|
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 11:56 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:33 whatevername wrote: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. I'm not even American, and you have no understanding of countries outside your own border if you think that isnt a near universal trait in the west. Britain doesnt have gay marriage, France doesnt, italy...a majority of western European countries dont have gay marriage. Further, they too spy on their citizens and are increasingly passing draconian laws [my country Canada has gone right up that alley lock and step with your own], hell Germany basically has no conception of free speech, and to quote a leading Canadian liberal mp "Free speech is an American value" we dont really either.
The difference between the abuse of civil liberties in the states and elsewhere is that there is opposition to it in the states.
|
On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote: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.
Do you perhaps have a scource for this? Because Yemen doesn't seem safe and has the most guns per capita. And by that logic most European countries should be less safe than the US or thrird world countries.
Edit: it seems like a weird thing to say that Germany effectively doesn't have free speech
|
On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote: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.
umm I'll point out that your comment about more guns and more prosperous countries is kind of misleading, it sort of implies a cause and effect which is simply not true, the reasons more prosperous countries have a lot of guns is because you can buy guns with money, so the underlying factor is the money.
I will point out that when you put a gun into the hands of someone they are no longer weak, and if they use that gun, they are no longer innocent. Essentially, guns makes it possible for anyone to kill anyone else, its quite an equalizer, and many people are not comfortable with the fact that anyone can kill you should they choose to.
|
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. For every sad story of someone being murdered by someone with a gun, you can find a story of someone who saved their own life, their families lives, or the lives of someone around them because they were carrying a gun.
America has done pretty good for itself and been successful in helping a lot of other countries in their time of need. Ironically, all this has been accomplished while her citizens have been allowed to own and carry guns. I don't see what the problem is, or the need to suddenly change that.
|
On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote: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.
No one's assuming the amount of guns in any country has a causal link to violence in that country. We're assuming that if the overwhelming majority of murders committed in the country are committed with guns (which they are), and that guns drastically facilitate the act of murder in any time span, that reducing the ease of acquiring firearms will reduce the ease of murdering people, therefore reducing murderous crimes of passion at the very least. In addition, restricting the commercial flow of weapons into a country WILL reduce the frequency of shooting sprees in that country, as murder sprees are near impossible to commit without a firearm.
Canada having very few murders while having incredibly lax gun laws only suggests that Canadians are much more responsible and rational with guns than Americans are.
|
On July 22 2012 12:01 whatevername wrote:hell Germany basically has no conception of free speech
ehm... I think I know that you are referring to *talking positively about KZ's is bad* and *denying the holocaust is bad* but you are just exaggerating immensely here.
|
Or maybe you don't have giant ghettos filled with poverty stricken minorities killing the shit out of each other on a daily basis.
Edit: misquote
|
On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. also prevents criminals from owning guns, gun crime rates in countries without legal access to guns is considerably lower
. For every sad story of someone being murdered by someone with a gun, you can find a story of someone who saved their own life, their families lives, or the lives of someone around them because they were carrying a gun.
no, gun crime, gun fatalities, gun injuries all higher in the US than (iirc) any other 1st world nation that doesnt allow privately owned guns, the number of 'stories' of people being hurt far outweigh the number of stories of people being saved
America has done pretty good for itself
you managed to sit back and watch the world go to war twice and loan money to both sides, well done
and been successful in helping a lot of other countries in their time of need.
every countries youve gone in to so far is currently still in pieces but ok
Ironically, all this has been accomplished while her citizens have been allowed to own and carry guns. no one is claiming that owning guns makes you more stupid or something, we just think you should stop shooting each other so much.
I don't see what the problem is, or the need to suddenly change that. high muder rates, high crime rates, high incarceration rates, i would say these are the main problems.
so to sum up i would argue that your entire world view of what caused america to be a leading super power, americas current place in the world and the role of guns in your society seems completely warped and lacking in facts, its been said 100 times, the facts speak for themselves. anecdotal evidence of this 1 guy who defended himself with a gun just doesnt stand up to the mountains of figures showing that the US has a huge problem with gun violence that it refuses to tackle because of a piece of paper written by a few men 300 years ago.
|
On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them.
Again, no.
I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns.
With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands.
So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens.
|
On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. For every sad story of someone being murdered by someone with a gun, you can find a story of someone who saved their own life, their families lives, or the lives of someone around them because they were carrying a gun.
America has done pretty good for itself and been successful in helping a lot of other countries in their time of need. Ironically, all this has been accomplished while her citizens have been allowed to own and carry guns. I don't see what the problem is, or the need to suddenly change that.
Illegal guns don't just materialize out of thin air. If you restrict the commercial inflow of firearms, you restrict the supply of black market weapons too.
What goes unseen is that the majority of crimes prevented with a gun were crimes attempted using a gun in the first place, and the problem you don't see is that we've been flirting with the fifth digit in gun murder rates since the advent of the '90s.
|
On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote: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.
I have no problem with gun ownership. I even understand the significance of guns to Americans, and can at least understand the basic premise of preserving the freedom of owning and bearing a gun.
My issue is simply with gun regulation, or the lack there of, in the states.
