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 16:20 rhs408 wrote: Once Obama is reelected he will change gun laws drastically... same with marijuana reform. If he does anything now he won't get reelected... just need to wait it out another few months.
and this wisdom is based on what?
Wishful thinking. He is a member of his party and their current strategy is to play to the center. Unfortunately, in this political climate, that policy (or really any other that i can think of) is not likely to translate into really effective legislation, even if Obama had the power to push through such legislation himself, which he doesn't.
On topic though. I was beginning to despair of ever seeing any other decent posts in this thread. So kudos. I'm glad others can see the logic in at least putting more safeguards in place to try and screen for madmen before handing them automatic weapons.
The ar15 is the most flagrant "why is this on the civilian market" gun. The shotgun was, according to experts, the most deadly in that specific situation though. Certainly adds some complexity as to what should and shouldn't be banned. More than simple bans though, this really makes me think we need more of a screening process for who can legally purchase any of this stuff.
On July 25 2012 16:20 rhs408 wrote: Once Obama is reelected he will change gun laws drastically... same with marijuana reform. If he does anything now he won't get reelected... just need to wait it out another few months.
and this wisdom is based on what?
Wishful thinking. He is a member of his party and their current strategy is to play to the center. Unfortunately, in this political climate, that policy (or really any other that i can think of) is not likely to translate into really effective legislation, even if Obama had the power to push through such legislation himself, which he doesn't.
On topic though. I was beginning to despair of ever seeing any other decent posts in this thread. So kudos. I'm glad others can see the logic in at least putting more safeguards in place to try and screen for madmen before handing them automatic weapons.
The ar15 is the most flagrant "why is this on the civilian market" gun. The shotgun was, according to experts, the most deadly in that specific situation though. Certainly adds some complexity as to what should and shouldn't be banned. More than simple bans though, this really makes me think we need more of a screening process for who can legally purchase any of this stuff.
The AR-15 is one of the best guns for self defense, and can be used for hunting but rarely.
Also I'm confused about your comment on automatic weapons. You know what that means right? There are already many "safeguards" against ownership of automatic weapons as is.
Chiefly among which is the fact that he wouldn't have been able to afford one, which isn't controlled by the government.
To the several posting about numbers and statistics concerning deaths between cars,alcohol, and firearms: i think its very necessary to use appropriate parameters if youre going to address something like this from a statistics stand point.
Number of deaths show very little with the discussion. Numbers that need to be crunched would be frequency of both used cross referenced with the frequency of illegal actsand deaths, based on the total number of owners, consumers, referenced against the total population. Thats a mouthful but i think thatd be stuff worth seeing with a little more insight.
I disagree with the language of the 2nd amendment and take the dissenters stance on the supreme court decision back in 2008, saying that the language was meant for the purpose of a militia to be armed for the purpose of defending the nation and states as a whole, not individuals. My two cents.
They did order regulations on the militias weapons and manufacturing though, and one of their main concerns was too many weapons among the people(especially during peace time), so regardless of stance on the 2nd amendment, i think the fed has ample precedent to set up gun laws as they see fit So though we have gun controls in place, i think beefing them up would be ok and within there power.
Semi automatic. Sorry, I am new to the terminology here. I realize there is a difference and that automatic weapons are even more deadly. He had two semi automatic weapons, one a rifle the other a pistol. These do not need to be re cocked Or re loaded between shots and fire extremely fast as a result.
I would argue the semi automatic rifle in particular to be unnecessary for hunting or defense against anything save multiple intruders with their own firearms, which im fairly sure is an extremely rare case outside of conflicts between criminals or gang warfare.
Here's a good source that discusses statistics commonly used to gauge the effectiveness of guns for defensive purposes. One glaringly bad stat is that America experiences some 2.5 millions of defensive gun uses per year... A frequently cited stat among anti gun control advocates, a stat which essentially is extrapolated from a survey done by and among gun enthusiasts and is completely inconsistent with the FBI's statistics showing about 300 justifiable gun deaths per year.
Thought this might add some good discussion....very interested that a study shows that states with more conservatives have higher gun crime...those SAME states who have more lenient rules when it comes with guns.
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.
I honestly don't care about your outdated amendments! Just because some of them were relevant back when they were made, surely they aren't relevant forever. Do you honestly believe legislation is timeless? The oppression argument is just silly - your country is already hopelessly oppressed, you're just accepting that it is - meanwhile shouting "Yea GO AMERICA, FREEDOM, WOOH!".
