|
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 11:14 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:00 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/profile.php?user=SayGencheck his posts in this thread, he has... quite an opinion What did he say? His post is edited to: "Oops! Wrong thread."
Look at almost any other post of his in this thread.
|
On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt?
Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are.
Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though.
|
On July 22 2012 11:04 fairymonger wrote:
This thread is a joke! People from europe have no idea what they are flapping there lips about stuff here in the us.One state could be two or three countries in europe. Overall the police and emergency response is nearly half an hour to a scene that has been called in. When someone breaks into ur house with a gun, Goodluck waiting that half an hour after u make a phone call. Knowing that there are houses armed is enough of a deterent to stop 90% of the people thinking to break into houses. and with this movie theator thing one or two armed guys in the theator could of stopped him from shooting so many people. Now given we dont all carry guns but there are alot of people who have concealed weapons permits and im thankfull to have them around.
How about instead of guns, the US government mandates that all people carry hatchets?
|
On July 22 2012 11:18 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:04 fairymonger wrote:
This thread is a joke! People from europe have no idea what they are flapping there lips about stuff here in the us.One state could be two or three countries in europe. Overall the police and emergency response is nearly half an hour to a scene that has been called in. When someone breaks into ur house with a gun, Goodluck waiting that half an hour after u make a phone call. Knowing that there are houses armed is enough of a deterent to stop 90% of the people thinking to break into houses. and with this movie theator thing one or two armed guys in the theator could of stopped him from shooting so many people. Now given we dont all carry guns but there are alot of people who have concealed weapons permits and im thankfull to have them around. How about instead of guns, the US government mandate that all people just carry hatchets?
but make it mandatory!
this thred gets out of hand 
edit: and me, too. go sleep now. robot. sleep.
|
On July 22 2012 11:12 Leporello wrote:
Yeah, freedom is becoming a great excuse for shunning our abilities of discretion and compromise. Banning assault rifles gets compared to banning kitchen knives. All weapons are the same, and we have the right to bear arms. Give me a nuke, pls.
That's kind of the problem with this thread from the start. The TC makes a great case for privately owned fire-arms. I live very near the city of Chicago. I don't fault people for owning a hand-gun, especially local business owners with a cash-register (although bullet-proof glass is a much, much better option).
But, in America at least, that has never been what gun control is about. Absolute abolishment of fire-arms has never been anywhere close to a serious political platform, to any party, at any time. This issue is about the limitations we place. We all agree there should be some limitation. We don't want people owning nukes, tanks, cannons. The issue is about assault weapons, concealed-carrying of fire-arms, the Brady Bill (background checks). These are things that are put in place usually in direct responses to catastrophes such as the Dark Knight premiere.
The Brady Bill is called the "Brady" Bill because a well-known political figure was shot. Before the Brady Bill, background checks were not mandatory nationwide for purchasing a gun. The NRA opposed the Brady Bill. They called it an affront to freedom. But it passed despite the protests of "tyranny", and no one's gun was taken away, unless there was good reason.
I can't use/solicit illegal drugs, I can't build whatever I want on my property unless it falls within local ordinances/regulations. We compromise freedom for common-sense and public-good laws every day. Why do some people think it's okay that we bring so many assault rifles into this country, legally, when the only purpose they can provide is large-scale suffering?
Someone in this thread accused me of "using" catastrophe as a means of "pushing my agenda". And I agree. This is an agenda, and I am being reactionary. This country needs to do away with assault weapons. Make them illegal and get them the hell out of our country. And some people need to realize that the opinions they hold dear are unreasonable opinions that are, in fact, being propagated by a very powerful gun industry with too many political ties. Assault weapons and people carrying concealed fire-arms in public -- this is not good society. Idealism is inferior to pragmatism. If we can't be pragmatic about weapons of mass-murder, what the hell can we be pragmatic about?
Once again. "Compromise" is in favor of the government.
|
I like the assumption that the only people who commit gun murder were planning on committing murder when they bought the gun. I like the assumption that the people who buy guns without murderous or aggressive intentions are all people who don't get angry or violent under stressful circumstances. I like the assumption that people who buy guns for "legitimate" reasons are never liable to make decisions based on emotion.
|
On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though.
Honestly, Canada is a superior country that has benefitted greatly from a strong social system, low-unemployment rate, extensive resource wealth, nationalized healthcare and reasonable gun regulation over the past 30 years. There's simply less armed criminals here, and hence, less of a demand for lawless and deregulated gun ownership.
