine have semi automatic rifles which are good for squrriel(sp?) hunting. though they are only .22's but saying thats all they are for is just fucking retarded and ignorant. People who are unsafe with guns kill people, any good respectable gun owner will have a gun safe/and or safetys on guns. most also keep the action open so people arent killed by them. As someone said above, its not all grassy parks and shopping centers here | ||
|
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:51 theron[wdt] wrote: as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. use air guns... | ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:51 theron[wdt] wrote: as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. Fist vs gun usually doesn't end too well for one of those. | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:37 ArvickHero wrote: If this law helps reduce the death and crime rate, I'm all for it. It might only be a factor and reduce it a little, but every bit counts right? Are there really any better alternatives that "don't interfere with the free market"? Whilst your point is valid, it is inconcistent to only make regulations apply to weapons. The question that needs to be asked thowards anyone that uses your arguments ("every bit counts") is; why not alcohol, why not cars, why not ... since all the previous also attribute to unhealth (read: death). One solution that is almost always the most cost efficient (and morally superior) is education. Ensuring that anyone whom wishes to acquire firearms is given proper education, regarding handling, storing and basic maintenance opts for more security. Education together with all purchases having to be made with valid reasons, would effectively reduce gun-related accidents and crime without inflicting with the free market. | ||
|
liosama
Australia843 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + :D | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
Because air guns are the same right? Have you ever even shot a gun or a air soft gun? There is a huge difference. And what he does is for competition, hes not out killing people. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:13 FaCE_1 wrote: I approve this AB 962 law at 100% AB 962 will make it harder for EVERYONE to purchase ammo which in theory will decrease crime rate. I can live with that. Why would you ever need more than a fully loaded magazine at one time anyways? | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
It's your socialist mentality vs the US citizens' split and largely uneducated opinion. Not science vs conservatism. | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On February 03 2010 03:10 Kiarip wrote: I love how all these Europeans are just coming in talking about how guns are so bad. It's your socialist mentality vs the US citizens' split and largely uneducated opinion. Not science vs conservatism. Socialism has nothing to do with gun control. It's more that most of us in Europe were brought up with the idea that guns were bad, while in a lot of America you have relatively easy access to guns. From the little that I've read about it, I'd rather people weren't allowed to own guns in my country even though it restricts people's freedom. To me it is a case of science vs. conservatism as I can't see a clear scientific argument for less gun control. It's just that some people want to own guns for the hell of it, fuck public safety. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote: AB 962 went effective today, meaning that purchasing ammunition for any firearm in the state of California has been restricted. The purchase must be made face to face with a store owner, shitcanning all internet purchases. In addition, the customer must submit his thumbprint and state ID, which the owner must hold onto for five years. During this time, any state or federal agency has access to that file with no repercussions. This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets. baby back bullshit. Gun control arguments are such bullshit, do you think criminals give a crap about laws? Crime rates are actually lower in states/countries that allow citizens to arm themselves. | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
your an idiot and it takes away freedoms from american citizens that should be upheld, and allowing citizens to hold guns doesn't affect public safety in my honest opinion. nor should that question ever arise because we live by our constitution or at least we did. People will kill other people. its the natural order of society. If it's not guns its knifes. if its not knifes its Bats. and so on and so forth. If someone really wants to harm someone else there is nothing that can be done about it. it will happen one way or another. Of course there are special cases where the person "talks" about harming another in which case it can be prevented. but if you have a gripe with people killing other people you really need to wake up and stop pointing ur finger at guns. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:00 StarsPride wrote: allowing citizens to hold guns doesn't affect public safety in my honest opinion. Umm...ever heard of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Geneva County, Washington Sniper, the countless instances of people going postal and the massive number of general gun crimes in the US every year...? | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/#top10block | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
| ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:23 jello_biafra wrote: If you didn't have loads of guns in non law-abiding hands in the first place then there would be no need for this. ...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:27 Undisputed- wrote: ...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone. it would make it easier though.. | ||
|
Not_Computer
Canada2277 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:27 Undisputed- wrote: ...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone. and I also wanted to post that Chris Rock video but someone beat me to it  | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:27 Undisputed- wrote: ...You don't need a gun to rob, rape or kill someone. likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_- Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime. I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns? | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43 Offenders used firearms to commit 7% of violent crime incidents in 2008. | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:32 jello_biafra wrote: I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns? Explosives?! 'Triacetone triperoxide' is far worse than your conventional semi-automatic. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On February 03 2010 03:58 Undisputed- wrote: watCrime rates are actually lower in states/countries that allow citizens to arm themselves. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:42 Undisputed- wrote: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43 Offenders used firearms to commit 7% of violent crime incidents in 2008. Nonfatal crimes. Don't skip information as important as that. It is not unlikely that crimes involving firearms often lead to casualties. Especially if both the criminal and the victim have a weapon. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:46 Unstable wrote: Explosives?! 'Triacetone triperoxide' is far worse than your conventional semi-automatic. Thankfully the vast majority of the degenerates who do these types of things are incapable of either making or acquiring such things, they certainly know where to get and how to use a gun though. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:51 spinesheath wrote: Nonfatal crimes. Don't skip information as important as that. It is not unlikely that crimes involving firearms often lead to casualties. Especially if both the criminal and the victim have a weapon. True | ||
|
icclown
Denmark270 Posts