Examples: Your government is comprised of religious fanatics, corrupt bureaucrats, and rich idiots - sure, there are exceptions, but you can't honestly deny the level of corruption in your government, and how widespread the acceptance of this is.
I'm sure i don't need to find examples on how oppressive your police is. How exactly does guns help against this opression? What are you gonna do, shoot the police? Please. How are guns ever gonna solve any political and oppressive issues in your country.
Is freedom in America, really the freedom to own devices specifically designed to kill each other? + Show Spoiler +
I mean honestly - you're not even allowed to drink a freaking beer in public! How can you call yourselves free?
On July 25 2012 16:20 rhs408 wrote: Once Obama is reelected he will change gun laws drastically... same with marijuana reform. If he does anything now he won't get reelected... just need to wait it out another few months.
Thought this might add some good discussion....very interested that a study shows that states with more conservatives have higher gun crime...those SAME states who have more lenient rules when it comes with guns.
Be skeptical of the "studies." No matter which side they support. People will cherry-pick the data to support their own agenda.
Indeed, short of a pack of you yanks grabbing the guns, banding together and brainstorming the gates of government, I'm not sure how owning your own firearm could aid in Joe Blow's day to day fight against oppression.
Unless you're just a guy who gets a sweet, pure ass joy from shooting a gun in itself. Then all of the paranoia mongering, deceptive, faceless public servants in the world couldn't break your sway long as you got your little friend.
On July 25 2012 16:20 rhs408 wrote: Once Obama is reelected he will change gun laws drastically... same with marijuana reform. If he does anything now he won't get reelected... just need to wait it out another few months.
Thought this might add some good discussion....very interested that a study shows that states with more conservatives have higher gun crime...those SAME states who have more lenient rules when it comes with guns.
Be skeptical of the "studies." No matter which side they support. People will cherry-pick the data to support their own agenda.
Based on your 1st response to the other poster, you will probably only support these "studies" that support your own side (which are nonexistant).
I would bet anyone in real life 10-1 odds that Obama does infact get reelcted.
I think gun usage depends on crime level. If you live in Somalia or some hostile African country - then sure everyone has them, if you live in some dangerous city where crime level is high and there are shootings on the streets - sure I accept that you can carry a gun.
I live in north Europe, here we have high weapon restrictions and only organized crime carry illegal weapons, thugs on the streets dont - the most dangerous thing they could have is knife. Since i did some martial arts I dont see any point in carrying weapon of any sort.
All I wanted to say that having a gun for the sake of having it is just stupid. And I really like countries which have strict policy against guns. We have to take a bunch of tests and other crap to get a legal gun so they have no popularity here, and we don't have "illegal guns dealer" on every corner of the city and even if you manage to get illegal one and cops find it, then you are totally f*cked. If you get legal gun and use it not for self defense purposes you are screwed as well. Police even regularly visits people to check if their weapons were used and count how many bullets they have.
Its one of the better things in Europe - gun culture is not as wide spread here as in USA. And does 1/3 of people really have guns in USA as they show in movies eh?
And last words - if someone wants to kill you, maybe you are bad person?
On July 25 2012 16:20 rhs408 wrote: Once Obama is reelected he will change gun laws drastically... same with marijuana reform. If he does anything now he won't get reelected... just need to wait it out another few months.
Thought this might add some good discussion....very interested that a study shows that states with more conservatives have higher gun crime...those SAME states who have more lenient rules when it comes with guns.
Be skeptical of the "studies." No matter which side they support. People will cherry-pick the data to support their own agenda.
Based on your 1st response to the other poster, you will probably only support these "studies" that support your own side (which are nonexistant).
I would bet anyone in real life 10-1 odds that Obama does infact get reelcted.
I admit, I'm biased towards the "studies" that support my beliefs, as well as columnists who post them that I agree with morally and philosophically (Thomas Sowell, at least, usually has a brilliant intelligence to back up his claims). However, I'm doing my best to stay skeptical of any and all data that's thrown at me as if it's the unquestionable truth. I kindly recommend that you do the same with the evidence YOU support. And yes, there are in fact "studies" that say just the opposite; they've pointed to countries such as Switzerland and Israel (minus war casualties) as being safer, as well as more rural areas in the US compared to downtown Chicago, New York, and Detroit.
Don't want to derail this anymore into the election topic, but I disagree; Obama's got a steeper mountain to climb to retain his Presidency than you realize. I'll gladly discuss it in the election thread.
