|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 21 2012 23:36 Ezod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:30 Rassy wrote:
So what are the reasons to keep the guns?
Self-defence, culture/tradition, and the fact that bearing arms is a "god given right" in the constitution. + Show Spoiler +"The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people. A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier. The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people. The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it. So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government. The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States. When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous. Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons) Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_founding_fathers_include_the_Second_Amendment#ixzz21HOtuNoP"
With the strength of modern military, would a milita even be viable as military technology increases? Also if the militia is "obselete" via modern day advantages. Would that make that law antiquated and obselete?
|
On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read.
I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc.
The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain.
|
On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain.
I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader).
|
On July 21 2012 23:41 Archybaldie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:36 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:30 Rassy wrote:
So what are the reasons to keep the guns?
Self-defence, culture/tradition, and the fact that bearing arms is a "god given right" in the constitution. + Show Spoiler +"The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people. A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier. The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people. The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it. So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government. The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States. When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous. Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons) Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_founding_fathers_include_the_Second_Amendment#ixzz21HOtuNoP" With the strength of modern military, would a milita even be viable as military technology increases? Also if the militia is "obselete" via modern day advantages. Would that make that law antiquated and obselete?
Second these queries I would like to hear the answer. Honestly I don't think in the event of an oppressive government in the US, the citizenry could muster up and organize enough force to fight the military. Maybe in a few areas they could gain control. For a bit.
|
On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader).
Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing.
|
On July 21 2012 23:34 EngrishTeacher wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:24 Arnstein wrote:
I don't understand why this movie theatre shooting triggered this discussion again. This guy was clearly prepared, and was a psycho. (it seems)
He would get these weapons no matter how illegal weapons in the US have been. Just look at the terrorist in Norway last year. Norway is a country where guns are strictly regulated, but he still managed to get them.
That being said, I do not think that America has the proper laws of guns, and by making stricter rules you will get a lot less killings. But this guy would still get his weapons and shoot the people he did. Your logic doesn't really quite add up good sir. I would agree with the latter of your contradicting points; more strict gun control laws lowers instances of shootings. Why would you be 100% sure that James would get the weapons he needed if gun control laws in the U.S. are like the ones in China? He could, but it's not a sure thing by a LONG shot.
Why is that contradicting? You would get less killings(like children accidentally killing their friends, which have happened, and people killing out of self-defense for no good reasons etc.), but the people that really really wants to kill someone, would still be able to get weapons. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
|
On July 21 2012 23:47 Ezod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader). Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing.
What are you talking about -.- "substance" ? I don't need a block of text that is trying to sensationalize everything to point out that you write like a 5th grader. I agreed with your main point (however hard it was to find) where it is used to defend a nation against oppressive governments, what other substance do you want? -.-
|
On July 21 2012 23:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:36 Rassy wrote:
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:30. Posts 1134
Thats just nonsense.
The demand wont increase because you make the suply illegal?
The amount of people who stop with the activity because it is illegal is way bigger then the amount that starts with it because it now is illegal
Making something illegal will decrease that activity,by making it more difficult.
Thats the whole point of law enforcement.
If this was not the case then we should just stop funding the police.
Off course people will always find what the look for, the point is to make them look harder.
Make them look so hard that manny of them will give up looking. You obviously have no idea how the last 50-60 years has went. Every attempt at prohibiting something has increased it's demand. You can't bring a single example that say's that's not the case. Hell even the war on terror which is comparable has seen a massive increase since it's inception. War on drugs? same thing, alcohol prohibition? same thing... You are now saying prohibit weapons, the only people being hurt are the people who want to legally obtain something to defend themselves, how ignorant can you be to think "bad guys won't get it" -.- "make them look so hard that many of them will give up looking" <---- Not a single example in history has ever proven this true. There is a reason I can walk downtown where I live and find cocaine/crack/bath salts.
With this logic you are oversimplifying matters. Alcolhol prohibition led to how it was, because people were corrupt as hell. Alcohol itself is a consumption good, easily produced by amateurs and citizens. Good luck building your own automatic rifles in your basement.