*sigh* | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:59 dope-hat wrote: I WANT MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR MACHINEGUNS AND HAND GRENADES!!! JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE USE IT FOR CRIMINEL PURPOSES IT DOESNT NEED TO AFFECT ME WHO ONLY WANTS TO HAVE THEM BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT AND I LIKE GRENADES AND GUNS!! *sigh* I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:32 jello_biafra wrote: likewise you dont NEED a gun to stop someone from robbing, raping or killing you unless they have a gun -_- Also if they didn't have guns it would stop the mass killings and drastically decrease the frequency of most crime. I mean how are people gonna rob banks, carjack people, go on insane rampages, easily kidnap people, create ridiculous standoff situations with police or generally easily commit many crimes in a short space of time without guns? Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. | ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:02 TS-Rupbar wrote: I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded. nothing beats shooting a squirrel off a tree with a .50 cal. bastards think they can just come on to my trees and eat nuts, dropping crumbs everywhere, pfffft as if. that you never know when someone is gonna break into my house. i will surely scare him away with my gun, and it sure as hell won't escalate the situation, cuz they'll be dead damn immigrants. and people who try to take away my constitutional right is a commie. its in the constitution, like the founding fathers gave this right to use, because god told them to, and without it we wouldn't be the freest greatest nation on earth. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:07 Undisputed- wrote: Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. No what I'm saying is that there are far too many guns in America and that it's a result of the retarded gun policy over the last however many decades and that having to arm 50% of the population may be a necessary step but that it's a drastic and last ditch attempt at solving a problem that should never have existed in the first place. | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:07 Undisputed- wrote: Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone. Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41 Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts. | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:07 Undisputed- wrote: Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. Arguably, every criminal-to-be that is in a desperate situation would still perform the act. It is also possible to say that whilst the cheer amount of gun-related crime could diminish by having 50% carry concealed weponry, the violence could just as well remain the same (less crimes, but the acts become more often violent). Once someone passes the ponr, being aware that it's a coinflip whether or the victim will be armed, I imagine that a good deal would simply take no risk and shoot preemptively. Furthermore; your right to bear arms, shouldn't be turned into 'the necessity to bear arms'. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
Would you really want to live in a world where you have to always be ready to shoot down any suspicious person? That's not a very nice world to live in. Unless you live in an area where crime rate is really high and murderers are rarely caught, crimials won't shoot you unless you threaten them with your own weapon. The police uses much more resources to hunt down murderers than simple robbers. A criminal who kills people is more likely to get caught and the punishment will be much harsher. Maybe the chance that you are robbed is higher if less people have a gun, but I'd be willing to accept that if the chance that I am killed is lower - even if only by a fraction of a percent. If you can't expect much from your local police department then that's a different thing, of course. | ||
|
thopol
Japan4560 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:15 deconduo wrote: The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone. Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41 Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts. Word up. Also, this ludicrous 'mercan notion that everyone deserves their piece is justified by an interpretation of the second amendment that has no consideration of its initial intention. America is plagued by constitution-thumpers who don't realize that it is an archaic document that is in no way sacred or eternally applicable. | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
Not a chocking story, stuff like this happens, but since that day I do my best to get my odds up should I ever get jumped by three guys. I can't blame people for reasoning in a similar fashion. Please pass laws that makes me more safe and maybe I will leave my stuff at home or even throw it away when I notice the difference but until then I'll keep arming myself. | ||
|
stenole
Norway868 Posts
| ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:15 deconduo wrote: The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone. Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41 Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts. The UK has higher violent crime rates then the US or any other European country. | ||
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:15 deconduo wrote: The number of crimes you deter is minuscule compared to the number of deaths caused by the easy availability of guns to pretty much anyone. Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41 Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts. Actually it is, because those figures are absolutely meaningless. You've given zero context. It's like having a bo3 of JD vs IdrA on every single map ever made and concluding every map favors Zerg. | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 06:23 Jibba wrote: Actually it is, because those figures are absolutely meaningless. You've given zero context. It's like having a bo3 of JD vs IdrA on every single map ever made and concluding every map favors Zerg. Guns are MUCH more deadly than other weapon. If UK has more violent crimes than the US, which someone posted, then there really is NO WAY to argue against that USA's gun control causes more gun-related deaths. Gun-related deaths are an important statistic because guns are much more deadly and even though knives and bats or whatever can kill people too, gun-related crimes probably have a higher fatality than say knife-related crimes. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:09 jello_biafra wrote: Well the problem in america is that all the criminals already have guns due to them being legal the whole time so implementing gun control laws now is kind of screwing over the people who aim to protect themselves with it, if they didn't have this dumb policy of selling guns everywhere in the first place this whole mess wouldn't exist. Umm...ever heard of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Geneva County, Washington Sniper, the countless instances of people going postal and the massive number of general gun crimes in the US every year...? Have you ever heard of a state called Arizona where nearly everyone is allowed to carry guns, and there have been multiple instances of people going to shoot others, or cops, and other civilians have intervened and shot the aggressor? Because I grew up in Phoenix, and this wasn't an uncommon thing. You all need to realize that there are responsible people out there being hurt by this law, responsible, law abiding citizens. If you can't admit that, you need help. --- I'm also not going to argue this any further, crazy leftists say BAN ALL GUNS, crazy rights say NO GUN LAWS. There can be a middle ya know, and this law isn't it. | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
