EPTCould you elaborate?
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
Could you elaborate? | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
| ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
| ||
|
zimz
United States510 Posts
| ||
|
leere
United States39 Posts
1. Whether you think that guns should be illegal to possess or not, I don't see why the sale of fucking AR-15's and similar guns isn't banned or at least highly restricted. 2. The argument that we shouldn't ban guns because people could still get a hold of them is retarded. Yes, people will still get a hold of guns. No, this does not mean that it won't affect the rates of gun violence. | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On July 23 2012 08:31 leere wrote: Two things 1. Whether you think that guns should be illegal to possess or not, I don't see why the sale of fucking AR-15's and similar guns isn't banned or at least highly restricted. 2. The argument that we shouldn't ban guns because people could still get a hold of them is retarded. Yes, people will still get a hold of guns. No, this does not mean that it won't affect the rates of gun violence. Well, it doesn't matter if it's an AR-15 or a mere Glock , guns are designed for a single purpose: to be lethal. Having such lethal weapons available so easily in every street "corner gun shops" is just an open invitation for further massacres. | ||
|
typedef struct
United States84 Posts
| ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:22 StarStrider wrote: There isn't much call for it in my opinion. Just informing here since I don't particularly agree with all schools of pro-gun thought, but the main reason a pro-gun individual would justify assault rifle purchases is 1) home invasion protection for multiple assailants at a distance (gang, posse of thugs, etc) or 2) defense against a tyrranical government that would try to seize their home or weapons 3) militia purposes: operating as part of a group in defense against tyrranical government or invading force (Minutemen if you will). These functions can't be performed with a pistol. As James Madison said, "liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former, rather than the latter, are apparently most to be apprehended by the United States." Is America a country where these things you mentioned occur on a regular enough basis for it to justify the widespread availability of weapons? I'm going to say no. 1. It is far more likely that some deranged individual will be able to kill a bunch of innocent people with an assault/automatic weapon rather than a homeowner defend himself against a gang of armed thugs. Also in your scenario, wouldn't the gang of armed thugs have automatic weapons as well? I just see escalation where self-defense justifies the availability of more and more lethal weapons. 2./3. Insisting you need such a big gun to defend yourself is putting way too little faith in America, and I'm pretty cynical myself. Plus, it would be like fighting a tiger with a toothpick. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1026 Posts
Demographics and way too many firearms in private hands and their availability combined is your problem! Every further argument i could add to the discussion has been mentionend already. You know, when people just don't want to see, it's really hard to make em. First of all in an online forum... | ||
|
leere
United States39 Posts
On July 23 2012 08:43 HomeWorld wrote: Well, it doesn't matter if it's an AR-15 or a mere Glock , guns are designed for a single purpose: to be lethal. Having such lethal weapons available so easily in every street "corner gun shops" is just an open invitation for further massacres. I do agree with what your saying but the ability to shoot 30 bullets without reloading makes these massacres much more deadly. The same thing happened with the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. On July 23 2012 08:46 typedef struct wrote: It would have taken only 1 person armed, trained, and aware to prevent so many deaths. No. Most people think of themselves as special forces pistol shooting champions because they own a gun but as someone who owns a pistol and shoots recreationally (is that a word?) I imagine most police would have a hard time shooting a target covered in kevlar with a semiautomatic rifle while pitch black with tear gas filling the movie theater. It's not like call of duty; you would be very likely to just hit another innocent person. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On July 23 2012 11:07 leere wrote: I do agree with what your saying but the ability to shoot 30 bullets without reloading makes these massacres much more deadly. The same thing happened with the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. Fullauto even. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
