|
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 22 2012 05:35 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 05:23 Defacer wrote:On July 22 2012 05:00 SayGen wrote:On July 22 2012 04:53 InoyouS2 wrote:
The people who say things like "The USA is a free country and according to blah blah we should be allowed to own and use firearms" are hard to take seriously...
Why. Let me ask you this. How do you stop oppression witohut guns? Please explain. I would love to hear ur insights. The position of allowing almost anyone to purchase and own a gun in most US states, without a licence, training or form of registry, for the sake of 'freedom' is so extreme it is hard to take seriously. It's like saying anyone should be allowed to purchase and drive cars -- even if they don't have a licence, training or are legally blind -- because "Cars are the backbone of the 20th century's industry and economy!" Yes, I understand the significance of gun ownership in the US and it's history. And yes, privately owned guns will be useful in the event that some oppressive, facist regime rises out of ashes. But right now, the US's lax, nonsensical, inconsistent gun laws not only protect law-abiding gun owners and enthusiasts, they also empower and protects fools, criminals and idiots by allowing them to obtain a gun with relative ease. It's not unreasonable to demand a more balanced conservation about gun control, without someone like yourself defending the most extreme position with the most extreme, hypothetical scenarios. People really need to stop being ignorant and actually learn that it's not so easy to obtain high powered weaponry in the United States. You cannot simply just go around and buy a fully automatic assault rifle just because you have the money. You have to jump through so many loop holes it is hilarious. And two, Canada has even more lax laws than the United States when it comes to gun control and yet Canda has little to no gun related violence. Want to know why? It has nothing to do with guns.
There is no licence, registration or permit required to purchase a semi-automatic AK-17 Assault rifle with a C-clip in Colorado.
In Canada, you require a standard licence and an additional licence for Restricted Firearms to purchase the same gun. This process includes two RCMP safety courses, a licence application, criminal background check and mandatory waiting period of 28 days.
So yeah, who needs to stop being ignorant?
|
Guns are fine. If someone wants a gun bad enough they are going to get one. Controlling them just makes it harder for the rest of the population to get them. There is a city in the US that made a law that every citizen HAD to own a gun. They said the crime was very close to zero.
|
On July 22 2012 06:03 Cuce wrote:
I'm sorry but.. dude you goverment is opressing you already.
ridicilous retirement ages, limited education, limited healt care, constant financial pressure, enforcing strict psuedo-police state laws.
hell someone assasinate most popular president since what lincoln and noone stand up to anything.
you need much more then firearms to stand up to a corropt goverment, primarly civilians trusting each other, not managing to live through mud doctrines.
Although I may not agree with the rest of the post, that sticks out the most.
If a country or society feels the need to possess firearms it is due to insecurity, but the problem is that the more people that are allowed firearms, the more people who will also feel insecure.
Seems more and more like an ingenious business idea.
|
On July 22 2012 06:05 BrenttheGreat wrote:
Guns are fine. If someone wants a gun bad enough they are going to get one. Controlling them just makes it harder for the rest of the population to get them. There is a city in the US that made a law that every citizen HAD to own a gun. They said the crime was very close to zero.
So instead of mandatory health care, they had mandatory killing-capability?
|
On July 22 2012 05:35 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 05:23 Defacer wrote:On July 22 2012 05:00 SayGen wrote:On July 22 2012 04:53 InoyouS2 wrote:
The people who say things like "The USA is a free country and according to blah blah we should be allowed to own and use firearms" are hard to take seriously...
Why. Let me ask you this. How do you stop oppression witohut guns? Please explain. I would love to hear ur insights. The position of allowing almost anyone to purchase and own a gun in most US states, without a licence, training or form of registry, for the sake of 'freedom' is so extreme it is hard to take seriously. It's like saying anyone should be allowed to purchase and drive cars -- even if they don't have a licence, training or are legally blind -- because "Cars are the backbone of the 20th century's industry and economy!" Yes, I understand the significance of gun ownership in the US and it's history. And yes, privately owned guns will be useful in the event that some oppressive, facist regime rises out of ashes. But right now, the US's lax, nonsensical, inconsistent gun laws not only protect law-abiding gun owners and enthusiasts, they also empower and protects fools, criminals and idiots by allowing them to obtain a gun with relative ease. It's not unreasonable to demand a more balanced conservation about gun control, without someone like yourself defending the most extreme position with the most extreme, hypothetical scenarios. And two, Canada has even more lax laws than the United States when it comes to gun control and yet Canda has little to no gun related violence. Want to know why? It has nothing to do with guns.
What makes you think you can post something like this, which is outright wrong, with no references to support your claims?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#cite_note-Sproule.26Kennett-29
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/encyclopedia/CanadianGunControl.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=109420
Please take a brief moment to familiarize yourself with reality. Also, as per your second statement that it has little to do with guns, please explain the following, taken from the document I've linked you:
"The year following the introduction of firearms licensing in Canada (1977), saw a significant decline in murder involving firearms, relative to other mechanisms. From 1977 to 2003 Canada firearm homicide has declined from 1.15 to 0.5 per 100,000"
I realize many of the people posting in this thread think very poorly of common sense, but it does indeed have a great deal to do with the cultural prominence and availability of guns.
|
|
|
On July 22 2012 05:07 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 05:05 Smoot wrote:
A few pages back I read this "Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world?"