id rather be shot once then be stabbed 5+ times | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:15 deconduo wrote: Number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population: US:14.5 UK:0.41 Thats 35 times more. Kinda hard to argue with the facts. gun-related deaths also include suicides, which make up for aproximately half of that number. If you also add in the number of guns per capita, you'll see that some countries which also have a increased amount of firearms per capita, don't have a high amount of gun-related deaths. switzerland, ~46 firearms / 100 citizens u.s., ~90 firearms / 100 citizens switzerland, 0.58 homicides / 100,000 citizens u.s., 3.72 homicides / 100,000 citizens They're correlated numbers, not causal. If they were, US wouldn't have an approximately six times higher rate of homicides. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 03 2010 06:38 StarsPride wrote: You should look at the knife Related deaths in the UK and compare it to u.s sir id rather be shot once then be stabbed 5+ times (Nothing to do with gunlaws) I was talking to a SEAL officer the other day, he told me about his first kill in Iraq. He went up behind an insurgent, slit his throat (he didn't die, still screaming), then to kill him asap without alerting guards, they had to make him bleed out. So his friend held the guys mouth so he couldn't scream, and they stabbed him in the genitals repeatedly. Yeah, I'd rather be shot too. | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
On February 03 2010 06:36 PanN wrote: Have you ever heard of a state called Arizona where nearly everyone is allowed to carry guns, and there have been multiple instances of people going to shoot others, or cops, and other civilians have intervened and shot the aggressor? Because I grew up in Phoenix, and this wasn't an uncommon thing. You all need to realize that there are responsible people out there being hurt by this law, responsible, law abiding citizens. If you can't admit that, you need help. --- I'm also not going to argue this any further, crazy leftists say BAN ALL GUNS, crazy rights say NO GUN LAWS. There can be a middle ya know, and this law isn't it. /agree on this and if people had guns at columbine. not as many people would have died. and also Hello Kids cant get guns.People get them through illegal means. it would have happened in the first place even if guns were fully banned in the state To clarify "Designated teachers should have guns" | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:07 Undisputed- wrote: Also a lot of those killings occur due to a lack of people carrying guns. Like at Fort Hood no guns were allowed on base allowing the shooter to be unopposed. You are suggesting that we some how magically take away guns from all criminals which is an impossibility. We can deter a significant portion of crimes though by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. How many criminals would be willing to rob someone if they knew say 50% of people had a concealed weapon. you think so? really? | ||
|
Denotate
Canada294 Posts
On February 03 2010 06:29 TS-Rupbar wrote: Guns are MUCH more deadly than other weapon. If UK has more violent crimes than the US, which someone posted, then there really is NO WAY to argue against that USA's gun control causes more gun-related deaths. Gun-related deaths are an important statistic because guns are much more deadly and even though knives and bats or whatever can kill people too, gun-related crimes probably have a higher fatality than say knife-related crimes. Also, it is a weak justification at best to say that a country shouldn't make an effort towards gun control simply because another country's effort to do so has failed to keep violence down. It's an overly simplistic view, which fails to take into account many important factors which all contribute to a society's level of violence. Even if enacting gun control laws only resulted in a marginal reduction in violent crime, that would still be enough of a margin to fight for, since a slim margin in the US still means thousands of lives spared. Laws such as this won't cure the social ills behind violent acts, but they will make them difficult to perpetrate, and even more difficult to do so without leaving a trace. | ||
|
icclown
Denmark270 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:02 TS-Rupbar wrote: I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded. You hunt squirrels? ^^ manly | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
On February 03 2010 06:40 Unstable wrote: gun-related deaths also include suicides, which make up for aproximately half of that number. If you also add in the number of guns per capita, you'll see that some countries which also have a increased amount of firearms per capita, don't have a high amount of gun-related deaths. switzerland, ~46 firearms / 100 citizens u.s., ~90 firearms / 100 citizens switzerland, 0.58 homicides / 100,000 citizens u.s., 3.72 homicides / 100,000 citizens They're correlated numbers, not causal. If they were, US wouldn't have an approximately six times higher rate of homicides. One problem.The fact is, switzerland has the highest gun related death rate in europe. Its just that america is so far ahead of the western world, exluding countries like south africa, that any numbers put next to it look small in comparison. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 05:02 TS-Rupbar wrote: I can't hunt squirrels without semi automatic weapons. Everyone who thinks they're unimportant are retarded. is this suposed to offend me or what. especially the part where my poor typing skills didnt allow me to say that anyone who thinks semi automatic rifles are just for killing people are ignorant. otherwise cool story bro | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
People in the US like to talk about the price of freedom, (which they use to justify the war in Iraq and other things that literally have nothing to do with our freedom) , and the costs associated with gun ownership are that price. Maybe everybody having guns is a bad thing. Maybe its unsafe. But I would much rather live in a country where the government stays out of the business of individuals, a government that trusts mature adults to make decisions that they will live with, rather than a nanny state that tries to restrict every little thing that could ever be harmful. Even in the most gunslinging part of this country, you are much more likely to die in a traffic fatality. Yet nobody suggests banning cars. While this may be a controversial opinion, I believe that freedom is more valuable than some lives. | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 06:59 arb wrote: is this suposed to offend me or what. especially the part where my poor typing skills didnt allow me to say that anyone who thinks semi automatic rifles are just for killing people are ignorant. otherwise cool story bro I believe that justifying semi automatic weapons for the cause of hunting squirrels is retarded. What other uses do they have? The loss/gain ratio of legalizing semi automatic weapons is so high it's ridiculous. | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:07 GeneralStan wrote: While there are certainly downfalls that come from having widespread ownership of guns, it is these downfalls that are the price of freedom. People in the US like to talk about the price of freedom, (which they use to justify the war in Iraq and other things that literally have nothing to do with our freedom) , and the costs associated with gun ownership are that price. Maybe everybody having guns is a bad thing. Maybe its unsafe. But I would much rather live in a country where the government stays out of the business of individuals, a government that trusts mature adults to make decisions that they will live with, rather than a nanny state that tries to restrict every little thing that could ever be harmful. Even in the most gunslinging part of this country, you are much more likely to die in a traffic fatality. Yet nobody suggests banning cars. While this may be a controversial opinion, I believe that freedom is more valuable than some lives. Seriously... You're more likely to die in a traffic fatality because there are many more cars, maybe? Also, cars actually have a purpose other than killing people. They are useful. EDIT: Guns are more likely to kill people than cars are. I have never ever in my whole life met anyone that would like to own a gun for self-defence in Sweden. Why? There are (almost) no guns and the average criminal has no means of getting their hands on a gun. Why? Guns are illegal. Banning weapons has nothing to do with freedom. I cannot understand that argument, as that would mean you would rather live in an anarchy. The thing with the US' gun control is also that not only mature adults have access to guns. That mature adults cannot have guns is an incredibly low price to pay for idiots not owning guns. To people saying that lots of gun-related deaths are suicide, I really believe that guns "promote" suicide in the sense that it often is a spur of the moment thing. It is so much easier to kill yourself with a gun than by any other means. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:18 TS-Rupbar wrote: Seriously... You're more likely to die in a traffic fatality because there are many more cars, maybe? Also, cars actually have a purpose other than killing people. They are useful. I have never ever in my whole life met anyone that would like to own a gun for self-defence in Sweden. Why? There are (almost) no guns and the average criminal has no means of getting their hands on a gun. Why? Guns are illegal. Banning weapons has nothing to do with freedom. I cannot understand that argument, as that would mean you would rather live in an anarchy. The thing with the US' gun control is also that not only mature adults have access to guns. That mature adults cannot have guns is an incredibly low price to pay for idiots not owning guns. To people saying that lots of gun-related deaths are suicide, I really believe that guns "promote" suicide in the sense that it often is a spur of the moment thing. It is so much easier to kill yourself with a gun than by any other means. You're really reaching here. Clearly we can all see there's some cost/benefit to giving up freedom for safety. There's no need to take it to this extreme. People choose to be on both sides of the fence. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:11 TS-Rupbar wrote: I believe that justifying semi automatic weapons for the cause of hunting squirrels is retarded. What other uses do they have? The loss/gain ratio of legalizing semi automatic weapons is so high it's ridiculous. here atleast they are legal however since the 22 uses a pistol round most people wont bother with them since a handgun will fire the same calibre bullet semi automatic aswell, but is easier to hide. see my point here? | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:21 arb wrote: here atleast they are legal however since the 22 uses a pistol round most people wont bother with them since a handgun will fire the same calibre bullet semi automatic aswell, but is easier to hide. see my point here? No, I don't. You say that they are not needed because most people won't bother with them since another, less harmful gun to people, is better? Are you arguing that it's better (still obviously not good, as you're supporting guns) to ban the small, easily concealed, gun instead of the one that is more useful for hunting? | ||
|
Unstable
Sweden64 Posts
More people are injured in traffic-related accidents than people whom are injured in gun-related ones. Guns are not illegal in Sweden, though a person must have the proper permits to own them. Sweden is one of the countries in Europe which has the highest amounts of firearms per capita. Having government control what a persona can, or cannot own is an infringement on personal freedom. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:40 ShadowDrgn wrote: Honest question: why does everyone from outside the US hate guns so much? Do schools in your country drill into your heads that guns are bad? Do your parents sit you down and scare you straight about guns when you're kids? Do you think that Hollywood movies accurately portray America's gun culture? The fact is that most Americans don't own guns, have never fired a gun, and will never be threatened by a gun, but it seems like every European and Canadian on the Internet thinks the US is the wild west with shoot-outs on the streets every day. Obviously there are Americans who dislike guns as well, but they never seem so vehemently against them. I don't really remember much gun talk at all, I just don't think we have them in our culture (unless you live on the country-side or like hunting). I guess most of the media coverage you get is when something bad (i.e columbine) happens which gives you a skewed perspective. For whatever it's worth, I used to be vehemently opposed to the American view on firearms but I've sort of done a 180 in recent years. In an *ideal* world, I think nobody would own guns for obvious reasons, but I can see plenty of places in the world where I'd like to have a firearm at my disposal. Perhaps not so much where I live (shit, never seen anyone carrying a weapon of any kind - ever) tho  On February 03 2010 01:22 TS-Rupbar wrote: I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one. 1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it. 2. Accidents DO happen. 3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you. Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with. And if the criminal's intent is not to rob you, but rather to kill you, then if you don't have a gun you die for sure. If you do have a gun, he might die, which is a much, much better outcome. | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:20 Chill wrote: You're really reaching here. Clearly we can all see there's some cost/benefit to giving up freedom for safety. There's no need to take it to this extreme. People choose to be on both sides of the fence. What extreme? I'm not trying to be condescending, but I would very much like to hear why my arguments are more extreme than one suggesting that gun control restricts your freedom. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:26 TS-Rupbar wrote: No, I don't. You say that they are not needed because most people won't bother with them since another, less harmful gun to people, is better? Are you arguing that it's better (still obviously not good, as you're supporting guns) to ban the small, easily concealed, gun instead of the one that is more useful for hunting? ok ok no. What im saying is you can get handguns that fire the same calibre bullet. Which are more easily concealed and if you were going for a school shooting/massacre/kill your ex-wife kind of shit the handgun would be much more easily concealed than a rather large rifle. However i do believe that if you are going to ban one or the other the handgun(smaller easily concealed) would be better to ban. As the rifle is used in many small game sports which alot of people in my region take part in. | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
This is so stupid, it is Statistics 101. CORRELATION IS NOT EQUAL TO CAUSALITY. Your argument is illogical. That is like saying well, I know that when there are more mosquitoes, more people go swim in their swimming pools. Therefore, mosquitoes make people swim in swimming pools. Yes there is a correlation because generally mosquitoes come in warmer months during which more people like to go swimming. But the mosquitoes don't CAUSE more people to go swimming. In addition, the study posted in DC that showed that hand guns on people reduced homicides or whatever must be looked at with extreme caution. Just as any study that says the opposite of more guns = more homocides. There are so many external factors that any study must be looked at very carefully. In addition, I found this Youtube video of how at least some people in Switzerland feel about gun control. Personally, I'm not really sure how I feel about it yet. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On February 03 2010 01:34 statix wrote: 3.I happen to live in an area where crime is really high. Home invasions and violent assaults are a common occurrence. You're point in this line is just wrong; in my area anyway. People break into houses, kill everyone, rape the women, and steal your tv. That;s just the kind of shit you hear every other day. WHAT THE FUCK!? | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:29 Unstable wrote: @TS-Rupbar : Get your facts right. More people are injured in traffic-related accidents than people whom are injured in gun-related ones. Guns are not illegal in Sweden, though a person must have the proper permits to own them. Sweden is one of the countries in Europe which has the highest amounts of firearms per capita. Having government control what a persona can, or cannot own is an infringement on personal freedom. Of course they are, but that's because there are far more cars than guns. No guns in Sweden are used for self-defence. They are used for hunting and not designed to hurt humans. A hunting rifle is far less effective at killing people than a handgun. So what? Lots of people use many guns for hunting different kinds of animals. The statistics are skewed. They are obviously skewed that way in America too, but not nearly as heavily. It is, but that the law stops me from raping my grandmother is also an infringement on personal freedom. EDIT: replaced "firearm" with "handgun" | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
