|
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 25 2012 03:16 typedef struct wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 03:09 EmperorKira wrote:
The reality is america will always have guns. The real question is how do we make sure that these madmen don't get these guns. Do we have people be vetted before owning a gun, have a database that can track suspicious transactions, clamp down harder on the black market for guns, etc... Also, certain guns should be harder to get. It shouldn't be just as easy to get a handgun as an assault rifle. Should we have armed guards in every public area such as movies? These are the things we should be discussing, not should we ban guns totally cos that's not going to happen in the US. Pandora's box has already been opened, it can't be closed. Good points. The main problem I see is that there was no way to know it was going to happen and no way to use legislation to prevent it. Mr. Holmes is a ferociously intelligent guy with a background in chemistry who went off the deep end. Had stricter gun control laws been in place, would Mr. Holmes have been deterred by his inability to purchase weapons and ammunition or would he have used his knowledge of chemistry to devise an alternate plan of attack? Had fewer gun control laws been in place, would Mr. Holmes have been deterred by the prospect of facing movie-goers with firearms or would he have used his knowledge of chemistry to devise an alternate plan of attack?
Holmes is a problematic example.
Even though Holmes specifically has renewed interest in the gun control debate, Holmes himself is an anomality.
Let's put it this way: purchasing a gun to protect yourself when you go to the movies, in the event that a heavily armed psycho with no criminal record or clear motive will go on a killing spree is still an irrational fear (even though it happened). It's so far from normative there is no reasonable or practical way to defend against it or anticipate it.
However, purchasing a gun to protect yourself in a neighborhood where gun crime, breaking and entering and organized crime is commonplace? That is perfectly rational.
It would be nice if there was some kind of gun regulation that enabled people to defend themselves while preventing gun sellers form inadvertently aiding potential criminals, crazies and overzealous dummies.
For example, should someone like George Zimmerman, who did have a known history of aggression despite not being convicted of a felony, should be able to purchase a gun legally?
I just think the conversation needs to shift from 'Gun Control' to 'Idiot Control', in order for the mainstream to find common ground with gun advocates.
|
I'm a Canadian, so I can't realistically own a gun. I used to live in a real ghetto neighbourhood too. I'm talking crack whores shouting at hobos right outside my front door at 3:00 AM. A block down the street was a brothel, and a hotel that had a double homicide while I was living there. Police sirens every 15 minutes. It was a rough hood, is what I'm trying to say. But I was never worried someone would barge into my apartment and that I'd be unable to defend myself. Why? Because if I didn't have a gun, most often, other people didn't have them either. That's the benefit of a completely gun-controlled society.
Could he get a gun in Canada? Probably. But the odds are more in favour that the guy breaking in doesn't have one. He'd probably have a knife or something. It's just easier. And I'd have a baseball bat, and we'd fight like that. Or I'd just puss out and say "Whoa man, take it easy. Here, take my shit and go, I don't want trouble", and then report the robbery to the cops, and get my shit back through insurance.There are alternative ways to "defending yourself" you know. Guns aren't the end-all be-all of home protection.
And if you're living somewhere that you fear someone breaking down your door and raping your family, then that's just fucked, and you ought to move. For reals. Don't blame a lack of guns for not being safe, blame yourself for allowing yourself to live somewhere unsafe. Because last time I checked, there were plenty of nice places to live all around the globe where you don't have to worry about shit like that. Especially since the housing market fell through...
|
On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss!
Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent.
I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too.
Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently.
|
It's incredibly realistic to think that this theater shooting could have been stopped. The shooter tried to become a member at a shooting range and set off all kinds of alarm bells and was rejected. If the person who received his application had alerted the police and been like "this guy seems dangerous" that alone might have been enough.
People keep throwing around that garbage about wishing there had been some John woo action star with a pistol in that theatre to single handedly stop the shooter... What I wish is that someone had noticed this kids rapid and apparently quite evident descent into madness (if he was ever sane to begin with) and tried to get him some help, or at least notified his family or some authority. To me that sounds much more sane than putting guns in the entire worlds hands, throwing up our hands as far as regulations and hoping for the best.