Also, claiming that every form of prohibition increases demand is silly. If that is true, then the demand of every European country with prohibited gun possesion would have insanely high demand right? Newsflash, it is not.
|
One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
USA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population
UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population
btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive.
In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun.
We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot.
edit.... for comparison......
EU countries that allow guns such as finland (6.8 per 100,000) and Switzerland (6.4 per 100,00).
Well, all I know is that I am happy living somewhere that owning a gun is very rare and seeing one is even less rare. I defo know I won't be getting shot up at a Batman viewing and I thank my government for that.
|
On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive.
well it may sound harsh but i think in chile its a big part guns are to expensive ?
jaeh amok without guns normaly 1-2 deaths and not 10+ so ... i see no reason for guns overall
:also to the post who say good people need guns to stop etc etc ... no because militia only ends in killing own people ...
|
On July 21 2012 23:49 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:47 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader). Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing. What are you talking about -.- "substance" ? I don't need a block of text that is trying to sensationalize everything to point out that you write like a 5th grader. I agreed with your main point (however hard it was to find) where it is used to defend a nation against oppressive governments, what other substance do you want? -.-
opps forgot to define substance for the simpletons. it's when even if you want to resort to attacking the way I presented my argument, you should also include "substance" which is information and discussion associated with the purpose of the argument and topic of the thread. i.e yes you sound cool by bashing the way I chose to present my argument, but you would be even cooler if you added something more than a 5th grader's response i.e. "YOU WRITE BADS AND IS 5TH GRADES" HAHAHA substance is when there is "value" to your post beyond a 5th grader's tactics of name calling.
|
On July 21 2012 23:53 CoR wrote:well it may sound harsh but i think in chile its a big part guns are to expensive ? jaeh amok without guns normaly 1-2 deaths and not 10+ so ... i see no reason for guns overall
Don't know why its so low in Chile, but I was still impressed. South Korea is pretty impressive too at 0.13 per 100,000 population.
|
On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Shows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference.
|
I don't even see how there is much debate on this issue. It seems pretty obvious that american gun control has failed tremendously when even mexican cartels come gun shopping in the US because of how easy it is to obtain them in the US rather than mexico.
Even if you favor gun ownership, you should be favoring responsible gun ownership. Not this abject mess where you can pretty much order an assault rifle the same way you order a bigmac. Fact is that the gun control lobby in the US has deregulated gun sales to a point where there is no control left, and anyone wanting to reestablish even the most basic control (like a decent background check and waiting period) get blasted for 'taking away people's rights'.
I'd personally consider the right to walk around safely more important than the right to own a gun, but adherence to an arcane document seems to make legitimate discussion in the US impossible.
On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference.
Way to misrepresent data. 4.8 for the US, 1.23 for the UK = nearly a 400% increase, which is a much more relevant measure than 'just 3 more'. Also, you might want to work on your comprehension of how population density works, because its 3 times higher for the UK than it is for the US. Following your own logic, the UK should thus have a higher homicide rate because its more crowded.
(By the way, the usual logic that population centres have a higher risk of gunshot homicides doesn't hold true in the US. Rural and urban areas score about the same. It does hold true for Europe however, where most gunshot homicides are related to hardcore criminals mainly found in city centers.)
|
I think the weapon's lobby is too strong in the US for anything to ever change. One would have thought that after several such shootings stricter laws would be passed, but lobbyists always managed to water them down, or had them revoked later.
Why normal citizens should carry weapons is beyond me, they're a tool to kill. It's no surprise that exactly that happens, if you sell guns like candy.
|
On July 21 2012 23:54 Ezod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:49 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:47 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader). Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing. What are you talking about -.- "substance" ? I don't need a block of text that is trying to sensationalize everything to point out that you write like a 5th grader. I agreed with your main point (however hard it was to find) where it is used to defend a nation against oppressive governments, what other substance do you want? -.- opps forgot to define substance for the simpletons. it's when even if you want to resort to attacking the way I presented my argument, you should also include "substance" which is information and discussion associated with the purpose of the argument and topic of the thread. i.e yes you sound cool by bashing the way I chose to present my argument, but you would be even cooler if you added something more than a 5th grader's response i.e. "YOU WRITE BADS AND IS 5TH GRADES" HAHAHA substance is when there is "value" to your post beyond a 5th grader's tactics of name calling.