its okay. i did a double take as well | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
ya serriously, who would steal someones tv? | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 03 2010 06:40 PanN wrote: (Nothing to do with gunlaws) I was talking to a SEAL officer the other day, he told me about his first kill in Iraq. He went up behind an insurgent, slit his throat (he didn't die, still screaming), then to kill him asap without alerting guards, they had to make him bleed out. So his friend held the guys mouth so he couldn't scream, and they stabbed him in the genitals repeatedly. Yeah, I'd rather be shot too. I'm afraid to ask, but I have to.... Why the genitals? | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:30 FrozenArbiter wrote: I don't really remember much gun talk at all, I just don't think we have them in our culture (unless you live on the country-side or like hunting). I guess the most of the media coverage you get is when something bad (i.e columbine) happens which gives you a skewed perspective. For whatever it's worth, I used to be vehemently opposed to the American view on firearms but I've sort of done a 180 in recent years. In an *ideal* world, I think nobody would own guns for obvious reasons, but I can see plenty of places in the world where I'd like to have a firearm at my disposal. Perhaps not so much where I live (shit, never seen anyone carrying a weapon of any kind - ever) tho And if the criminal's intent is not to rob you, but rather to kill you, then if you don't have a gun you die for sure. If you do have a gun, he might die, which is a much, much better outcome. People don't kill people for no reason. And if they do, it's much easier to do it if guns are legal. If I did something to make someone want to inflict damage onto me, I would much rather that they did it without a gun. EDIT: Maybe I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that stabbing someone repeatedly in the genitals is a bad way to kill someone. If your friend is holding his mouth and you just slit his throat, you should be able to kill him in a better way. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:40 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm afraid to ask, but I have to.... Why the genitals? best way to bring down a man -_______- | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:35 TS-Rupbar wrote: Of course they are, but that's because there are far more cars than guns. No guns in Sweden are used for self-defence. They are used for hunting and not designed to hurt humans. A hunting rifle is far less effective at killing people than a handgun. So what? Lots of people use many guns for hunting different kinds of animals. The statistics are skewed. They are obviously skewed that way in America too, but not nearly as heavily. It is, but that the law stops me from raping my grandmother is also an infringement on personal freedom. EDIT: replaced "firearm" with "handgun" you realise everything you said is pretty much what ive been saying the whole time minus self defense, which some people do use them for here too.. | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
and as for the young turk video. You expect the owners of the store to leave? theres no way the people on the outside are going to beable to get in and if they somehow managed to take a pot shot on 1 of the owners my balls would have dropped a 2nd time. All in all. There are many ways to kill people, If someone wants to kill someone there is no stopping them. even if guns aren't in the picture. And its just as easy to kill someone with a gun, using a knife or any other blunt/pierce object as long as they dont know it's coming. If the government wants to ban guns they should ban anything that can create explosives. Thousands of people can die if the bomb maker sets it up right. and cars kill way more people then guns. People should not be afraid of guns. They should be afraid of the person behind the gun | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:40 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm afraid to ask, but I have to.... Why the genitals? I have no clue, the dude was laughing about the story the entire time. It's my personal belief that anyone that signs up for the U.S. military right now, is just blood thirsty. And trust me, the exact question you asked, has been in my head since then. | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:55 PanN wrote: I have no clue, the dude was laughing about the story the entire time. It's my personal belief that anyone that signs up for the U.S. military right now, is just blood thirsty. And trust me, the exact question you asked, has been in my head since then. you have a very unhealthy view of the people who protect your freedoms. | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:52 arb wrote: you realise everything you said is pretty much what ive been saying the whole time minus self defense, which some people do use them for here too.. To own a gun in Sweden, you need to go to courses. They are also not designed to hurt people. A semi automatic rifle is much more dangerous than a hunting rifle. Because weapons for self defense are designed to hurt people, they are MUCH more suited to be used in malicious deeds than hunting rifles. The car argument is very bad, because cars have a purpose and there is a reason for why no one wants to ban them. I can understand the self defense argument even though I don't agree with it. The car one is just really stupid. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:57 StarsPride wrote: you have a very unhealthy view of the people who protect your freedoms. conservative much? imo if we were all rationalist there would be no need for world armies | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:57 StarsPride wrote: you have a very unhealthy view of the people who protect your freedoms. I'm not going to get into a debate about the war going on right now, I'm just going to say I see, and know enough people that are signing up for the military, just so they can go fight and kill people in Iraq. | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:57 StarsPride wrote: you have a very unhealthy view of the people who protect your freedoms. The war in Iraq isn't really about US' citizens freedom right now. The argument could be made that the US infringe on Iraq's freedom. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:57 TS-Rupbar wrote: To own a gun in Sweden, you need to go to courses. They are also not designed to hurt people. A semi automatic rifle is much more dangerous than a hunting rifle. Because weapons for self defense are designed to hurt people, they are MUCH more suited to be used in malicious deeds than hunting rifles. The car argument is very bad, because cars have a purpose and there is a reason for why no one wants to ban them. I can understand the self defense argument even though I don't agree with it. The car one is just really stupid. i see what you mean. however personally i think that everyone should take a safety course before being allowed to purchase a firearm anyway(me + most ppl i know have) however some hunting rifles are semi automatic so i disagree about them being more dangerous, not all of them are bolt action or muzzle loaders.. all guns can kill people just some(for example) the ak-47 arent designed for anything other than killing, while some guns are designed for things such as hunting and self defense. yeah i dont ge the car argument either.. | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:00 PanN wrote: I'm not going to get into a debate about the war going on right now, I'm just going to say I see, and know enough people that are signing up for the military, just so they can go fight and kill people in Iraq. I also know a lot of people who need the money for college. Believe it or not, some people are also proud of their country and feel they should serve for there country. There are a lot of reasons people join the military, don't make them out to be a bunch of blood lusting ogres. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:04 zerglingsfolife wrote: I also know a lot of people who need the money for college. Believe it or not, some people are also proud of their country and feel they should serve for there country. There are a lot of reasons people join the military, don't make them out to be a bunch of blood lusting ogres. so if im proud of my nation i should take up arms and slay the infidel? | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
A good solution would be to not raise the price of every kind of ammunition. Ammunition only used for sport and hunting activities could have a low price. If you use ammunition for self defense, you wouldn't need many bullets anyway and the cost doesn't matter. I will now stop posting in this thread unless something really interesting comes up. I feel like I have said what I feel is important and that I'm just going to troll people if I keep responding to every single post. Everything I've said so far is what I believe and it was only my intention to be sarcastic in one post (the squirrel one). | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:06 DreaM)XeRO wrote: so if you im proud of my nation i should take up arms and slay the infidel? Yes. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
mhm i love this country | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:31 TS-Rupbar wrote: What extreme? I'm not trying to be condescending, but I would very much like to hear why my arguments are more extreme than one suggesting that gun control restricts your freedom. Banning weapons has nothing to do with freedom. I cannot understand that argument, as that would mean you would rather live in an anarchy. Banning anything, by definition, restricts freedom. Saying you can't understand that argument is extreme. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:04 zerglingsfolife wrote: I also know a lot of people who need the money for college. Believe it or not, some people are also proud of their country and feel they should serve for there country. There are a lot of reasons people join the military, don't make them out to be a bunch of blood lusting ogres. Eh, being proud of the U.S. right now is a bit silly. But parts of the military do help pay for colleges, you're right, I still think signing up for the military while were in the middle of a war is a bit crazy. | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:06 DreaM)XeRO wrote: so if you im proud of my nation i should take up arms and slay the infidel? Don't try to simplify something complicated like that. You can join the army in non combat positions if you don't want to fight. Some people want to pay back the country that they have been raised in with military service. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:57 TS-Rupbar wrote: To own a gun in Sweden, you need to go to courses. They are also not designed to hurt people. A semi automatic rifle is much more dangerous than a hunting rifle. Because weapons for self defense are designed to hurt people, they are MUCH more suited to be used in malicious deeds than hunting rifles. The car argument is very bad, because cars have a purpose and there is a reason for why no one wants to ban them. I can understand the self defense argument even though I don't agree with it. The car one is just really stupid. So your argument is that if something is dangerous, it needs to have a purpose not to be banned? And a hobby isn't enough of a purpose? Edit: Okay great I see you're "not talking anymore" so that's fun. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:11 zerglingsfolife wrote: Don't try to simplify something complicated like that. You can join the army in non combat positions if you don't want to fight. Some people want to pay back the country that they have been raised in with military service. seems like somewhat flawed logic. Im going to repay the country that helped me grow by throwing myself into a battlefield? | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:16 DreaM)XeRO wrote: seems like somewhat flawed logic. Im going to repay the country that helped me grow by throwing myself into a battlefield? I'm not going to be politically correct when dealing with you: Don't be retarded. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:16 DreaM)XeRO wrote: seems like somewhat flawed logic. Im going to repay the country that helped me grow by throwing myself into a battlefield? most people i know all agree that dying for your country to defend the united states from tearany(sp?) and opression is like the greatest honor anyone can acomplish in their lives. however just knowing that you helped th erest of country sleep at night seems like youre pretty much paying the country back imo. | ||
|
TS-Rupbar
Sweden1089 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:12 Chill wrote: So your argument is that if something is dangerous, it needs to have a purpose not to be banned? And a hobby isn't enough of a purpose? Edit: Okay great I see you're "not talking anymore" so that's fun. Yes, that is my argument. If you need guns for a hobby, I think it's a fair compromise to use guns that aren't very good at hurting humans. About the extreme part, I think that some (most) weapons are too dangerous to be allowed. Knives that are only used to hurt people (means they aren't suitable for a good purpose like carpenting or cooking) are also banned in Sweden. Everyone agrees with that decision as well. I can understand that banning for example weed could infringe on someone's freedom. Banning dangerous weapons (guns suitable for harming people) is, imo, not an infringement on freedom. To be fair, you didn't respond until some time after I responded to you. Please don't pull that card. It's 00:16 AM here and I'm going to bed. It's not about running away. EDIT: Misworded some stuff | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:20 Chill wrote: I'm not going to be politically correct when dealing with you: Don't be retarded. What chill means by this is, he just stated there are military positions without being on the battlefield. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:21 arb wrote: most people i know all agree that dying for your country to defend the united states from tearany(sp?) and opression is like the greatest honor anyone can acomplish in their lives. however just knowing that you helped th erest of country sleep at night seems like youre pretty much paying the country back imo. tyranny btw. | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:16 DreaM)XeRO wrote: seems like somewhat flawed logic. Im going to repay the country that helped me grow by throwing myself into a battlefield? Alright. I wanted to say that there are various reasons why people join the military. Another poster thought that they are all blood lusting killers. I'm simply providing other reasons why people would sign up. My Grandpa was in the Korean War. My Dad was in the Vietnam War. Sometimes I feel like I should follow in their footsteps and serve my country. It pisses me off when people talk shit about our armed forces like they aren't people. They are people with different reasons for joining the military. Maybe they want to escape a small town and get out into the world. Maybe they want to go to the army to mature into a better person. It's so elitist to think that you know better than that individual person. I'm getting too emotional about this, I don't want to mess up the topic anymore. PM me if you want to keep discussing. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