Instead, thanks to our lax regulations He was able to buy four guns including a semi auto legally... If the latter wasn't on the market I doubt his rampage would have been as deadly. Lives matter. And the 6,000 rounds he was able to buy over the Internet... 6000 is beyond what any individual could possibly need for defense or hunting. Companies selling large quantities of ammo online, this is clearly not the most rational system we're dealing with here.
I want to focus on just one issue though, the assault weapon. Because I realize this is not an ideal world and we can't restrict something like ammo that is hard to keep track of. Assault weapons though, there is absolutely no reason for a citizen to have one, and a pretty damn good reason not to.
It sucks though, because my government is full of tools who use garbage party manufactured arguments like the ones that fill this thread "one armed citizen in the theatre could have saved so many lives..." really realistic... Or those, no compromise allowed arguments like "regulation is pointless thx to Mexico" we already regulate drugs, explosives, bio hazards and wmds... Or people who just cherry pick stupid arguments and respond to those only like the guys who keep taking "we have so many guns already so gl trying to take our guns"... Like total deregulation, or a total gun ban are the only positions you can have on this issue.
Arguments like those are just symptomatic of how politics in the us have degenerated... There are the outright stupid ones that make for good sound bites but are like the antithesis of actual thought or facts. Then there are the people who dont believe government should ever do anything, like regulate guns, and stick to that principle no matter how reasonable or potentially helpful the regulations that get proposed... And then there are people who just debate dishonestly and avoid the issues by attacking some commie liberal straw man, cause its easier than acknowledging that change might be in order.
Us has the most lax gun policy of any civilized nation... I don't believe it should be so easy to get ASSAULT weapons. I'm guessing most people would agree, but too bad that means nothing in the divisive, corrupt gridlock that is US politics.
|
On February 20 2012 03:11 isleyofthenorth wrote:
i think the liberal stance the US and switzerland have for example are terrible
I am sorry but the swiss system works very well thank you.
|
On July 25 2012 02:59 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 02:57 ikh wrote:On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference. Unbelievable. Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not. And if it's your child they're taking? i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit  Because every time there is / has/ or ever will be a home invasion, the only thing the intruder is there for is your TV. Every one of you anti gun people has the same 'hypothetical' and it's hilarious. Hypocrites.
That's interesting. I could have sworn the majority of arguments in favor of guns over the past hundred pages have begun with the words "what if."
|
On July 25 2012 08:14 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 02:59 Leth0 wrote:On July 25 2012 02:57 ikh wrote:On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference. Unbelievable. Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not. And if it's your child they're taking? i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit Because every time there is / has/ or ever will be a home invasion, the only thing the intruder is there for is your TV. Every one of you anti gun people has the same 'hypothetical' and it's hilarious. Hypocrites. That's interesting. I could have sworn the majority of arguments in favor of guns over the past hundred pages have begun with the words "what if."
I've said it and I'll say it again.
The only arguement that matters for pro gun side is that the vast majority of people registered to own a firearm are responsible adults that use them for hunting and sport and (god forbid) the slight snowballs chance in hell that they have to use it in self defense or in defense of their family.
We don't need to explain ourselves to you because there is nothing else to explain. We are not responsible for every crazy mother fucker that happens to use a gun to kill innocent people , we are responsible for ourselves.
|
On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently.
You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes.
You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc.
My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life."
Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful.
|
On July 25 2012 08:14 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 02:59 Leth0 wrote:On July 25 2012 02:57 ikh wrote:On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference. Unbelievable. Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not. And if it's your child they're taking? i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit Because every time there is / has/ or ever will be a home invasion, the only thing the intruder is there for is your TV. Every one of you anti gun people has the same 'hypothetical' and it's hilarious. Hypocrites. That's interesting. I could have sworn the majority of arguments in favor of guns over the past hundred pages have begun with the words "what if."
shh people who break into houses to rape and murder you is obviously much more likely then people who break into houses to rob you.
frankly the worse "argument" going around is that gun regulation would be ineffective to crafty people and they will kill people anyways with bombs or knifes.
Really with all do respect i rather have someone try to kill me with a knife then with a gun. And as far as bombs go, in the us the avg iq of serial killers and mass murders is 96 slightly below avg this hold true except for bomb makers which are often described as bright, not every fool can be a successful bomb maker.
I'd also like the rational behind allowing ammo to not be reported who it's being sold to, allowing the fbi to track suspicious activity, let alone allowed to be sold online. And how to justify things like extended/extra capacity magazines.