I mean think about what you're saying for a second before you go posting complete nonsense. There was tear gas being chucked into that room and complete panic. "arm the populace more" is not a solution to these kinds of attacks, and it is completely obvious how many more problems such policies would create. One citizen with a weapon probably wouldn't have accomplished crap in this case. Letting citizens take weapons everywhere would be disastrous. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On July 23 2012 11:58 Zahir wrote: Really hate that "one guy with a pistol could've stopped that massacre" argument. It's one of the worst non ban resulting arguments I've seen in tl in a long time. Completely ignores the way the attack went down... One of those useless reflexive garbage one liners that people just come in and post with no awareness or respect for the facts. I mean think about what you're saying for a second before you go posting complete nonsense. There was tear gas being chucked into that room and complete panic. "arm the populace more" is not a solution to these kinds of attacks, and it is completely obvious how many more problems such policies would create. One citizen with a weapon probably wouldn't have accomplished crap in this case. Letting citizens take weapons everywhere would be disastrous. It appeals to the ego of gun owners who want to be able to carry everywhere. It also comforts them by making them feel as though they don't need to be scared of events like this because they will be able to defend themselves - never mind how much bullshit that is, or how much people tend to decline in accuracy when their target is a real human being and not paper, they want to not feel powerless. It will appear after every shooting where no-one present had a gun but the shooter and be completely ignored where others were carrying but could do nothing anyway - as in the Gifford shooting - because it is an emotionally rather than rationally based argument. | ||
|
whatevername
471 Posts
On July 23 2012 12:41 -_-Quails wrote: Leave it to a liberal to pretend the ability to defend yourself is an emotional concept rather than a rational one, ignoring all the thousands of gun battles throughout history where a victim saved themselves and others, or just flatly killed their attacker who was armed without a gun. It appeals to the ego of gun owners who want to be able to carry everywhere. It also comforts them by making them feel as though they don't need to be scared of events like this because they will be able to defend themselves - never mind how much bullshit that is, or how much people tend to decline in accuracy when their target is a real human being and not paper, they want to not feel powerless. It will appear after every shooting where no-one present had a gun but the shooter and be completely ignored where others were carrying but could do nothing anyway - as in the Gifford shooting - because it is an emotionally rather than rationally based argument. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/us/online-ammunition-sales-highlighted-by-aurora-shootings.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp “I have an issue with people being able to buy ammunition and weapons on the Internet,” Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey of the Philadelphia police said on the ABC program “This Week” on Sunday. “I don’t know why people need to have assault weapons. There needs to be reasonable gun control put in place. How can gun right advocates talk about "self-defense" and "public safety" when a police commissioner has the exact opposite idea of safety from them? | ||
|
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
On July 23 2012 08:31 leere wrote: Two things 1. Whether you think that guns should be illegal to possess or not, I don't see why the sale of fucking AR-15's and similar guns isn't banned or at least highly restricted. 2. The argument that we shouldn't ban guns because people could still get a hold of them is retarded. Yes, people will still get a hold of guns. No, this does not mean that it won't affect the rates of gun violence. Cho killed 32 people with 2 fucking handguns. Ok so you you ban the Sale of AR-15's... what's that do? More people are killed in America with knives than shotguns and assault rifles combined. I'd also like to know how this ban on guns would work considering 270 million privately owned guns are owned in this country-- which is 25% of the world's stockpile. More importantly, this is America. Our troops die for the right for us to burn our nation's flag. It states in our constitution that we have the right to abolish our government. We aren't going to give up our liberties because that's what makes America great. | ||
|
Dakk
Sweden572 Posts
| ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On July 23 2012 16:40 xrapture wrote: I'd also like to know how this ban on guns would work considering 270 million privately owned guns are owned in this country-- which is 25% of the world's stockpile. You're right. Gun-ownership in the US is way too high for any new ban to have any effect. Trying to fix this broken situation is almost impossible. So I'm glad to live in a country that did it right from the start. More importantly, this is America. Our troops die for the right for us to burn our nation's flag. It states in our constitution that we have the right to abolish our government. We aren't going to give up our liberties because that's what makes America great. The right to abolish your government? You mean applying the 2nd amendment to an oppressive government? Good luck with that. When the 2nd amendment was created, a bunch of angry militia with muskets did indeed pose a serious threat to the ruling parties. But these days, with the government controlling tanks, fighter planes, guided missles, etc... There's very little you can actually do to overthrow the government if they really don't want to stand down as long as they have support of the military, regardless of whether you have guns or not. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
On July 23 2012 16:52 Dakk wrote: I believe that no one besides then the military should be allowed guns. Guns are bad and guns kill people. Legalizing guns is just making it easier for the killers to kill.... So what do you do when a man with a gun breaks into your home? Do you just let him shoot you? | ||
| ||