You do realize that gun owners in Canada require licences don't you? And that restricted firearms (most guns not designed strictly for hunting) require registration? And that carrying a gun -- even for transport -- is highly restricted and requires an additional permit?
Not to mention the list of guns that are outright prohibited from sale in Canada is a mile long.
My issue with American gun regulations is that they differ from state to state, and in most states, are shockingly minimal.
It's one thing for a police officer, or even a gun enthusiast with sufficient training, to go to a store and get a semi-automatic assault rifle. A 24 year old med student?
That's why I'm trolling the fuck out of some of the posters in this thread. They are not willing to discuss even the most basic safeguards (requiring a licence to purchase a gun) in order to make it easier to protect themselves in the most extreme circumstances.
I don't have a problem with people wanting to own a gun. But I'm surprised more Americans don't have a problem with ANYONE -- even if they have a squeaky clean record -- being able to legally purchase almost ANY kind of gun.
|
On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens.
Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not.
|
On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not.
It's the case in most countries in Europe. Like I said,for the US it will take more time because of the huge amount of guns in circulation, but it's the same idea.
|
On July 22 2012 12:28 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. It's the case in most countries in Europe. Like I said,for the US it will take more time because of the huge amount of guns in circulation, but it's the same idea.
And in the mean time law abiding citizens should just be at their mercy? It won't work only some kind of stricter controls will. Making firearms illegal will not work in the USA.
|
On July 22 2012 12:35 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:28 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. It's the case in most countries in Europe. Like I said,for the US it will take more time because of the huge amount of guns in circulation, but it's the same idea. And in the mean time law abiding citizens should just be at their mercy? It won't work only some kind of stricter controls will. Making firearms illegal will not work in the USA.
Law abiding citizens are at their mercy anyway. Also if you shoot a criminal, you're not a law abiding citizen, you're a criminal.
|
On July 22 2012 12:40 IMABUNNEH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:35 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:28 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. It's the case in most countries in Europe. Like I said,for the US it will take more time because of the huge amount of guns in circulation, but it's the same idea. And in the mean time law abiding citizens should just be at their mercy? It won't work only some kind of stricter controls will. Making firearms illegal will not work in the USA. Law abiding citizens are at their mercy anyway. Also if you shoot a criminal, you're not a law abiding citizen, you're a criminal. Right because self defense is illegal. Your argument is so weak I'm really surprised you bothered to type it.
|
On July 22 2012 12:40 IMABUNNEH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:35 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:28 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. It's the case in most countries in Europe. Like I said,for the US it will take more time because of the huge amount of guns in circulation, but it's the same idea. And in the mean time law abiding citizens should just be at their mercy? It won't work only some kind of stricter controls will. Making firearms illegal will not work in the USA. Law abiding citizens are at their mercy anyway. Also if you shoot a criminal, you're not a law abiding citizen, you're a criminal.
Ugh, I disagree with this ...
|
On July 22 2012 12:28 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. It's the case in most countries in Europe. Like I said,for the US it will take more time because of the huge amount of guns in circulation, but it's the same idea.
Lol, but then I wouldn't get to own a gun. That's the crux of the issue, I don't give a shit about being safe. Well, I'd still own one, but I'd have to pay premium on the black market and it might end up financing some shady people.
|
On July 22 2012 12:18 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I have no problem with gun ownership. I even understand the significance of guns to Americans, and can at least understand the basic premise of preserving the freedom of owning and bearing a gun. My issue is simply with gun regulation, or the lack there of, in the states. You do realize that gun owners in Canada require licences don't you? And that restricted firearms (most guns not designed strictly for hunting) require registration? And that carrying a gun -- even for transport -- is highly restricted and requires an additional permit? Not to mention the list of guns that are outright prohibited from sale in Canada is a mile long. My issue with American gun regulations is that they differ from state to state, and in most states, are shockingly minimal. It's one thing for a police officer, or even a gun enthusiast with sufficient training, to go to a store and get a semi-automatic assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? That's why I'm trolling the fuck out of some of the posters in this thread. They are not willing to discuss even the most basic safeguards (requiring a licence to purchase a gun) in order to make it easier to protect themselves in the most extreme circumstances. I don't have a problem with people wanting to own a gun. But I'm surprised more Americans don't have a problem with ANYONE -- even if they have a squeaky clean record -- being able to legally purchase almost ANY kind of gun.
Please name one pro-gun poster in this thread who you think would be opposed to background checks, mandatory training and safety course, and a license to conceal carry. Some may live in lax states where buying a handgun is as easy as buying a pack of cigarettes, but I doubt you can find me a person who is opposed to these regulations that attempt to keep guns from legally being bought by bad guys. (Note: I did not put serial registration or license to own on that list, you know the reason why pro guns are opposed to that, whether you call it tinfoil hat logic or not.)
|
On July 22 2012 12:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:28 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. It's the case in most countries in Europe. Like I said,for the US it will take more time because of the huge amount of guns in circulation, but it's the same idea. Lol, but then I wouldn't get to own a gun. That's the crux of the issue, I don't give a shit about being safe. Well, I'd still own one, but I'd have to pay premium on the black market and it might end up financing some shady people.
Maybe for you but in a perfect world we wouldn't need weapons because people would not try to harm each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