You keep blocking your texts and over exaggerating your statements. I understand what substance refers to, but as far as what I said, I needed to add nothing else. I agreed that countries require some defense against oppressive governments and said the reason he thinks you're an idiot (note "stupidest thing I've ever read") is because you presented your point, again since I have to repeat myself so much, like a 5th grader. Subjectivity without objectivity. You can keep insulting me, but my first three posts were about the same as this one, so nothing more to add for "substance".
Unless of course you want me to go HAHAHAHA and USE CAPITALS while in a discussion. Your ability to comprehend statements is saddening.
On July 21 2012 23:55 Derez wrote:
I don't even see how there is much debate on this issue. It seems pretty obvious that american gun control has failed tremendously when even mexican cartels come gun shopping in the US because of how easy it is to obtain them in the US rather than mexico.
Even if you favor gun ownership, you should be favoring responsible gun ownership. Not this abject mess where you can pretty much order an assault rifle the same way you order a bigmac. Fact is that the gun control lobby in the US has deregulated gun sales to a point where there is no control left, and anyone wanting to reestablish even the most basic control (like a decent background check and waiting period) get blasted for 'taking away people's rights'.
I'd personally consider the right to walk around safely more important than the right to own a gun, but adherence to an arcane document seems to make legitimate discussion in the US impossible.
Please refer us to a reference where ordering an assault rifle is similar to a bigmac... Obviously you were exaggerating to give your point standing, but over exaggerating to be a sensationalist on the issue is a bit over the top. You can say it's easier, but you do have to go through courses to obtain these weapons, you can't just walk into Mcdicks and order a bigmac some fries and an AR-15.
|
On July 21 2012 23:50 Uhnno wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Rassy wrote:
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:30. Posts 1134
Thats just nonsense.
The demand wont increase because you make the suply illegal?
The amount of people who stop with the activity because it is illegal is way bigger then the amount that starts with it because it now is illegal
Making something illegal will decrease that activity,by making it more difficult.
Thats the whole point of law enforcement.
If this was not the case then we should just stop funding the police.
Off course people will always find what the look for, the point is to make them look harder.
Make them look so hard that manny of them will give up looking. You obviously have no idea how the last 50-60 years has went. Every attempt at prohibiting something has increased it's demand. You can't bring a single example that say's that's not the case. Hell even the war on terror which is comparable has seen a massive increase since it's inception. War on drugs? same thing, alcohol prohibition? same thing... You are now saying prohibit weapons, the only people being hurt are the people who want to legally obtain something to defend themselves, how ignorant can you be to think "bad guys won't get it" -.- "make them look so hard that many of them will give up looking" <---- Not a single example in history has ever proven this true. There is a reason I can walk downtown where I live and find cocaine/crack/bath salts. With this logic you are oversimplifying matters. Alcolhol prohibition led to how it was, because people were corrupt as hell. Alcohol itself is a consumption good, easily produced by amateurs and citizens. Good luck building your own automatic rifles in your basement. Also, claiming that every form of prohibition increases demand is silly. If that is true, then the demand of every European country with prohibited gun possesion would have insanely high demand right? Newsflash, it is not.
You should know "Gun Production" started in the United States at least as an industry. What I'm trying to say is building guns is very easy to do and yes we would start building our own in our houses.
It's pretty much the reason we don't ban anything, somehow we end up building a black market for it until it becomes legal again.
|
On July 21 2012 23:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:36 Rassy wrote:
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:30. Posts 1134
Thats just nonsense.
The demand wont increase because you make the suply illegal?
The amount of people who stop with the activity because it is illegal is way bigger then the amount that starts with it because it now is illegal
Making something illegal will decrease that activity,by making it more difficult.
Thats the whole point of law enforcement.
If this was not the case then we should just stop funding the police.
Off course people will always find what the look for, the point is to make them look harder.