Only shitty people with shitty brains believe arguments are 100% for or against something. Rational people are for things to an extent and against things to an extent. Crap doesn't have to be get rid of all guns, it can simple be return the ban to things like the AR-15 which was illegal to own what 8 years ago? Reduce the size of magazines, "doesn't matter as a guy could just reload" well i know police officers who like having 15 rounds in their mag while criminals can only buy mags with 10(california). Do you really need hollow points for handguns? The list goes on, short of conceal carry, do you even really need a handgun, a shotgun would frankly be more effective in a house. Why can't you limit some guns to be only allowed in certain area's like gun ranges, ban things like ar-15 from homes, ie you'd have to rent one at a range or have one stored there.
|
On July 25 2012 08:35 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 08:14 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 02:59 Leth0 wrote:On July 25 2012 02:57 ikh wrote:On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference. Unbelievable. Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not. And if it's your child they're taking? i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit Because every time there is / has/ or ever will be a home invasion, the only thing the intruder is there for is your TV. Every one of you anti gun people has the same 'hypothetical' and it's hilarious. Hypocrites. That's interesting. I could have sworn the majority of arguments in favor of guns over the past hundred pages have begun with the words "what if." I've said it and I'll say it again. The only arguement that matters for pro gun side is that the vast majority of people registered to own a firearm are responsible adults that use them for hunting and sport and (god forbid) the slight snowballs chance in hell that they have to use it in self defense or in defense of their family. We don't need to explain ourselves to you because there is nothing else to explain. We are not responsible for every crazy mother fucker that happens to use a gun to kill innocent people , we are responsible for ourselves.
If this is the case would you, or any responsible gun owner that uses it primarily for sporting/hunting purposes, be opposed to requiring licences or permits for guns, or having guns categorized and controlled by different classes?
For example, in Canada an 18 year old can get a licence for unrestricted guns. Unrestricted guns are basically any gun designed for hunting purposes. However you can get an additional restricted firearms licence when you are 21. These include semi-automatic rifles and handguns. For this, you have to take a safety course.
Gun owners are not responsible for every crazy motherfucker that uses a gun. However, you think they would support policies that make it difficult for idiots or bad gun handlers from purchasing guns legally.
|
|
|
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'.
|
On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful.
Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from a mass murder like the recent one, yet we got people like you who want more restrictive government laws to "protect" us. And you don't even live in the US.
|
On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'.
Because you are simply not educated on the 2nd Amendment and why it's so important. Without guns Americans would not have won the American Revolution and have their own country. And also I suppose you don't understand how easily oppressive governments can control a population that is disarmed. Just study history.
|
On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'.
Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths.
Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights.
|
On July 25 2012 03:50 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 03:16 typedef struct wrote:On July 25 2012 03:09 EmperorKira wrote:
The reality is america will always have guns. The real question is how do we make sure that these madmen don't get these guns. Do we have people be vetted before owning a gun, have a database that can track suspicious transactions, clamp down harder on the black market for guns, etc... Also, certain guns should be harder to get. It shouldn't be just as easy to get a handgun as an assault rifle. Should we have armed guards in every public area such as movies? These are the things we should be discussing, not should we ban guns totally cos that's not going to happen in the US. Pandora's box has already been opened, it can't be closed. Good points. The main problem I see is that there was no way to know it was going to happen and no way to use legislation to prevent it. Mr. Holmes is a ferociously intelligent guy with a background in chemistry who went off the deep end. Had stricter gun control laws been in place, would Mr. Holmes have been deterred by his inability to purchase weapons and ammunition or would he have used his knowledge of chemistry to devise an alternate plan of attack? Had fewer gun control laws been in place, would Mr. Holmes have been deterred by the prospect of facing movie-goers with firearms or would he have used his knowledge of chemistry to devise an alternate plan of attack? Holmes is a problematic example. Even though Holmes specifically has renewed interest in the gun control debate, Holmes himself is an anomality. Let's put it this way: purchasing a gun to protect yourself when you go to the movies, in the event that a heavily armed psycho with no criminal record or clear motive will go on a killing spree is still an irrational fear (even though it happened). It's so far from normative there is no reasonable or practical way to defend against it or anticipate it. However, purchasing a gun to protect yourself in a neighborhood where gun crime, breaking and entering and organized crime is commonplace? That is perfectly rational. It would be nice if there was some kind of gun regulation that enabled people to defend themselves while preventing gun sellers form inadvertently aiding potential criminals, crazies and overzealous dummies. For example, should someone like George Zimmerman, who did have a known history of aggression despite not being convicted of a felony, should be able to purchase a gun legally? I just think the conversation needs to shift from 'Gun Control' to 'Idiot Control', in order for the mainstream to find common ground with gun advocates.