On July 25 2012 22:24 M4nkind wrote: having a gun for the sake of having it is just stupid
You must also stand in the condom isle and rain prejudice down on virgins with no hope of getting laid.
When you live in America, there is almost ALWAYS a reason for owning a firearm. Whether it be self defense, hunting, shooting sports, etc. If someone has a firearm "just because", why is that in any way stupid? In my experience, that is NEVER a reason as to why someone owns a firearm, period.
On July 26 2012 02:28 0neder wrote: You cannot prevent tragedy. It is a part of life. Basic freedom is more important than making the world an infinitely safe place.
You can minimize tragedy though, isn't that something we should strive for?
I would consider giving up the right to own assault rifles and stricter overall rules on gun ownership to not infringe on "basic freedom".
There's another point that should be taken in account in this debate: the odds of suicide.
In European countries, in other country where it is forbidden to own a gun, it is far more "rough" to commit suicide than in the USA.
In America, you're going through a tough moment, you get somewhat insane or mad, you just need to open the drawer, pull the gun, shoot. Period. That's it. In European countries though, if you want to commit suicide, there are no easy, quick, clean ways to commit suicide. You have to be far more determined to cut off your veins, jump off a building, kill yourself with medication or lynch yourself. More importantly, all these things take time, and are mostly reversible (save for maybe jumping off a building), so it is really likely that you are going to end up giving up the idea of a suicide
I think your right, I mean, I live in France and I am scared of being robbed all the time, I mean the crisis and everything all those coloured people running around obviously going to rob me with AK-47, that's what they do you know !
so YEAH GO GUNS !!!
See I even think I should be able to own a tank for self-defence, in case the guy robbing me has a gun since it would be allowed... Selfdefense is my right no ?
,,,,,Wait let me think .... ,maybe I should be allowed to have an anti-tank high penetration rocket launcher if tanks are allowed ... for self-defence of course, in case someone attacks me with one...,
....but wait an anti-tank rocket launcher is not easy to carry around and I can't really shout it against someone attacking me with a gun as those are now allowed...
Hum that's tricky... HOOO I know ! We need to allow combat helicopters ! So I can defend myself against tanks, guns and anti-tank rocket launchers !! Self defence of course ! But what about if someone attacks me with his own combat helicopter ! And what if they are 5 with copters that are now allowed... shit didn't thought of that...
Hummm in fact we should all be able to own personal nukes, no one would EVER try to rob anyone ! they'll be to scared of our nukes !
Ok who will make the petition in order to allow personal nukes ! ?
........... just in case some red-necks didn't get it, that's absurd reasoning and it's highly ironical ....
I am not saying that I hold the ultimate wisdom, but I would say that treating the reason behind crime and preventing it, is always better than threaten to commit one in return
"In America, you're going through a tough moment, you get somewhat insane or mad, you just need to open the drawer, pull the gun, shoot. Period. That's it. In European countries though, if you want to commit suicide, there are no easy, quick, clean ways to commit suicide. You have to be far more determined to cut off your veins, jump off a building, kill yourself with medication or lynch yourself. More importantly, all these things take time, and are mostly reversible (save for maybe jumping off a building), so it is really likely that you are going to end up giving up the idea of a suicide"
I Dont agree with this at all but find it difficult to explain why I realy think the availability of weapons has barely anny effect on suicide rates. Maybe its that i dont think people commit suicide that easily,its a long process i asume wich leads to the decission. Also i think it is not that difficult to commit suicide without a firearm but i wont go into details on this off course A firearm , if available ,is an efficient way to commit suicide off course so in countrys where firearms are available you will probably see a high percentage of them where a firearm is used, still i think that firearms have verry little to do with suicide. You might be right though, i am not sure. It is an interesting subject.
In America, you're going through a tough moment, you get somewhat insane or mad, you just need to open the drawer, pull the gun, shoot. Period. That's it. In European countries though, if you want to commit suicide, there are no easy, quick, clean ways to commit suicide. You have to be far more determined to cut off your veins, jump off a building, kill yourself with medication or lynch yourself. More importantly, all these things take time, and are mostly reversible (save for maybe jumping off a building), so it is really likely that you are going to end up giving up the idea of a suicide
Thank you and sorry for bad english
Your country has a much higher rate of suicide than the USA does. So do a number of countries with low gun rates. There are many factors that attribute to suicide, but I don't think guns are one of them. They are an effective method though, so where they are available people will use them.
EPT![[image loading]](http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2009-april/betterinsomalia.jpg)