My answer is yes.
My proof is Vietnam, Afghanistan/Iraq (Taliban), the Philippans (WWII), Germany's invasion of Russia, the American Revolution... etc etc.
It is called guerrilla warfare. Nice to see someone who knows his history. If only we had more people like you.
Just taking a few random non relevant examples doesn't mean you know your history.
Most of the examples are against a foreign threat, at different times. It's not proof until you find a relevance to your argument.
It is also highly unlikely that the US army would shoot its own citizens. Soldiers are people to, have friends and family and have no interest in shooting them.
If only you would fight as hard for your right for decent healthcare, decent education the US would be in a great shape 
But hey again, this thread might as well get close. The americans are happy about their lax gun control, the rest of the world (approx) is happy with their strict gun control.
Everyone wins, they only difference is that Europe (for instance) has known both, and found strict gun control to be better. It would be interesting to find (going to search) for a survey about gun control in Europe. But I don't know anyone who would want to go back to lax gun control policy, maybe we are brainwashed and we are at the mercy of an oppressive government but I'm happy that way
|
No, people should not be allowed to own or carry guns, because for the most part people are stupid, make mistakes, and are not responsible enough to own guns. People are emotionally unstable, and once angered enough, can and will use guns to settle disputes. Others will go around shooting people for leisure. Gun violence is getting ridiculous, especially recently in Toronto - there's been an uncharacteristically large number of shootings here over the past couple of weeks. Also, look at what happened at the movie-theatre in Colorado the other day.
Michael Moore's documentary, Bowling for Columbine, does a great job displaying the ridiculousness that gun violence can cause.
Gun violence can easily be avoided by making it difficult, if not impossible, to own a gun. If you're into self-defence, go take Karate or Judo lessons... don't use that as a lame excuse for wanting to own a gun.
So yeh, it's just stupid to allow people to own guns in a civilized society... Gun-lovers should simply find another hobby - and while we're here at TL, might I suggest Starcraft as a potential replacement? :D
|
So the batman killer got all those weapons he used to kill legally. How the hell can anyone tell that the gun laws in US don't need to get more strict after this? An insane murderer can get any weapon he wants and thousands of ammo without having to go through a single psychological test or interview and people still say that they need their guns for the freedoms lol.
|
I believe people, at least in our world, should be permitted to own guns. Shooting ranges might not be my cup of tea but I know when someone is exercising individual liberty when I see it. And I've lived in a few neighborhoods, particularly inner city, where a person would be completely justified wanting to own a gun to defend their homes From break ins. I know that doesn't fit in with some people's image of the world as a nice orderly place where you arent constantly under threat from criminals and police take less than an hour to show up. I was prolly one of them before Moving out of the suburbs.
I don't know about carrying guns in public though. Just way more potential harm than good IMO, but I can definitely sympathize with the "armed society is civil"... Because while thats true, at the same time it opens the door for vigilantism and grey areas like the trayvon case where a man feels empowered by his gun and provokes a confrontation where there neednt have been any. Given how common violence is in our society, encouraging a bunch of rowdy drunk chest beating gang affiliated citizens (which many of them are) to carry guns around in public is prolly not a good idea, even if they are the minority.
|
On July 22 2012 06:45 Maitolasi wrote:
So the batman killer got all those weapons he used to kill legally. How the hell can anyone tell that the gun laws in US don't need to get more strict after this? An insane murderer can get any weapon he wants and thousands of ammo without having to go through a single psychological test or interview and people still say that they need their guns for the freedoms lol.
I went over this with a guy from Sweden before as well. You're comparing your experience from living in Finland and existing next to Sweeden both countries with low populations and no neighboring country with massive gun issues. In the US we exist next to Canada and Mexico two countries that have many guns in them. Even if it was outlawed to have a gun in the US there would still be a way to get hold of a gun through those countries. If Finland was surrounded by Mexico and Canada and had a population of 300+ million people they would have this happen just as often because people fall through the cracks with you have a population that large in one country. I do agree that nobody should have a gun, there really isn't a need, learn to hunt with a bow, protect yourself with a baseball bat, and you should be fine, but pretending that outlawing a gun would make guns cease to exist in the US it just faulty logic.
|
1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
|
It doesn't matter really. People who want to harm others will easily find a way to do so. Buy a gun on the street, burn down a building etc. The problem is not the weapons, it is the people. As the saying goes guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I own guns, yes even in Canuckistan we can legally poses weapons. But none of my guns have ever walked into a school or theatre and killed people. They need me to do that.