Problem is that arming the populace leads to a ton more innocent people dying to guns than the number of lives saved by guns.
In the end lawmakers have to be practical.
I do find the entire debate somewhat uninteresting though as I'm not American and they can do whatever they want with their guns as it doesn't hurt people in other countries.
|
On July 25 2012 08:57 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful. Do you know what knee-jerk politics are? Are you into that? So from one incident that very rarely happens if ever, we need more laws to "protect" people from this sort of thing? We need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people? Just like 9/11 the Patriot Act passed that makes it legal for the government here in the US to spy on you and tap your phones to prevent "terrorism". You can't live freely and be safe %100 of the time.
I've stated repeatedly that the incident with Holmes is an anomaly, and not a reason to ban guns.
It does serve as a reminder that current gun laws in Colorado don't actually do much of anything.
Seriously, what is so knee-jerk about my position? I'm asking an open question.
And to answer the question: Do we need to regulate and take more rights away from good people because of the bad people?
First of all, regulating or managing the purchase of guns does NOT deprive good, honest, law-abiding citizens of the right to purchase guns. It makes it slightly more inconvenient.
Is it necessary? For the amount of violence a gun can cause -- specifically a gun which can fire 60 rounds in a minute without reloading -- yes, I think it is.
That doesn't mean I think that gun should be off the market. But maybe the standards for purchasing that gun should be higher. I think the inconvenience is worthwhile, the same way going through airport security, or passing a driving exam, is worthwhile. It's a pain in the ass, but it does deter stupid people from doing stupid things.
I think responsible, well-trained gun owners should be able to buy that gun legally. A 24-year old med student that's wet behind the ears, that the world knows nothing about? I'm not so sure.
TLDR: I don't believe people should discriminate against Gun Owners. But I believe we should all discriminate against idiots, criminals and the mentally ill, even if it's inconvenient to do so.
|
On July 25 2012 08:35 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 08:14 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 02:59 Leth0 wrote:On July 25 2012 02:57 ikh wrote:On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference. Unbelievable. Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not. And if it's your child they're taking? i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit Because every time there is / has/ or ever will be a home invasion, the only thing the intruder is there for is your TV. Every one of you anti gun people has the same 'hypothetical' and it's hilarious. Hypocrites. That's interesting. I could have sworn the majority of arguments in favor of guns over the past hundred pages have begun with the words "what if." I've said it and I'll say it again. The only arguement that matters for pro gun side is that the vast majority of people registered to own a firearm are responsible adults that use them for hunting and sport and (god forbid) the slight snowballs chance in hell that they have to use it in self defense or in defense of their family. We don't need to explain ourselves to you because there is nothing else to explain. We are not responsible for every crazy mother fucker that happens to use a gun to kill innocent people , we are responsible for ourselves.
Well, no, if you're promoting an agenda that impacts society at large, you should be taking responsibility for all ramifications of that agenda, not simply trumpeting the elements you define as positive while writing off the negative aspects as something unrelated or beyond anyone's control. That isn't what I'd call particularly responsible social advocacy. In any case, we're agreed that many of the "threats" being used to validate general gun ownership in this thread have a "slight snowball's chance in hell" of occurring. That being the case, they probably aren't significant enough to validate the enormous risks and throws that go along with mass gun ownership (particularly when that gun ownership includes assault rifles), when that same gun ownership results in tragedies similar to and including what occurred at the theatre in colorado. You can talk about criminals obtaining guns through illicit means all you want, but it isn't relevant to our discussion when you consider that the guns and ammunition used to perpetrate the recent shooting were legally obtained. The school shooting in Ohio earlier this year was peretrated by someone with access to a gun that was legally purchsed and owned. The Columbine tragedy was perpetrated by people who had access to guns that were purchased legally. Do you see a trend here? Writing gun regulation off by arguing criminals will acquire them through illegal means is irrelevant when you stop to consider the majority of gun-related tragedies involve criminal use of legally obtained guns. Put simply, if your social advocacy is creating a society wherein tragedies like this are occurring above and beyond what occurs virtually everywhere else, it is unreasonable to conclude it has nothing to do with you (and your views).
|
Is there actually some realiable and neutral statistics on how many people die in the US because of robberies?