Make them look so hard that manny of them will give up looking. You obviously have no idea how the last 50-60 years has went. Every attempt at prohibiting something has increased it's demand. You can't bring a single example that say's that's not the case. Hell even the war on terror which is comparable has seen a massive increase since it's inception. War on drugs? same thing, alcohol prohibition? same thing... You are now saying prohibit weapons, the only people being hurt are the people who want to legally obtain something to defend themselves, how ignorant can you be to think "bad guys won't get it" -.- "make them look so hard that many of them will give up looking" <---- Not a single example in history has ever proven this true. There is a reason I can walk downtown where I live and find cocaine/crack/bath salts.
You are confusing illegal with heavily regulated. The us simply is not regulating gun control properly, they are almost letting it run like a business. You can think of it as an iphone product for the crazy.
|
On July 21 2012 23:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:54 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:49 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:47 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader). Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing. What are you talking about -.- "substance" ? I don't need a block of text that is trying to sensationalize everything to point out that you write like a 5th grader. I agreed with your main point (however hard it was to find) where it is used to defend a nation against oppressive governments, what other substance do you want? -.- opps forgot to define substance for the simpletons. it's when even if you want to resort to attacking the way I presented my argument, you should also include "substance" which is information and discussion associated with the purpose of the argument and topic of the thread. i.e yes you sound cool by bashing the way I chose to present my argument, but you would be even cooler if you added something more than a 5th grader's response i.e. "YOU WRITE BADS AND IS 5TH GRADES" HAHAHA substance is when there is "value" to your post beyond a 5th grader's tactics of name calling. You keep blocking your texts and over exaggerating your statements. I understand what substance refers to, but as far as what I said, I needed to add nothing else. I agreed that countries require some defense against oppressive governments and said the reason he thinks you're an idiot (note "stupidest thing I've ever read") is because you presented your point, again since I have to repeat myself so much, like a 5th grader. Subjectivity without objectivity. You can keep insulting me, but my first three posts were about the same as this one, so nothing more to add for "substance". Unless of course you want me to go HAHAHAHA and USE CAPITALS while in a discussion. Your ability to comprehend statements is saddening.
lol this isn't even about you which is the funniest part. you tried to justify the guy who said "This is stupid....." and put NOTHING else in his post. this isn't about you. every single post you made has "substance" so i don't know why you are trying to defend yourself. I'm talking about the guy who DIDN'T put substance into his post and simply resorted to bashing. Disagree with me completely that's great I have respect for everyone's opinions EVEN if you think my post was bad. ALL I was saying is don't just bash.....try to evolve the discussion.
|
On July 21 2012 23:58 Thenerf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:50 Uhnno wrote:On July 21 2012 23:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Rassy wrote:
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:30. Posts 1134
Thats just nonsense.
The demand wont increase because you make the suply illegal?
The amount of people who stop with the activity because it is illegal is way bigger then the amount that starts with it because it now is illegal
Making something illegal will decrease that activity,by making it more difficult.
Thats the whole point of law enforcement.
If this was not the case then we should just stop funding the police.
Off course people will always find what the look for, the point is to make them look harder.
Make them look so hard that manny of them will give up looking. You obviously have no idea how the last 50-60 years has went. Every attempt at prohibiting something has increased it's demand. You can't bring a single example that say's that's not the case. Hell even the war on terror which is comparable has seen a massive increase since it's inception. War on drugs? same thing, alcohol prohibition? same thing... You are now saying prohibit weapons, the only people being hurt are the people who want to legally obtain something to defend themselves, how ignorant can you be to think "bad guys won't get it" -.- "make them look so hard that many of them will give up looking" <---- Not a single example in history has ever proven this true. There is a reason I can walk downtown where I live and find cocaine/crack/bath salts. With this logic you are oversimplifying matters. Alcolhol prohibition led to how it was, because people were corrupt as hell. Alcohol itself is a consumption good, easily produced by amateurs and citizens. Good luck building your own automatic rifles in your basement. Also, claiming that every form of prohibition increases demand is silly. If that is true, then the demand of every European country with prohibited gun possesion would have insanely high demand right? Newsflash, it is not. You should know "Gun Production" started in the United States at least as an industry. What I'm trying to say is building guns is very easy to do and yes we would start building our own in our houses. It's pretty much the reason we don't ban anything, somehow we end up building a black market for it until it becomes legal again.