patriotism seems like the most retarded reason to join the iraq war. I mean it's like go to war so you can ensure that everyone in your country has a 5% discount of their gas prices,a .0000000001% less chance that your nuked and so that Iraq, a country that isn't america is saved from a dictator. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:21 arb wrote: most people i know all agree that dying for your country to defend the united states from tearany(sp?) and opression is like the greatest honor anyone can acomplish in their lives. it is a great honor, but americans havn't had the chance to do it since 1945. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:24 zerglingsfolife wrote: Alright. I wanted to say that there are various reasons why people join the military. Another poster thought that they are all blood lusting killers. I'm simply providing other reasons why people would sign up. My Grandpa was in the Korean War. My Dad was in the Vietnam War. Sometimes I feel like I should follow in their footsteps and serve my country. It pisses me off when people talk shit about our armed forces like they aren't people. They are people with different reasons for joining the military. Maybe they want to escape a small town and get out into the world. Maybe they want to go to the army to mature into a better person. It's so elitist to think that you know better than that individual person. I'm getting too emotional about this, I don't want to mess up the topic anymore. PM me if you want to keep discussing. Why are you getting emotional? I admitted I was wrong, and chill, and my self, made fun of the only other person opposing you. You're fine brah, heres a drink | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:27 Intr3pid wrote: Amercians and guns, the only but really greatly pathetic thing about your country. Dude... your menz have fully automatic machine guns toting everywhere. On February 03 2010 08:26 stroggos wrote: it is a great honor, but americans havn't had the chance to do it since 1945. And vietnam. | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
Power corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If ANY country, even with the best of intentions, succeeds in fully disarming it's citizens, I'm fairly sure it won't be too long until we see things like the situation in China, where individual rights mean shit and the government has so much power over every single person. | ||
|
d(O.o)a
Canada5066 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote: This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets. That's how life works, the bad guys ruin it for the good guys. You use your gun for competitions but why not try something like archery or darts if you want to try to hit a target. Not to mention production of bullets is much more wasteful (than arrows not necessarily darts) | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:36 ghermination wrote: .... Power corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If ANY country, even with the best of intentions, succeeds in fully disarming it's citizens, I'm fairly sure it won't be too long until we see things like the situation in China, where individual rights mean shit and the government has so much power over every single person. Sweden is far from a perfect country, but uhm, well, this hasn't happened here. Of course, we barely have any military either (but it's ok, Finland will hold things down for us if anything happens ), and I'm not even sure to what extent our regular police carry side-arms.Anyway, unless you want to legalize anti-tank weaponry I don't see what good guns are going to do from the perspective of defending your freedom from an oppressive government. | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:57 FrozenArbiter wrote: Sweden is far from a perfect country, but uhm, well, this hasn't happened here. Of course, we barely have any military either (but it's ok, Finland will hold things down for us if anything happens ), and I'm not even sure to what extent our regular police carry side-arms.Anyway, unless you want to legalize anti-tank weaponry I don't see what good guns are going to do from the perspective of defending your freedom from an oppressive government. There are many ingredients to taking down an oppressive government and one of those are weapons. the fight in it self is much more complicated then shooting the other side. People need to stop saying this when they try to attack the "even if u had guns u couldn't win" argument | ||
|
d(O.o)a
Canada5066 Posts
On February 03 2010 09:06 StarsPride wrote: There are many ingredients to taking down an oppressive government and one of those are weapons. the fight in it self is much more complicated then shooting the other side. People need to stop saying this when they try to attack the "even if u had guns u couldn't win" argument There are ways to win fights without the use of weapons. Had guns never been invented I'm certain you would not be saying that. But fact of the matter is 99% of gun usage is NOT against an oppressive government and the only reason guns are necessary in that struggle is because THEY have guns. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 03 2010 09:06 StarsPride wrote: There are many ingredients to taking down an oppressive government and one of those are weapons. the fight in it self is much more complicated then shooting the other side. People need to stop saying this when they try to attack the "even if u had guns u couldn't win" argument I'm not actually against guns, I just don't think that defending yourself with the guns that are currently legal is something you'd have much hope of doing if the government decided to enslave its people. You are going to need illegal guns, regardless. | ||
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:34 DanceCommander wrote: just because you guys have viktor krum doesn't mean you can criticize our constitution rofl | ||
|
silencefc
United States875 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:55 PanN wrote: I have no clue, the dude was laughing about the story the entire time. It's my personal belief that anyone that signs up for the U.S. military right now, is just blood thirsty. And trust me, the exact question you asked, has been in my head since then. Probably because the penis has a huge amount of blood vessels in it and is much easier to cut than muscle. What makes a penis engorged? Blood. Compare that to deliberately aiming for the major artery in the thigh. Anyways, I believe gun control in California is a good thing. The demographics here justify gun laws because of all of the gang/drug violence. My stepmother's store was robbed recently while she was working and I'm glad that the assailant didn't have a gun. Stabbing is a messy business and I would imagine much harder to mentally prepare for than simply pulling a trigger. | ||
|
Stratos.FEAR