I couldn't stop thinking about how everyone did those "well what if"-scenarios and checked the stats for germany (source: bka.de, translation according to leo.org: Federal Criminal Police Office [Germany]) and got to a point that something like death that occurs in context with robbery pretty much is nonexistent over here.
If you're in a situation of a robbery to begin with (about 50k cases per year. Half of them being stuff like stealing someones purse while holding a knife, a large amount being robbery on gas stations or stores and only about 5.9% being in private households) you're chances to die are 1 out of 980 because we only got 51 deaths that occured in context with robbery. So 979 robberies end up without someone being dead and the 980th one a person dies.
Is it really so much different in the US that people consider a gunfight a better strategy to protect yourself or your family than taking a 979 out of 980 chance to survive? Obviously the numbers are wrong for the US but those numbers are already extremly pessimistic because I'm assuming 100% of people breaking in your house are armed and it's robbery and not just theft.
That's why I'm asking for statistics on that stuff because I don't know where to look for if I want to find stuff about the us that is reliable :p
|
On July 25 2012 08:10 Zahir wrote:
It's incredibly realistic to think that this theater shooting could have been stopped. The shooter tried to become a member at a shooting range and set off all kinds of alarm bells and was rejected. If the person who received his application had alerted the police and been like "this guy seems dangerous" that alone might have been enough.
People keep throwing around that garbage about wishing there had been some John woo action star with a pistol in that theatre to single handedly stop the shooter... What I wish is that someone had noticed this kids rapid and apparently quite evident descent into madness (if he was ever sane to begin with) and tried to get him some help, or at least notified his family or some authority. To me that sounds much more sane than putting guns in the entire worlds hands, throwing up our hands as far as regulations and hoping for the best.
Instead, thanks to our lax regulations He was able to buy four guns including a semi auto legally... If the latter wasn't on the market I doubt his rampage would have been as deadly. Lives matter. And the 6,000 rounds he was able to buy over the Internet... 6000 is beyond what any individual could possibly need for defense or hunting. Companies selling large quantities of ammo online, this is clearly not the most rational system we're dealing with here.
I want to focus on just one issue though, the assault weapon. Because I realize this is not an ideal world and we can't restrict something like ammo that is hard to keep track of. Assault weapons though, there is absolutely no reason for a citizen to have one, and a pretty damn good reason not to.
It sucks though, because my government is full of tools who use garbage party manufactured arguments like the ones that fill this thread "one armed citizen in the theatre could have saved so many lives..." really realistic... Or those, no compromise allowed arguments like "regulation is pointless thx to Mexico" we already regulate drugs, explosives, bio hazards and wmds... Or people who just cherry pick stupid arguments and respond to those only like the guys who keep taking "we have so many guns already so gl trying to take our guns"... Like total deregulation, or a total gun ban are the only positions you can have on this issue.
Arguments like those are just symptomatic of how politics in the us have degenerated... There are the outright stupid ones that make for good sound bites but are like the antithesis of actual thought or facts. Then there are the people who dont believe government should ever do anything, like regulate guns, and stick to that principle no matter how reasonable or potentially helpful the regulations that get proposed... And then there are people who just debate dishonestly and avoid the issues by attacking some commie liberal straw man, cause its easier than acknowledging that change might be in order.
Us has the most lax gun policy of any civilized nation... I don't believe it should be so easy to get ASSAULT weapons. I'm guessing most people would agree, but too bad that means nothing in the divisive, corrupt gridlock that is US politics.
You do know it is illegal for Americans to own fully automatic assault weapons, right? The assault weapon he had was a semi-automatic AR-15. Basically a more accurate pistol with a much larger mag, more likely to jam than a pistol (which happened) and harder to fix (which is why he switched to the pistol). One could argue that a shotgun is more dangerous in that situation due to how crowded it was and a pistol is just as lethal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