It would be cheaper and more efficient to arm every American so they can protect themselves from their depraved, crime-ridden society and corrupt, unsalvagable, tyrannical corporat-ocracy.
|
On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though.
Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally.
|
On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally.
Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm
|
On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally.
Are they mostly stolen? I'd imagine it's hard to steal from a guy with a gun.
|
On July 22 2012 11:24 Shantastic wrote:
I like the assumption that the only people who commit gun murder were planning on committing murder when they bought the gun. I like the assumption that the people who buy guns without murderous or aggressive intentions are all people who don't get angry or violent under stressful circumstances. I like the assumption that people who buy guns for "legitimate" reasons are never liable to make decisions based on emotion.
Maybe people who are statistically likely to commit crime should be locked up preemptively. Perhaps send police into every home to search for incriminating material. Its the same sort of reasoning as yours. We'll be super safe, won't we?
|
Gun stores are robbed constantly. Straw purchases are a huge problem also. Of course I'm not saying controls can't be set in place to correct this from now forward. What I'm saying it's a problem of the past and now. It's a reality. It's not as black and white as outlaw guns and everythings peachy.
Criminals do and will have and use firearms regardless of any laws made. It's like nuclear weapons, it's too late they are here to stay.
|
On July 22 2012 11:13 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:00 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 10:50 Defacer wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. We should abolish all standards for car manufacturing and operation as well. Driver licences are a joke. And if I want to drive around in a bullet-proof monster truck with tinted windows, I should be able to goddamnnit. THIS IS AMERICUHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! Yes, we should abolish car manufacturing standards. Yes, yes I know due to your infantalized nanny culture the idea of liberty and free choice frightens the shit out of you, but in reality its actually a quite wonderful and positive experience, for the human spirit as well as material comfort. We allow the execution of minors, but deny basic marital rights to gay couples. We exert control over nearby territories and deny their citizens the right to vote in our elections. We've lost the right to preach about liberty. When we start using guns as responsibly as Canadians, I'll support gun laws as lax as Canada's. Thats utterly retarded. If we act counter to liberty, the genuine liberals of our country cant possible encourage we change our ways! What? Your literally encouraging we dont reform.
|
On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm
On July 22 2012 11:32 heliusx wrote:
Gun stores are robbed constantly. Straw purchases are a huge problem also. Of course I'm not saying controls can't be set in place to correct this from now forward. What I'm saying it's a problem of the past and now. It's a reality. It's not as black and white as outlaw guns and everythings peachy.
Criminals do and will have and use firearms regardless of any laws made. It's like nuclear weapons, it's too late they are here to stay.
 That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken.
|
On July 22 2012 11:34 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken.
Im not saying that it can't. I'm saying I personally don't know how. And until someone solves it I'm protecting my life with a firearm.
|
On July 22 2012 11:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:12 Leporello wrote:
Yeah, freedom is becoming a great excuse for shunning our abilities of discretion and compromise. Banning assault rifles gets compared to banning kitchen knives. All weapons are the same, and we have the right to bear arms. Give me a nuke, pls.
That's kind of the problem with this thread from the start. The TC makes a great case for privately owned fire-arms. I live very near the city of Chicago. I don't fault people for owning a hand-gun, especially local business owners with a cash-register (although bullet-proof glass is a much, much better option).
But, in America at least, that has never been what gun control is about. Absolute abolishment of fire-arms has never been anywhere close to a serious political platform, to any party, at any time. This issue is about the limitations we place. We all agree there should be some limitation. We don't want people owning nukes, tanks, cannons. The issue is about assault weapons, concealed-carrying of fire-arms, the Brady Bill (background checks). These are things that are put in place usually in direct responses to catastrophes such as the Dark Knight premiere.
The Brady Bill is called the "Brady" Bill because a well-known political figure was shot. Before the Brady Bill, background checks were not mandatory nationwide for purchasing a gun. The NRA opposed the Brady Bill. They called it an affront to freedom. But it passed despite the protests of "tyranny", and no one's gun was taken away, unless there was good reason.
I can't use/solicit illegal drugs, I can't build whatever I want on my property unless it falls within local ordinances/regulations. We compromise freedom for common-sense and public-good laws every day. Why do some people think it's okay that we bring so many assault rifles into this country, legally, when the only purpose they can provide is large-scale suffering?