Canada706 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On February 03 2010 06:36 PanN wrote: Have you ever heard of a state called Arizona where nearly everyone is allowed to carry guns, and there have been multiple instances of people going to shoot others, or cops, and other civilians have intervened and shot the aggressor? Because I grew up in Phoenix, and this wasn't an uncommon thing. You all need to realize that there are responsible people out there being hurt by this law, responsible, law abiding citizens. If you can't admit that, you need help. I understand that most people are responsible and that it may be very helpful for these people to have guns to stop criminals, I'm just saying it's a very sad state of affairs when you need to arm the average citizen to the teeth because there are so many gun wielding maniacs out there. On February 03 2010 08:36 ghermination wrote: Power corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If ANY country, even with the best of intentions, succeeds in fully disarming it's citizens, I'm fairly sure it won't be too long until we see things like the situation in China, where individual rights mean shit and the government has so much power over every single person. You honestly believe that? That the only reason the US government doesn't have tanks rolling down your street and troops kicking your doors in is because citizens have guns? GL stopping a highly trained military force complete with tanks, helicopter gunships, fighter bombers, heavy explosives, mortars, rockets, UAVs etc etc. -_- I can kinda understand the restriction of freedoms thing, but there's a reason you can't go out and buy a fully functioning tank or apache gunship, is the government oppressing you by not letting you get these? | ||
|
Intr3pid
Switzerland336 Posts
Dude... your menz have fully automatic machine guns toting everywhere. Well but that's the thing about Switzerland: there are lots guns in our homes, but the majority of the people hates it and the fact that you HAVE TO do this annual shooting is a big pain in the ass for everyone doing military service (which I did). Also, everything is registered and the weapons can be appointed exactly to the owner, so if you start fucking around it would be quite easy to bust your ass. At the moment there is actually a political debate to being able to deposit your gun at a central arsenal which many many people (including me) will make use of. Talking about freedom in this context is plainly stupid, if you are allowed to carry a gun around on you then that's diminishing MY freedom not wanting to walk around with a weapon. It is ok if you want to own a gun and like going to a shooting range, but It should be as hard as possible to get guns and ammo, and yeah the minimum requirement should be to getting all your personal information tied to that gun. P.S. If you guys want to defend yourself, try martial arts ffs. What a cheap argument, if someone comes at you and wants to shoot you you're dead anyway unless you have some magical powers that allow you to see the future. | ||
|
Energies
Australia3225 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:21 arb wrote: most people i know all agree that dying for your country to defend the united states from tearany(sp?) and opression is like the greatest honor anyone can acomplish in their lives. Well, it's pretty hard to accomplish anything else if you're dead. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 03 2010 22:50 Intr3pid wrote: Talking about freedom in this context is plainly stupid, if you are allowed to carry a gun around on you then that's diminishing MY freedom not wanting to walk around with a weapon. It is ok if you want to own a gun and like going to a shooting range, but It should be as hard as possible to get guns and ammo, and yeah the minimum requirement should be to getting all your personal information tied to that gun. P.S. If you guys want to defend yourself, try martial arts ffs. What a cheap argument, if someone comes at you and wants to shoot you you're dead anyway unless you have some magical powers that allow you to see the future. This makes absolutely zero sense. How is someone choosing to carry a gun for self defense forcing you to carry one of your own? Is everyone out to get you? There is no reason to make it difficult for a law abiding citizen to obtain firearms or ammo for recreational or self defense uses. If you want to limit the rights of others then go live somewhere else more oppressive. | ||
|
Intr3pid
Switzerland336 Posts
How is someone choosing to carry a gun for self defense forcing you to carry one of your own? Oh yeah that's brilliant, if you don't have to register the guns and tie it to your personal information then chances are you have to declare it's ACTUALLY JUST for self defense...And btw, don't get me wrong, I am not entirely against guns. Shooting over large distances is actually a very mentally demanding sport, where things like how you breathe and focus your entire body into the shot determines how good you are. I have a lot of respect of that as a sport. Still, guns CAN be very dangerous, my personal belief is that it needs to be handled very responsibly and strictly regulated. Also, illegal ownership of guns should be punished not as a minor crime. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On February 04 2010 00:24 Intr3pid wrote: Oh yeah that's brilliant, if you don't have to register the guns and tie it to your personal information then chances are you have to declare it's ACTUALLY JUST for self defense... In the U.S. - Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1000 and one year's imprisonment. Not sure how it is in other states, but in N.Y. it is really difficult to get a pistol permit. In New York All handguns possessed within New York State (except antiques or replicas of antiques) must be registered, with each handgun's registration indicated on the licensee's pistol license. All handguns, including antiques and replicas, must be registered in order to be legally loaded and fired. Some counties limit who can register a handgun on their license with some allowing cross registration of a handgun from any other licensee to licensed family members only to no handgun can be cross registered. NY law does not address this issue. Sharing use of a handgun not listed on your license is only allowed at a certified range with the licensed handgun owner being present. (See NY PL 265.20 7-a) A pistol license is required to physically examine a handgun for purchase at a gun store or gun show. A separate purchase document is required for each handgun purchase that is obtained by filing an amendment with the local authority. | ||
|
Intr3pid
Switzerland336 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
When arguing freedom vs security, I tend to often side with freedom. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:09 Chill wrote: Banning anything, by definition, restricts freedom. Saying you can't understand that argument is extreme. See?, this is the problem, we have grown so accustomed to this shitty world of us that we have forgotten what freedom truly is; now it has become a mere whim, an eventuality, it has become the opposite of necessity; and is now what always is and always is the same. Freedom is rebellion, it's negation when the load upon us becomes unbearable, a neigh against a burden. It is negation but it is not saying no to one thing for prefering the other in a supermarket, nor is it saying no to necessity. It is not freedom of choice, because that just means conformity towards what already exists. It is freedom of disappointment, the ability to go against the poverty of what is real. It is not being opposed to necessity, it is being opposed against communion because there is no harmony between people and this world. Freedom is opposing to the world and its rules for considering them badly designed, unjust. In Borbolla's words it is not the freedom-of-action, because that merely is a combination of our own strength and the world's ductibility and limited by definition; nor is it that absolute ontological freedom called freedom-of-being; but it is the freedom-of-the-being: rebellious action for not communing with the world's roots. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 02 2010 23:33 ggrrg wrote: That's a first step. But there are a few more to go until the US gets rid of that obsolete relic in their Constitution. Only problem is that there is conflicting data on crime to gun laws in the US. Although there are high injury and death caused by your own gun oddly enough the stats show that crime is lower in stats for the most part where gun laws are most lax. :D food for thought | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
|
|
|
EPT