People just don't understand basic economics it seems... If the demand exists, supply for it will too. The question is would we rather it fund the government and legal organizations or the black market? Because that is the only thing you can really ask yourself, law abiding citizens will be the only ones not owning weapons.
On July 22 2012 00:03 Ezod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:54 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:49 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:47 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:42 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:38 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 21 2012 21:12 Ezod wrote:
This is very simple. Good people don't do mass shootings. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Other countries allow guns other than the USA which proves the gun murders have more to do with culture than the actual use of guns. HERE'S A SIMPLE TRUTH - SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER EVER EVER REMOVE THE GUNS FROM THIS EARTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UNTIL THEY ALL CAN ALL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED BAD PEOPLE WILL HAVE GUNS. AND GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS are THE ONY WAY TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. Please don't try to say that "our goverment is nice and wouldn't hurt us etc. etc." because this is irrelevant. Power and money corrupt - the founding fathers understood this - ARMED CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS. So even if you think ANY goverment in the world shits flowers and cupcakes...give it time....because history has shown again and again that sometimes the good guys gotta stand up to evil to protect human rights and freedom. Magical fairy land: guns do not exist. Reality: good people need the ability to defend themselves until bad people go away. Everytime in history a goverment was tyranical evil communist (millions dead) etc... the VERY FIRST THING THEY DO IS DISARM THE POPULATION. THINK ABOUT IT. and google it. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I take it you don't read very much. Why post if you don't add anything of substance to the conversation. show WHY it is stupid. links article reasearch etc. The stupidest things I have ever read are when people defend their points of view by saying the other side of the argument is "stupid".... I respect people who disagree with me when they use their brain. I think he meant your presentation was that of a 12 year old. It is quite obvious the goal was to arm the population against oppressive governments such that America wouldn't fall to what had happened with Britain. But again, you presented it like a 5th grader (and not from the show are you smarter than a 5th grader). Ya that was the point hence the big friendly block letters and the "this is simple"... it's designed for "12 yr olds/simpletons" who don't educate themselves. Again, bashing my choice of presentation is fine, but throw some actual substance in with your style bashing. What are you talking about -.- "substance" ? I don't need a block of text that is trying to sensationalize everything to point out that you write like a 5th grader. I agreed with your main point (however hard it was to find) where it is used to defend a nation against oppressive governments, what other substance do you want? -.- opps forgot to define substance for the simpletons. it's when even if you want to resort to attacking the way I presented my argument, you should also include "substance" which is information and discussion associated with the purpose of the argument and topic of the thread. i.e yes you sound cool by bashing the way I chose to present my argument, but you would be even cooler if you added something more than a 5th grader's response i.e. "YOU WRITE BADS AND IS 5TH GRADES" HAHAHA substance is when there is "value" to your post beyond a 5th grader's tactics of name calling. You keep blocking your texts and over exaggerating your statements. I understand what substance refers to, but as far as what I said, I needed to add nothing else. I agreed that countries require some defense against oppressive governments and said the reason he thinks you're an idiot (note "stupidest thing I've ever read") is because you presented your point, again since I have to repeat myself so much, like a 5th grader. Subjectivity without objectivity. You can keep insulting me, but my first three posts were about the same as this one, so nothing more to add for "substance". Unless of course you want me to go HAHAHAHA and USE CAPITALS while in a discussion. Your ability to comprehend statements is saddening. lol this isn't even about you which is the funniest part. you tried to justify the guy who said "This is stupid....." and put NOTHING else in his post. this isn't about you. every single post you made has "substance" so i don't know why you are trying to defend yourself. I'm talking about the guy who DIDN'T put substance into his post and simply resorted to bashing. Disagree with me completely that's great I have respect for everyone's opinions EVEN if you think my post was bad. ALL I was saying is don't just bash.....try to evolve the discussion.
The ball keeps rolling -.- ITS HARD to evolve a CONVERSATION when you TYPE LIKE THIS because you are INSECURE IN YOUR arguments POSITION. Calm down please, we don't need children over reacting in here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