Someone in this thread accused me of "using" catastrophe as a means of "pushing my agenda". And I agree. This is an agenda, and I am being reactionary. This country needs to do away with assault weapons. Make them illegal and get them the hell out of our country. And some people need to realize that the opinions they hold dear are unreasonable opinions that are, in fact, being propagated by a very powerful gun industry with too many political ties. Assault weapons and people carrying concealed fire-arms in public -- this is not good society. Idealism is inferior to pragmatism. If we can't be pragmatic about weapons of mass-murder, what the hell can we be pragmatic about? Once again. "Compromise" is in favor of the government.
This is the government that prevents me from getting a Desert Eagle on the same day I find out my neighbor is screwing my wife. This is the government that prevents me giving you a fake name and telling you I discovered a new precious stone and that I need your credit card number to mine enough of it to make you millions.
You're advocating the facilitation of countless forms of atrocity for an incredibly unlikely contingency, one for which there are checks and balances in every level of our state and federal governments.
|
On July 22 2012 11:36 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:34 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken. Im not saying that it can't. I'm saying I personally don't know how. And until someone solves it I'm protecting my life with a firearm.
Honestly, based on some posters' rampant insistence that gun regulation would actually make their country LESS safe, I can only assume that America is a terrifying place to live.
|
On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:36 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:34 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken. Im not saying that it can't. I'm saying I personally don't know how. And until someone solves it I'm protecting my life with a firearm. Honestly, based on some posters' rampant insistence that gun regulation would actually make their country LESS safe, I can only assume that America is a terrifying place to live.
I'm really not interested in debating with you over any opinions. If that's what you're going after by baiting with contentless posts you're barking up he wrong tree.
|
On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:36 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:34 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:On July 22 2012 10:58 Sjokola wrote:
I just want to know if there are people here who truly believe that there is a chance the US government is going to oppress you in a way so that guns could save you. Or that citizens will prevent an invasion from outside of the US.
If that is true, I get your poins of view. The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken. Im not saying that it can't. I'm saying I personally don't know how. And until someone solves it I'm protecting my life with a firearm. Honestly, based on some posters' rampant insistence that gun regulation would actually make their country LESS safe, I can only assume that America is a terrifying place to live. You realize Canada has [by some stats] more guns per capita than the states? If your assuming the amount of guns has a correlation with violence [demonstrably false, in fact the more guns you have typically the more prosperous and free the country is] than Canada should basically be on par. In REALITY, you know the thing outside your liberal delusions, guns are self evidently a means of self defense for the physically weak and innocent, and so yes, a terrifying location or a tranquil one, an armed population is safer.
|
On July 22 2012 11:33 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:13 Shantastic wrote:On July 22 2012 11:00 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 10:50 Defacer wrote:On July 22 2012 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom. We should abolish all standards for car manufacturing and operation as well. Driver licences are a joke. And if I want to drive around in a bullet-proof monster truck with tinted windows, I should be able to goddamnnit. THIS IS AMERICUHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! Yes, we should abolish car manufacturing standards. Yes, yes I know due to your infantalized nanny culture the idea of liberty and free choice frightens the shit out of you, but in reality its actually a quite wonderful and positive experience, for the human spirit as well as material comfort. We allow the execution of minors, but deny basic marital rights to gay couples. We exert control over nearby territories and deny their citizens the right to vote in our elections. We've lost the right to preach about liberty. When we start using guns as responsibly as Canadians, I'll support gun laws as lax as Canada's. Thats utterly retarded. If we act counter to liberty, the genuine liberals of our country cant possible encourage we change our ways! What? Your literally encouraging we dont reform.
I advise you reconsider your tone. I was saying that per your statement, "due to your infantalized nanny culture the idea of liberty and free choice frightens the shit out of you," you clearly have no understanding of any country existing outside of our borders if you don't realize that America has one of the worst track records with civil liberties and human rights in the 21st century. We join Somalia--that's right, SOMALIA--as the only non-signatory to the UN convention banning the execution of children. We spy on, detain, and order assassinations on our own citizens without warrant or trial. We prevent couples from reaping the same marital benefits as everyone else because Leviticus tells us we shouldn't. We've lost the privilege of calling other countries "infantalized [sic]" when they think we're allowing a freedom we shouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