And frankly I am not batshit, so that won't happen.
|
On July 22 2012 07:00 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 06:45 Maitolasi wrote:
So the batman killer got all those weapons he used to kill legally. How the hell can anyone tell that the gun laws in US don't need to get more strict after this? An insane murderer can get any weapon he wants and thousands of ammo without having to go through a single psychological test or interview and people still say that they need their guns for the freedoms lol. I went over this with a guy from Sweden before as well. You're comparing your experience from living in Finland and existing next to Sweeden both countries with low populations and no neighboring country with massive gun issues. In the US we exist next to Canada and Mexico two countries that have many guns in them. Even if it was outlawed to have a gun in the US there would still be a way to get hold of a gun through those countries. If Finland was surrounded by Mexico and Canada and had a population of 300+ million people they would have this happen just as often because people fall through the cracks with you have a population that large in one country. I do agree that nobody should have a gun, there really isn't a need, learn to hunt with a bow, protect yourself with a baseball bat, and you should be fine, but pretending that outlawing a gun would make guns cease to exist in the US it just faulty logic.
How does that make any difference? Why aren't there any psychological tests or interviews involved in who can own a lethal weapon?
Also we have Russia neighbouring us and Finland also has the most weapons by capita in all of Europe but still we have strict gun laws.
|
People aren't allowed to do a lot of things due to the law and still do them.
Pretty sure it's illegal to build bombs and blow shit up but that doesn't deter the people who want to.
Banning regular gun use will not stop a determine crazy person from shooting up something.
|
On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote:
1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
Um, the dude was wearing body armor and a gas mask, and had tossed tear gas grenades. Try aiming when you're choking on tear gas: it's next to impossible. Now imagine that the person you're aiming at has a pump shotgun to your handgun, and also only has one or two weak spots on their body.
|
On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote:
1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
Yes, that's very accurate. An unarmed citizen is a victim who hasn't been victimized yet. If a concealed carrying law abiding citizen had been in that theater the casualties would have been single digit.
The police arrived within NINETY SECONDS of receiving the APB. How much faster could they possibly have been? Still 54 people injured (overall response time indicates a 5 minute approximately delay between first shot, first 911 call, APB, police arrival on scene). The police are not there to protect you, they are there to catch and punish the person after you and 53 of your friends get shot at a movie theater.
I think a person must have very low self esteem if they think that by putting on a uniform a police officer has better judgement and is more qualified to defend their life than they are. I think it's a mentality thing, when I am confronted by danger I think "How can I protect myself in this moment?" but I get the feeling other people think "what can the government do to protect other people in the future after I am a newspaper headline and a teamliquid thread"
|
On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote:
1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
Yeah let's have more people shooting in the dark and smoky theather that's full of people. Jesus Christ some people.
|
On July 22 2012 07:09 Maitolasi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 07:00 NoobSkills wrote:On July 22 2012 06:45 Maitolasi wrote:
So the batman killer got all those weapons he used to kill legally. How the hell can anyone tell that the gun laws in US don't need to get more strict after this? An insane murderer can get any weapon he wants and thousands of ammo without having to go through a single psychological test or interview and people still say that they need their guns for the freedoms lol. I went over this with a guy from Sweden before as well. You're comparing your experience from living in Finland and existing next to Sweeden both countries with low populations and no neighboring country with massive gun issues. In the US we exist next to Canada and Mexico two countries that have many guns in them. Even if it was outlawed to have a gun in the US there would still be a way to get hold of a gun through those countries. If Finland was surrounded by Mexico and Canada and had a population of 300+ million people they would have this happen just as often because people fall through the cracks with you have a population that large in one country. I do agree that nobody should have a gun, there really isn't a need, learn to hunt with a bow, protect yourself with a baseball bat, and you should be fine, but pretending that outlawing a gun would make guns cease to exist in the US it just faulty logic. How does that make any difference? Why aren't there any psychological tests or interviews involved in who can own a lethal weapon? Also we have Russia neighbouring us and Finland also has the most weapons by capita in all of Europe but still we have strict gun laws.
The psychological tests/interviews in this situation might have helped, but someone this demented could probably fool the examiner and still get a gun. Even if he failed do you think that would deter him? Finland's population is so low I think your country does a very good job making sure that people don't fall through the cracks. Your culture also seems to take care of it's people a lot more that us here in the US. I just don't think that outlawing guns takes this issue away, even though I also don't think people need guns to survive anymore. Hunt with a bow, defend yourself with a baseball bat, but if a criminal can still get a gun after they're outlawed why shouldn't I be able to own one (I don't) to protect myself from someone who has the intent to harm me?
I forgot that Russia had the extension next to you, and you are also close to Northern Ireland, but even with those laws if a criminal wants a gun there they can get one and if someone intends to do the same thing in Finland it would probably happen.
On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote:
1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
One armed citizen with a rocket launcher?
|
On July 22 2012 07:21 Maitolasi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote:
1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives Yeah let's have more people shooting in the dark and smoky theather that's full of people. Jesus Christ some people.
Key word "could" it also could have enraged the fully loaded kevlar backed man to have went much farther. This was discussed earlier, you'd have to be Wyatt Earp to pull that shot off in a dark crowded panic environment... This isn't "the unit" and shots aren't going to be dead on, the person would have more likely killed someone than stop anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
